1967 Topps high # "unofficial" price guide

[Harliduck]

Rich...great stuff and thanks for that info, makes a lot of sense.

There is a trend, especially in commons, for certain years for certain teams to carry a slight premium -

1964 - Mets
1968 - Tigers
1969 - Mets

I am sure there are more but 67 in Cardinals in general would probably make that list. Crazy to learn an entire market didn't get a series of cards. No different than my childhood with 75 Topps...I didn't see a large card until a show in the late 80s...all we had were mini's. And those dreaded OPeeCHee cards (I lived close to the border north of Seattle)...we hated them..ripped them up and threw them out...haha...I still have a few beaters in my childhood collection from the late 70's....

Thanks again for that...I love that info

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by Harliduck

Rich...great stuff and thanks for that info, makes a lot of sense.

There is a trend, especially in commons, for certain years for certain teams to carry a slight premium -

1964 - Mets
1968 - Tigers
1969 - Mets

I am sure there are more but 67 in Cardinals in general would probably make that list. Crazy to learn an entire market didn't get a series of cards. No different than my childhood with 75 Topps...I didn't see a large card until a show in the late 80s...all we had were mini's. And those dreaded OPeeCHee cards (I lived close to the border north of Seattle)...we hated them..ripped them up and threw them out...haha...I still have a few beaters in my childhood collection from the late 70's....

Thanks again for that...I love that info

Don't you mean 62 Mets The only interesting thing about 64 Mets is ALL the high numbers they have. Oh and the Tim Harkness #45 card is far easier than Amado Samuel (#128)

Rich

[Harliduck]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

Don't you mean 62 Mets The only interesting thing about 64 Mets is ALL the high numbers they have. Oh and the Tim Harkness #45 card is far easier than Amado Samuel (#128)

Rich

I'm putting my first 1962 Topps together now, and I haven't noticed any premium on Mets...yet?

I am on my second 64 set...I have a few cards in my notes on common cards like -

#95 George Altman
#345 Frank Thomas
#361 Jay Hook
#422 Jack Fisher
#447 Mike Joyce
#442 Pumpsie Green
#457 Jessie Gonder

All seem to carry a premium over non Met commons...just my observations? There is no doubt on #477 Joyce...this must be a SP card.

Sorry to hijack the thread a little. BlackandGold...I do believe I have some VGish 67 highs sitting in my "lot" boxes. I will see what I have and PM you later in the week when I get back home.

[blackandgold]

Originally Posted by Harliduck

I'm putting my first 1962 Topps together now, and I haven't noticed any premium on Mets...yet?

I am on my second 64 set...I have a few cards in my notes on common cards like -

#95 George Altman
#345 Frank Thomas
#361 Jay Hook
#422 Jack Fisher
#447 Mike Joyce
#442 Pumpsie Green
#457 Jessie Gonder

All seem to carry a premium over non Met commons...just my observations? There is no doubt on #477 Joyce...this must be a SP card.

Sorry to hijack the thread a little. BlackandGold...I do believe I have some VGish 67 highs sitting in my "lot" boxes. I will see what I have and PM you later in the week when I get back home.

Hey John,
No worries! Thanks for checking for me, I really appreciate it.
Todd, let me know if you decide to sell. What 61's do you need, and what condition are you looking for? I don't have a lot of them, but I'll be happy to check for you.
Matt

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by Harliduck

I'm putting my first 1962 Topps together now, and I haven't noticed any premium on Mets...yet?

I am on my second 64 set...I have a few cards in my notes on common cards like -

#95 George Altman
#345 Frank Thomas
#361 Jay Hook
#422 Jack Fisher
#447 Mike Joyce
#442 Pumpsie Green
#457 Jessie Gonder

All seem to carry a premium over non Met commons...just my observations? There is no doubt on #477 Joyce...this must be a SP card.

Sorry to hijack the thread a little. BlackandGold...I do believe I have some VGish 67 highs sitting in my "lot" boxes. I will see what I have and PM you later in the week when I get back home.

Interesting, when I lived in NY I dealt very heavily in Mets cards and this makes sense but none of these were super popular compared to 62 or 69. My memory does seem to indicate these are slightly harder in their series than other 64's. I'll throw Harkness in there as well.

Rich

[toppcat]

I'm just glad to have a complete 67 set-definitely needs some upgrades, although I think the high # SP's are in decent shape. I plan to go through it and put it into a better album (and sheets) after Xmas. The only card I remember paying a lot for, other than Seaver, was the Red Sox team card but I bought it a while ago and can't remember the exact price anymore.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Guys, sorry for intruding on your thread. I am really enjoying reading it. For quite a while I have heard collectors discuss how tough the '67 highs can be. This thread is about as good as anything I have read on the subject. At least one of you referenced hunting for highs in the VG range. Is that about the overall grade of your '67 sets, or do you build the rest of the set a little higher grade compared to the highs? (I didn't know if elements of the rest of the set were tough like the highs.)

I ask all of this because in the next year or so I will be looking for a new set to start. Along with '61 and possibly '66, '67 is on my list of possibilities. Gotta polish off '54 or '65 first though.

[blackandgold]

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

Guys, sorry for intruding on your thread. I am really enjoying reading it. For quite a while I have heard collectors discuss how tough the '67 highs can be. This thread is about as good as anything I have read on the subject. At least one of you referenced hunting for highs in the VG range. Is that about the overall grade of your '67 sets, or do you build the rest of the set a little higher grade compared to the highs? (I didn't know if elements of the rest of the set were tough like the highs.)

I ask all of this because in the next year or so I will be looking for a new set to start. Along with '61 and possibly '66, '67 is on my list of possibilities. Gotta polish off '54 or '65 first though.

Robert,
Most of my 67's are from my childhood and spent lots of time being handled and bound by rubber bands. I pick up EX when I can find a deal, but these high numbers are really a challenge.

[tschock]

For high numbers, the ratio of nice vs lower condition cards is larger than for the lower numbered cards simply because they did not have enough time to be handled. Once the season was over they got put away in a box with the earlier, more handled cards.

[bbcard1]

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

I ask all of this because in the next year or so I will be looking for a new set to start. Along with '61 and possibly '66, '67 is on my list of possibilities. Gotta polish off '54 or '65 first though.

As I had mentioned before, I am working on a nice (Ex or better) 61 set. It is expensive but not difficult, at least relative to some other sets I have worked on. I honestly got lucky (kind of) on the 1967s. I bought two pretty near sets in two weeks (after I had had relatively few 67s) and got down to four cards needed. I am sure i could use a couple of upgrades, but nothing cries out. Picked up the Niekro in a smaller auction, found the Jimenez at a reasonable BIN on eBay, treated myself to the Colavito.

[uyu906]

If a collector is looking for Ex-Mt or NM ungraded copies of 1967 High numbers, generally how much more should he expect to pay above the prices listed in this very intesting post? 2 times as much? More? Less?

Thanks!