1965 Topps High Numbers Question

[jchcollins]

I'm not 100% sure, but the 7th series checklist starts with #507. I would assume that is the official start of the highs...

[Bocabirdman]

I am beginning to think that might be it....or it could be dealer's choice.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Bocabirdman

I am beginning to think that might be it....or it could be dealer's choice.

If a dealer is trying to pass off a semi-high as a high...well ok, but that's kind of BS. There is a defined starting point for all of them. That being said, '65 high numbers aren't really notorious as difficult ones, so as long as you are not buying like uber high-end graded cards, I would not think they are going to be dramatically more expensive for commons.

[Bocabirdman]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

If a dealer is trying to pass off a semi-high as a high...well ok, but that's kind of BS. There is a defined starting point for all of them. That being said, '65 high numbers aren't really notorious as difficult ones, so as long as you are not buying like uber high-end graded cards, I would not think they are going to be dramatically more expensive for commons.

I have seen some steady Centering issues with a good percentage of the Hi #s


Yes, I think that the Semi-Hi moniker is sort of a marketing ploy. However, they do seem to command SLIGHTLY more than low numbers. The Hi #/SP Premium is still not much compared to say 1967 or 1966. I am returning to the world of Topps after a decade flopping around in the Tobacco Card end of the pool. I am just trying to confirm (relearn to some extent.). Thank You for your help.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Bocabirdman

I have seen some steady Centering issues with a good percentage of the Hi #s


Yes, I think that the Semi-Hi moniker is sort of a marketing ploy. However, they do seem to command SLIGHTLY more than low numbers. The Hi #/SP Premium is still not much compared to say 1967 or 1966. I am returning to the world of Topps after a decade flopping around in the Tobacco Card end of the pool. I am just trying to confirm (relearn to some extent.). Thank You for your help.

To me, much of the high number hoopla is a moot point in today's tidily allocated marketplace / collecting world, where virtually any card ever produced, or at least a good 95% of them - can be at your doorstep within a week assuming you can afford it. A lot of the original drama around high numbers being difficult is that they actually were impossible to find back in the shop and show shoeleather days in the 1980's and earlier of having to go somewhere and look at tables, and in bins trying to find something. Back then, you literally couldn't find the card. It may not have been overly expensive, but some other collector beat you to it 20 minutes earlier. Today for all intents and purposes - as we all sit in our pajamas in front of the keyboard - "rare" cards simply mean they cost more if you want to pony up.

[JollyElm]

I have always considered #507 as the starting point to the high number series.

[Bocabirdman]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

To me, much of the high number hoopla is a moot point in today's tidily allocated marketplace / collecting world, where virtually any card ever produced, or at least a good 95% of them - can be at your doorstep within a week assuming you can afford it. A lot of the original drama around high numbers being difficult is that they actually were impossible to find back in the shop and show shoeleather days in the 1980's and earlier of having to go somewhere and look at tables, and in bins trying to find something. Back then, you literally couldn't find the card. It may not have been overly expensive, but some other collector beat you to it 20 minutes earlier. Today for all intents and purposes - as we all sit in our pajamas in front of the keyboard - "rare" cards simply mean they cost more if you want to pony up.

The reason I gravitated towards tobacco cards is just what of you speak. One of my favorite sets is the 1951 Red backs. I investigated eBay availability. The whole run with the two variations was available by making purchases from five vendors. Ummmm, that's not collecting. That is shopping. I have decided to fool with 1965 because it was the very first year I collected as a youth. Not sure how far I will take this latest foray into the land of Topps. I really don't want to deal with 25 3-ring binders again.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Bocabirdman

Ummmm, that's not collecting. That is shopping. I have decided to fool with 1965 because it was the very first year I collected as a youth.

Good analogy. It may still be collecting, not hunting - and it IS shopping, but I would put the caveat in there that it can be very expensive shopping for vintage today, and if (like me) you never collected cards in a world where the garden variety Mickey Mantle card could be had for less than $5. It can be true "collecting" today I think for those cards when you wait to find the best example in your price range - after looking for a while, and in many cases saving up your pennies too.

My first year collecting was 1986. I was 9. I probably spent more cash then on the 35 cent wax packs then than it would take to buy an entire, bindered-NM set today, but that's just the bad luck of the era in which I came of age.

'65 Topps is a nice set. I'm now pondering whether to go after it as well as I finally now have decent Mantle base card from it for the first time in a long while...and I have the Carlton lying around somewhere at home as well.

[mckinneyj]

Supposedly those numbered #371 and above were printed in slightly lesser volume than the lower numbered ones. However only the SPs (some of those from #523 on as Mike noted) really command any premium and even then not really much of one. AFAIK there is no "semi-hi" series/range.

[Bocabirdman]

Originally Posted by mckinneyj

Supposedly those numbered #371 and above were printed in slightly lesser volume than the lower numbered ones. However only the SPs (some of those from #523 on as Mike noted) really command any premium and even then not really much of one. AFAIK there is no "semi-hi" series/range.

I guess that I have always looked at the pricing for EX-ish 1965 like this....

Commons lower than #371....slightly discounted because as it is for most years (with the exception of what...1958?) there is a glut of cards. As I recall, since most of the cards were sold by Mom n Pop Shops and 5 n 10's they would stock up on cards when they first were available, in some cases missing an entire Series or two by the time they re-ordered.

Commons from #371 to 506... Regular Price...PERHAPS a quarter more than the low #s

#507-#598... Hi#s, maybe 50% more than Regular Price and Short Prints perhaps twice that.....

EX: $.75(Low).. $1 (#371-#506)....$1.50(Non-SP High)...$3 (SP). That seems to the formula as I remember it. I do not know if the pricing itself holds true these days.....

[Kevvyg1026]

The 5th, 6th, and 7th series in 1965 were each 77 card series. Series 7 goes from 523 to 598, plus another copy of 507. Series 6 goes from 446 to 522 plus another copy of check 6. One half of a sheet is known from series 7, and Cliff and I have worked out a likely 2nd half sheet. Very little of series 6 is known, while both half sheets from series 5 are known.

There are short prints in all three of these series, but the Sps are still relatively available.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

There are short prints in all three of these series, but the Sps are still relatively available.

+1. I never could deduce which ones were probably SP's when I was building the set just by noting what was hard to come by. Every series in 1965 is thankfully easy

[JollyElm]

The quick trick I've always used in my head is, if you visually take out the big red "7th SERIES" type and place it under the names at bottom, if it fits comfortably (right), then it's the small print checkie, if it doesn't fit (left), it's the large print version, as so...

1965checklistlargesmallprinttell.jpg