Ranking high # series by degree of difficulty (and why?)

[1963Topps Set]

Why is 1960 Topps omitted?

[kailes2872]

My mistake. I tried to do all by memory. I would probably put in the middle bucket around ‘59

[toppcat]

A poll on toughest non-high series would be interesting.

[BillP]

Originally Posted by 1963Topps Set

Why is 1960 Topps omitted?

Sorry, I don't collect 1960 so I can't comment.

[Rich Klein]

IMHO 1960 hi #'s are similar to 59 Hi's in toughness.

[Orioles1954]

As an auction house writer I've been through countless numbers of each set. I think the OPs list is pretty accurate. I would switch 61 and 67 though.

[cesarcap]

Question to Orioles1954: would you rank 66's harder/ higher than 67s? I think people of course don't collect 66's as much (and maybe don't drag along to card shows) so that might have something to do with it.

[Orioles1954]

I would give the edge to 1966s as being tougher because of super shortprints like Coleman, Snyder, Jackson RC, etc. But make no mistake.....ain't nothing rare about any 1960s Topps card....unless, we're talking test issues of course.

[Rich Klein]

I personally would move up 64's one group

[avalanche2006]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

IMHO 1960 hi #'s are similar to 59 Hi's in toughness.

So how tough are they?
I'm doing both sets and didn't see any posts on those years.

[Rich Klein]

A few cards are expensive because they are rookies : 59 Bob Gibson or because they are Mantle/Mays/Aaron All Stars, etc. But nothing really to compare with the 62/66/67 short prints or the 61's general toughness


Rich

[jchcollins]

This...

Thanks for this thread. I went looking for a blog post or article out on the interwebs recently on exactly this subject and could not find anything that was not focused on mainly just the merits of individual sets - but I was curious.

I was born in 1977, so never had to deal with anything like this as a child collector. These days, I would agree with what's been said earlier - no 1960's card outside of test issues should be called truly "rare" due to the prevalence even of SP's and highly desirable items at your fingertips online - but it is interesting to me what cards were actually more scarce back in the shoe-leather days - the infant hobby for example in the early 70's before all the attics had been cleaned out. "Scarce" to me for a '67 high number just means I'm going to have to spend more on eBay than I want. But back in the day I can see collectors going to shows and literally not being able to find something. It's those kinds of stories I find myself more interested in, and seeking out more often.

[Rich Klein]

And the price of the SP's jumped to appropriate levels in the Price Guides as well. Back in the 1980's whenever I had one of the tougher 1967 Mets Hi# and priced them at $15-20 the question would be,, but the Book say the card is XXX.

My 1st standard response was to give the address listed in the Beckett Price Guide and send them a check for the card. My 2nd standard response -- was: BTW -- how long have you been looking for this card? Usually the answer was 4-5 years which my response would then be -- and then you wonder why the card is priced so seemingly high.

By 1991-92 most of those cards were properly priced in the guides

Rich