1966 Topps high numbers frustration
 

I'm sure many of you have seen me on the BST trying to sell/pickup 1966 Topps high numbers. I only need three more for my set at the moment, I'm so close I can taste it!

However, I am a little frustrated in the ridiculous prices that these cards go for! I'm sure I'm not alone here. The pricing on these cards has seemed to sky rocket recently.

One thing that I've shared with a couple of fellow 66 collectors is my bewilderment over the fact that some SPs are more "SP-ier" (direct quite from Ralph G) than others. What makes Coleman, Grant RC, Clarke, Mahaffey, Snyder, etc. all more valuable than the other SPs? Were they printed even less? Or just the current market? The Grant RC is a case all it's own, but the others I can't quite comprehend.

If you're working on the 66 set, what has been your strategy to grab these cards? I waver back and forth on buying the individual cards that I need or buying lots, upgrading what I need, and flipping the rest since the cards are so hot on eBay right now.

I'm working on a Topps run and am a little afraid to start 67 since those are supposedly just as hard, if not harder.

I completely share your frustration. I'm within 3 cards as well (two of which are relatively easy and the third is Snyder).

It's taken me about 5-6 years for a raw set that would probably grade a 5 or 6. I've just been patient and relentless in my search. Occasionally I've been lucky at local card shows with dealers who think that Beckett is the Bible and will sell them for about half book. Some I've got lucky on eBay in the same fashion where it shows up on my saved search and I jump on a low buy-it-now before anyone else sees it.

I've heard all the stories about the "SP-ier" SPs like certain dealers/collectors hoarding them. Not sure if I buy that or not but there's no denying that for some reason or another there's more people trying to buy them than selling them now.

I'm also in the same boat as you on '67s. It's the only '60s set I haven't started and that's just because I'm scared of the high numbers. I remember when I completed the '61 set and thought I had done something (I hadn't yet started '66). For me, '66 has been undoubtedly more difficult than '61.

Hi Numbers
 

I hear you. I have never completely understood this as well. I am working through these issues with a '72 Topps set. Most seem to think the semi-high numbers and high numbered cards were probably produced in equal numbers - yet often there is a noticeable price difference (even in the high numbered series). I am still trying to figure this set out and don't understand all of the nuances yet.

In modern cards, a number of dealers price higher graded Desert Shield cards based upon population reports and hence perceived scarcity. This is a different issue but the principal appears to be the same. Every card was produced in equal numbers, so logic would seem to dictate that the short term scarcity of a highly graded card should not necessarily dictate a higher price. Population scarcity of higher-graded cards should even out as more cards are graded. I guess in this case pricing is based upon demand, as it should, as demand is affected by perceived scarcity...but still....

Zach Wheat

I had the same issue. I was just very patient and eventually got the last few for a decent price, but it shouldn't have taken nearly as long as it did.
I found them tougher and more expensive than the '67 high numbers.

I have completed both 66 and 67. The 66 high #s are probably slightly tougher in terms of scarcity, but 67 is brutal because Seaver, Carew and B. Rob are high #s. If the 66 highs had that kind of star power no telling what they would sell for.

I completed both by a combination of Ebay and card shows. There was a 3 day show in STL where I was lucky to find a dealer (Roger Neufeldt, some on this board may know him) that had just purchased a 67 set and was breaking it up. I bought a bunch of high #s from him. I also bought a bunch of high #s from a local place in my hometown of O'Fallon, IL that specialized in postcards but also had a bunch of baseball cards. They were permanently closed but I somehow made it in, talked to the owner, and got to know his son, who was handling the baseball card liquidation.

For 66, mostly Ebay and some card shows. I actually picked up the Grant Jackson for $7 from a dealer in STL (Tony Schaefer, Monster Cards). Pretty low grade, but I bet it would sell for close to $50 on Ebay. You are right about those 66 highs skyrocketing.

I don't have personal experience with 66 or 67, but I'm 9 cards shy of a 1961 set which has some pretty tough high numbers. I'm pretty condition sensitive and shy away from OC cards so when there's one I'm interested in there's usually some pretty spirited bidding on ebay. I also put together '71 and '72 sets a couple of years back and definately got high number burn-out/frustration. For me as frustrating as it can be I had to stay patient so I did not overpay. I think each set has some that are even more pricey than the "normal" High #'s, the G. Jackson card seems to be the poster child for that. One thing I see often is a set where condition drops off with the High #'s - to me a sure sign of burn-out or impatience.

I have quantaties of all the toughies
 

Ive been "hoarding a few of them for a while. Some are definetly tougher than others. Grant does seem to pop up less in collections and definetly has a very strong demand. For a grant to only sell for $50 on ebay it would have to be in the fair to good range. The prices on ebay for that card are REAL strong.

I know people have talked about it on here before, but the Jackson is crazy. Just for the fun of it I was watching one last night on eBay. VG condition and it went for $140!!! That could buy you a low VG 1956 Mantle (which I'd rather have any day of the week)

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1966-Topps-B...vip=true&rt=nc

I think the key thing on these sets is patience. There are always more out there and every once in awhile you can get lucky or find a good deal. You just have to know it when you see it.

