Another theaory on why High Number series are rare

[deweyinthehall]

Well, with the exception of 1952, Mantle was never in high series I don't think. And just off the top of my head, neither were Mays, Koufax, Aaron....

[cesarcap]

How about the All Star cards in 60 and 61? Those should have been in demand after the seasons the M&M boys had? But when were the released? If it was after school started or after the World Series then the reduced demand makes sense to me.

[Tere1071]

Some years of high numbers are easier to find than others, but like amny other sets finding them centered can be frustrating. For example, I am assembling complete Topps sets for 1968 and 1969 and I have no problems finding high numbers for those years. I am also putting a 1967 Topps Baseball "set" together for numbers 1-533 because some of the numbers in that series are harder and more expensive to obtain; the same goes for the 1966 issue as well.

For those of us who complete sets that include high numbers, let's share which card series that include high numbers are easier or more difficult to complete.

Where I grew up in southeastern Los Angeles County we weren't aware of high numbers. I started collecting with greater frequency beginning in 1970 and the corner liquor store began carrying football around September where we made that switch and basketball followed around November. In 1974, that liquor store put out a box of high number packs from 1970 which we purchased, but we didn't have any knowledge of them being harder to get than others.

Phil aka Tere1071

Currently assembling lower grade Topps Baseball sets from 1967-1969

[NiceDocter]

Right off the bat I think of Brooks Robinson 1967 Topps and of course the Seaver rookie ( but that would have been speculative).

[tjisonline]

Originally Posted by deweyinthehall

Well, with the exception of 1952, Mantle was never in high series I don't think. And just off the top of my head, neither were Mays, Koufax, Aaron....

Only 1 other high Mantle base card I can think of is his 1969 5th series . It was 500 in the 664-card set. 7 total series in that set. Most stars ended up in higher series near / at end of their careers. E.g. Clemente

[Kevvyg1026]

Certainly, in the early 60s, the high series' have more speculative cards (rookie stars, etc) but they do have all-star and MVP cards, which obviously display some superstars. And, by the 70s, some of the interest in the previous decade's superstars (Mays, Aaron, Gibson, Banks, Rose, Yaz) might have been fading (from a consumer interest standpoint) and turning to players like Bench, Munson, Garvey, Reggie Jax, etc. Certainly, as 1970 cards illustrate, the semi high and high series cards, can be populated with both fading stars and up and coming stars.

Moreover, from what I can tell by looking at ads in baseball magazines, many times these series were available in June or July from major card distributors.
So, my opinion is that Topps simply printed smaller quantities of these series, anticipating lower demand from retailers and consumers in mid-to-late summer.

[nolemmings]

I can't agree with the OP's premise. Frankly, it would almost seem a better strategy for Topps to hold back on a few of the superstars until the end just so kids would continue the chase. Also, set and team collectors, which I believe far outnumbered those who just wanted star players, would trudge on regardless.

FWIW, McCovey was frequently in the high-numbered or next to high numbered series.

[stkuhl]

1963 Clemente is a high number although at the time he was probably not considered as big a star as Mantle, Mays, Koufax, and Aaron. Like a previous poster mentioned, I'm working on complete sets, with 1962 my focus fight now. It's frustrating to pay $30-40 for a Minnesota Twins team high number card. I'm guessing lots of those got pitched even when kids were opening high number packs.

[JollyElm]

Definitely some merit in that theory, since you would assume that the earlier series cards were flying off of the shelves right from the get-go as the new baseball seasoned dawned, and the desire for cards waned as the summer progressed (except for the kids who really wanted to ultimately have a complete set), so it would've been beneficial to heavily stock the lower series with cards of the players who were universally considered to be big stars, to keep us plunking down our nickels for a couple of months. As a kid, I didn't want a single star card, I wanted as many doubles of the star card as I could get my hands on to eventually use in trades. Everyone around me did the same, amassing doubles of the big guys.

Too bad there isn't some kind of first hand knowledge/insights about how and why Topps positioned the players (number-wise) in the sets. That would be fascinating information.

[toppcat]

In the Fifties, I think there's at least two years where Topps wasn't setting out to issue a final series of cards before pulling the trigger: 1952 and 1958, with 1957 and 1959 also being possibilities.

