1972 Topps High Number Printing Question...

[Kevvyg1026]

It is still possible that the 6th checklist, printed in the 5th printing run, had the copyright placed differently than the one printed in the 6th print run. Can't tell unless we see the back of that sheet which was posted.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

It is still possible that the 6th checklist, printed in the 5th printing run, had the copyright placed differently than the one printed in the 6th print run. Can't tell unless we see the back of that sheet which was posted.

Yeah, that's the very essence of my question. We know that two #604 checklists were printed on the semi-high sheets and two were printed on the high sheets. We know there are two different versions of the checklist (copyright on the left and copyright on the right), and now we are sure some (if not all) of the left-side copyright checklists were printed on the high sheets.

Here's what we still need to know...

• Were only left-side checklists printed on the high number sheets, and only right-side checklists printed on the semi-high number sheets?

• Were both left-side and right-side versions of the checklist printed on the high number sheets?

• Were both left-side and right-side versions of the checklist printed on the semi-high number sheets?

• Were both left-side and right-side versions of the checklist printed on only one of the sheets (semi-high or high) but NOT on the other?

[deweyinthehall]

Not on subject per se, but I'm not able to see the images which are posted in this thread (yes, I'm logged in). It shows a little image of what looks like a torn photo with a alpha-numeric description of the image, but no image. Images are coming through clearly on other threads. Help? Would really love to be able to see these pics.

[jchcollins]

Very interesting. I'm slowly doing the '72 set. Don't have a ton of high numbers yet, though I have one hell of a nice Hoyt Wilhelm.

[Malibu39]

If I might ask about High Numbers in general, were they really produced in smaller quantities or harder to obtain? or is it a myth that gives fodder to people who want to sell them for more than Lower Numbers?

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Malibu39

If I might ask about High Numbers in general, were they really produced in smaller quantities or harder to obtain? or is it a myth that gives fodder to people who want to sell them for more than Lower Numbers?

It's definitely a reality for sure. As the baseball season wound down that year and kids got ready to return to school, the natural evolution was to start craving the new football, basketball and hockey cards as those seasons dawned. Retailers would move the baseball card boxes to the storeroom to make room for the other sports. Combine that with Topps producing less of that final series, and you have many, many fewer highs than their lower number counterparts. When I was younger and looking at my friends collections of really old cards, most of the time their 1972 piles stopped at #656. No high numbers at all.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Malibu39

If I might ask about High Numbers in general, were they really produced in smaller quantities or harder to obtain? or is it a myth that gives fodder to people who want to sell them for more than Lower Numbers?

I don't know about actual production from year to year, that probably varied, but certainly in terms of distribution, yes - the high numbers were generally less available. Some years are worse than others, and in general I think some high numbers are more mythical than expensive. For example, '72 Topps aren't horrible, I don't think. The Carew is expensive, but still highly desirable Traded cards such as Morgan and Carlton aren't, really - even in nicer shape. I've never understood that. Compare that to just two years earlier, where the 1970 #712 Nolan Ryan is a card that can always be counted on to have a hefty price tag, even in midgrade and lower - (as well as the #660 Bench).

Besides the infamous '52 Topps set, I think most collectors would agree that the '66 and '67 sets have the toughest high numbers. Even commons there in nice shape can go for fairly ridiculous prices. But compare those to say, 1961 or 1963 Topps - and the earlier cards aren't really that bad. Even the '61 Topps All Stars for the most part aren't super expensive, and they are all high numbers.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

I don't know about actual production from year to year, that probably varied, but certainly in terms of distribution, yes - the high numbers were generally less available. Some years are worse than others, and in general I think some high numbers are more mythical than expensive. For example, '72 Topps aren't horrible, I don't think. The Carew is expensive, but still highly desirable Traded cards such as Morgan and Carlton aren't, really - even in nicer shape. I've never understood that. Compare that to just two years earlier, where the 1970 #712 Nolan Ryan is a card that can always be counted on to have a hefty price tag, even in midgrade and lower - (as well as the #660 Bench).

Besides the infamous '52 Topps set, I think most collectors would agree that the '66 and '67 sets have the toughest high numbers. Even commons there in nice shape can go for fairly ridiculous prices. But compare those to say, 1961 or 1963 Topps - and the earlier cards aren't really that bad. Even the '61 Topps All Stars for the most part aren't super expensive, and they are all high numbers.

Putting aside condition, of the 70-71-72 high's, 72's are the hardest in my experience.