Reading this thread makes me glad that I am not building this set or the 67 for that matter as I think I would get too frustrated.

The only high number I seek from the 1966 set is one of my all time favorite players, Billy Williams.

Wasn't there a story about 2 guys that went to as many shows as possible (in the early years) to buy every 1967 Brooks Robinson they could find, because it was a high number, and Brooks, and possibly a SP? The sole purpose was to hoard them for future sale.

The SCD Story
 

I made this post 2 years ago -- nothing has changed since then

was Card Collectors Company had a warehouse fire and for whatever reason a ton of the 70 Benches were destroyed in that fire (or water damaged). While other cards may have had similar issues, the Bench was the most in demand of those cards

As for the SCD article on Brooksie, iIRC Gary Sawatski and his then partner in the business Duane Scrhoen (sic) had sorted 5,000 or more 67's without finding ONE of those cards.

You do have to remember that in 1979 Bench was among the leading superstars in the game and Brooks had just retired and was beloved.

Plus, both players were World Series heroes in the days when being a World Series hero may have been the only 90 percent of the country saw you play

So, those cards being tougher cards in tough series were thus being not only sought after by collectors but also being kept by both advance and not so advanced collectors

Growing up in NY, we had tons of baseball to watch in the 70's on free TV and the games of the week as well. But if you grew up in a city like LA, I believe the only Dodgers games televised were Sunday road games and all the National games. And in cities without major league teams, probably less games to see as well.



Rich

tough 66 highs
 

I just don't recall...say ...5 yrs ago the Grant Jackson being so tough to find/expensive. From past exp ( Ive put this set together about 4 times) ... the 66T hi's that always seem to be a struggle included - McLain, Tiger team,Clarke, and CC Coleman...oddly some cards that "seemed tough" back then ( G.Perry,McCovey,)..don't seem too hard/expensive to find now a days

$5
 

I found a Grant Jackson and 2 Coleman's in a dealer box for about $5/ea (or less), at the time I wasn't quite sure how valuable but for some reason those names stuck in my craw so I picked them up and resold them for around $100 and $50-60 respectively. Speaking of another tough card is Belanger '67 which I also picked up for around $10 and sold for $50-ish. Those were the days.

Took me over two years to finish my 66T's set, and I would guess if graded it would average 5's at the lowest as I was pretty strict on condition. I was blessed with a very lucky find, a collector who had a shop in the 80's early 90's sold me a card on Ebay and he lived locally to me. He emailed me asking for my list, which was about 20 cards left, all high numbers. He had 18 of them, and quoted me a price. Needless to say, it was a killer price...and when we met he also had a Grant RC he initially didn't think he had and threw it in. I was shocked, and couldn't pay the guy fast enough. With that lucky stroke I didn't have to attack that card.

For me the toughest ones to get were Art Mahaffey, Horace Clark, and the Tigers Team card (my last card, wife bought for last years Christmas). Getting my lucky break on the others saved some pain for sure. After I get my last couple of 1955T cards to complete that set, I am going after the 67. Should be fun...

Reading this post inspired me to round up the last 3 I needed to close out my set. Last one (#562 - Russ Snyder) arrived today (thanks Rob, with an assist from Al). Thrilled to finish this set. Here's my run of high numbers. Obviously no gems in there but other than a crease or two, I'm perfectly content with them just as they are.

I like to scan in my completed sets and post on photobucket, to see the whole '66 set, click here.

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/i...g?t=1386972959

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/i...g?t=1386972658

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/i...g?t=1386972661

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/i...g?t=1386972664

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/i...g?t=1386972668

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/i...g?t=1386972673

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/i...g?t=1386972676

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/i...g?t=1386972679

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/i...g?t=1386972682

This thread makes me Leary of start if the 1960s Topps years. I have completed 1971-to date and am currently working on 1953. Only need 42 to finish it!

I am a Mets collector and bought all my cards pre-ebay days, I had way more trouble finding Lou Klimchock than Choo Choo Coleman.

The '67 highs were a true nightmare, the Seaver rookie was the last card I needed, more because of of price than rarity.

Poor Claude Raymond #586 forgot his fly was down. A little breezy down there for the big fella.

Ah, the Mahaffey and Cardinal Rookie Stars. It was very frustrating trying to pick those up for my Cardinals team set.

Guys, Dave Hornish (ToppCatt) has a real nice blog explaining some of the sheet layouts that topps used in the 60s. I can't do it justice, but the theory is that topps produced two sheets (132 cards per sheet 12 rows of 11 cards each) for each series, and each row was printed a different number of times on the left vs. right sheet, so in order to know the true short prints, you have to look at how many times a particular card's row showed up in the grand scheme of 24 rows (across the two sheets). He has a nice breakdown for 67.....the seaver is in a row that only shows up 2 times out of 24....the most shortly printed cards are those 11....then there are several rows that show up 3 out of 24, and 4 times out of 24, etc....so there is a complicated determination beyond just short and regular printing. see his website blog at the topps archives.