We all know the story in 1952 (and I expect some player contracts with competitors that expired in June also had a hand) but in 1958, with baseball expanding and until Topps had Musial in the bag, I don't think that last series was necessarily a foregone conclusion when the set was originally designed, although I suspect that by the time the fourth series was being prepped Topps had enough market info to allow them to proceed. Excluding the AS cards, the player mix is just awful, full of unknowns and rookies, with a couple has-beens thrown in. There's some other reasons too, I think. Some more on that at my blog:

https://www.thetoppsarchives.com/201...ing-slots.html

1957 is strange one, with that tough semi-high series and 1959 could mirror the prior year but for 1952 and 1958 it sure seems like some extra thought went into the calculations.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I can't agree with the OP's premise. Frankly, it would almost seem a better strategy for Topps to hold back on a few of the superstars until the end just so kids would continue the chase. Also, set and team collectors, which I believe far outnumbered those who just wanted star players, would trudge on regardless.

FWIW, McCovey was frequently in the high-numbered or next to high numbered series.

Just as an FYI, Topps did try that exact strategy in 1970-71 especially with the semi-hi series each year. For some reason those two years are backloaded with many of the best players. And I'm not talking about someone like the 1970 Nolan Ryan who was not at that level then. I'd love to hear what our resident Topps historian, Dave Hornish has to say about why those years were issued like that.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

Just as an FYI, Topps did try that exact strategy in 1970-71 especially with the semi-hi series each year. For some reason those two years are backloaded with many of the best players. And I'm not talking about someone like the 1970 Nolan Ryan who was not at that level then. I'd love to hear what our resident Topps historian, Dave Hornish has to say about why those years were issued like that.

There's no actual info as to why Topps put certain players where they did for those years (or most years) but I'd expect they smoothed out their national distribution a little after the problems that zenithed in 1967. Look at 1968 and (especially) 1969, those highs aren't really all that tough but the sets are shorter than the 1970-72 era's even with seven series. Star power in the final two series in both 1968 and 1969 is severely lacking.

But then it snowballed to tougher highs again in 1970 and then even with six series in 1971 and 1972 you're back to a traditional kind of high series those three years. Mix in the MBLPA extracting more money from Topps in the late Sixties and you can see that maybe salting in a steadier diet of stars would make sense to keep interest from flagging, and the semi's do indeed seem to have had more big names than the highs those three years, although the 1970 highs are pretty well-stocked.

I vividly recall everybody looking for the Bench card in 1970, especially after the AS card was issued. It sure seems like one or two big names held back for the highs was the plan. Here's some details...

1968 Semi's: Multi-player cards with Clemente, Mantle, Mays and the Robinson's appear. F. Robby's regular card is in here too. NOT BAD BUT THE MULTI-PLAYERS SAVE IT.

1968 High's: Jim Palmer is the sole "big" name and that's merely hindsight as he was hurt in '67 and missed all of '68. No multi-player cards either. WEAK.

1969 Semi's: Middling at best, just a couple of multi-player cards and no big names save Ted Williams as a manager on one of those. WEAK.

1969 High's: Fergie Jenkins (off two 20 win seasons) and Ted Williams are pretty much it. WEAK.

1970 Semi's: Frank Howard (big at the time), Cepeda, G. Perry, Cleon Jones (a big name that year), Rose, Mays, Banks. LOADED.

1970 High's: Kaline, Bench, F. Robinson. Ryan is merely hindsight. NOT BAD.

1971 Semi's: Banks, Yaz, Killebrew, Palmer (finally established), Mays, Cepeda, Brock, Clemente. LOADED.

1971 High's: Boog Powell (big at the time) and some gimmick cards. WEAK.

1972 Semi's: B. Robinson, Rose, Marichal, Kaline, P. Niekro LOADED.

1972 High's: Carew. WEAK.

[Gr8Beldini]

Originally Posted by toppcat

1971 Semi's: Banks, Yaz, Killebrew, Palmer (finally established), Mays, Cepeda, Brock, Clemente. LOADED.

71 Semi's also included HoF's Frank Robinson, Tony Perez, and Jim Bunning... not to mention Frank Howard who was a very big deal after what he did from '68-'70.