1965 Topps High Numbers Question

[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.....

[jmoran19]

Technically the high numbers start with card #523 and run thru #598. Equates to 77 unique cards when you include the 7th series CL that was also printed with the 6 series (standard topps practice in the 60's and 70's).

Below is 1/2 of the 264 card uncut sheet. It appears that rows 7 and 8 are the SP's but that can not be verified until the other half of the 264 card sheet has been analyzed as Topps usually would select 2 different rows to print once on the other half.

The final math should work out to 4 unique rows printed 3 times (132 cards) and 3 unique rows printed 4 times (132 cards).

John

[moeson]

Topps used to preview the upcoming series by including the first few cards in the then current series packs. I wonder if that was the case with 1965, especially with the 7th series checklist being numbered near the series start at #508.

[jmoran19]

Originally Posted by moeson

Topps used to preview the upcoming series by including the first few cards in the then current series packs. I wonder if that was the case with 1965, especially with the 7th series checklist being numbered near the series start at #508.

not sure if cards were included but this was common for the printed checklists from the early 60's

[Rich Klein]

At least in NY area during the 70's and early 80's the last series was easily available and in actuality the hardest series was the one beginning about 284. I think you can make a case (and still to this day) that the cards in the 300's are harder than the final series. The semi-high series is similar to most year's semi-hi's but the 284-446 area is sneaky tough.

That's my opinion only

Rich

[rats60]

Originally Posted by moeson

Topps used to preview the upcoming series by including the first few cards in the then current series packs. I wonder if that was the case with 1965, especially with the 7th series checklist being numbered near the series start at #508.

The cards in the series did not matchup with the checklists until 1967.

In 1965 the 1st series was 1-109, but the 1st checklist only listed 1-88. The 2nd checklist listed 89-176 and was part of series 1. The 2nd series was 110-196 plus #104 2nd checklist. The 3rd checklist listed 177-264, but the 3rd series was 197-283 plus #189 3rd checklist. The 4th checklist listed 265-352, but the 4th series was 284-370 plus # 273 4th checklist. The 5th checklist listed 353-429, but the 5th series was 371-446 plus #361 5th checklist. The 6th checklist listed 430-506, but the 6th series was 447-522 plus #443 6th checklist. The 7th checklist listed 507-598, but the 7th series was 523-598 plus #508 7th checklist.

[Johnny630]

From my experience building this set 65 Topps the first series was the most difficult to find centered. Charlie Smith is notoriously Not Centered
Also last card Al Downing has been difficult for me.