Here is a link:
http://toppsarchives.blogspot.com/20...lin-short.html

thanks parker!

By the way, I did finish the 67s last year and hated spending $50 for commons ray barker and mike shannon, for example. Being they are two of the 11 cards (including seaver!) that are only printed twice across the two half sheets, they are super tough.

Looks like I will face the same challenge on those 66s eventually.

Dave and I argue about 67 Hi's
 

Glad to see someone agrees with me that the SP's are really SP's

Rich

66 Highs and for that matter 67 Highs
 

I was drawn to this forum by the discussion of 66 & 67 high numbers which, as a longtime collector, I have been following for many years. I should add that I am a first time poster on this website.
Starting with 66, for my experience the Clarke and Coleman have always been mentioned as 2 of the tougher SP's, it's only in the last 5 years that the Jackson card has been included. Go back 30 years when I started to piece this set back together. The first thing a friend told me was that the Clarke was tough only because it was a yankee and his RC. The rare scarcity was Coleman, Queen, Tigers Team and Perry.
Through the years I have seen at least 4 uncut sheets of various sizes when it comes to the high numbers. Some have all the DP cards noted, 1 had only the following cards: Tigers Team, Perry, O. Brown RC, Jackson RC, Coleman, Queen, McCovey and Craig. I believe now as then that these 8 are the true SP's. The others cards that are labeled SP fall in between the DP cards and these. Further, back in the mid 80's I tried to follow this by attending selected east coast national shows looking for sets of complete 66's that supposedly were put together by collectors that year. What I was looking for was the consistent diamond cut of the highs to look for patterns of the 8 vs the others. I won't say it was 100% but pretty close.
So that is my 2 cents on the 66's. Opinions welcome.
67: I think that the discover of a supposed "B" uncut sheet shed some light on the groups of 11 that are on the same row within the sheet. The DP or QP (Quadruple prints as I'll call it) are no surprise. They should be priced below the 6th series commons in my opinion.
However, the real SP sleepers to me are Shaw/Sutherland, Colavito, Wills and Niekro RC. These to me were the together to find, forgetting about centering, that's a whole other matter. 586 Jimenez has been cited as an SP, but I didn't find it so. Same with 572 Demeter and 561 Alomar.
I think there are 4 tiers to the availability of highs. The most common as obvious, the scarcer 2 may be obvious as well, but the difference between them is an opinion. Here's mine: Scarce group: the 4 I mentioned plus Seaver RC, Red Sox Team, Cash, Shannon, BRobinson (who has a different color back and the card number is also a different font), Henry 579 and maybe Jimenez.
On the Robinson, I think there was an issue with this card when printed and it was printed in limited supply on a dedicated sheet late in the process. Just my guess. Take a look at the back and compare the font and color of the stock. It's always a darker moss green as opposed to the others. Anyway, tired of typing, Feedback welcome, BIll

That's an excellent peek behind the curtain. Cool stuff!
Unfortunately, due to the computer age, dealers at shows these days are very aware of the scarcity of those few high numbers, so you can't get them for a song anymore.

I absolutely disagree
 

about Jackson/Shirley only being considered tough in the last 5 years. I have considereded it the toughest card in the set since at least 1993 as have many other vintage card dealers. It is almost always one of the last cards on peoples lists. I have also bought many collections of 1966 high numbers and Coleman is and always has been far easier in my mind than Jackson/Shirley. I worked for probably the leading vintage Topps card dealer for about 5 years from the late nineties to early 2000s and he always considered Jackson the toughest card as well. I agree 100% about those 1967s being tougher that you mentioned.

Welcome Bill, nice first post. I have not done any analysis of uncut sheets, my experience is only from putting the set together. I was surprised how affordable the 66 McCovey was. If that is a true SP like the others I would think it would be going for 3-4x what is seems to sell for.

There is an update post to this one that covers new details of the second sheet, which is still just known as a partial: http://toppsarchives.blogspot.com/20...e-reality.html

If the 2nd sheet was made up only of the accepted 11 DP cards times 12. Possible?

Nope-never seen it and the partial of the second sheet confirms this.

In an earlier post, you mentioned "Through the years I have seen at least 4 uncut sheets of various sizes when it comes to the high numbers. Some have all the DP cards noted, 1 had only the following cards: Tigers Team, Perry, O. Brown RC, Jackson RC, Coleman, Queen, McCovey and Craig."

I wish you had an image of that uncut partial sheet mentioned. I haven't see that one.

These sheets that I mentioned were 8 card sheets and either offered on ebay or another selling site. The order of these cards I don't recall as much. I remember a philadelphia or pennsylvania dealer (atlantic something????) had 2 or 3 of these.

Mid Atlantic Coin Exchange?

1966 Topps high #s avail
 

Anyone need lower grade 1966 T hi #s - Id love to trade them

598
596
592
584
581
579
576
575
569
542
537
536
529

Sounds right. I can't be 100% sure though. I know there were in the Philly area and published ads in SCD.

Good chance then, they had huge ads in SCD back in the day.