Question for MW and others about #1 cards

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd (nolemmings) 

I saw a thread on the SGC board that sparked something that I wanted to ask. Are the first cards in a numbered set really that much more difficult to find in high grade? Can the same be said for those sets issued in the 60s?

As a kid in the 60s, I always sorted my cards by teams, usually with the team pic on top. Checklists were used to see what cards were needed and already had. Frankly everyone I knew did it this way. So card #1 was really no different than any other. I'm wondering how many of the folks on this board can say the same.

I guess I can see some vintage sets, e.g. '33 Goudey being kept in numeric order, as there were no checklists, although I probably would have still sorted by team if I were alive back then. Unnumbered sets really should place no premium on the first guy in the alphabet-- I really can't see kids sorting the cards that way.

Sure, some #1s are of star players who were more likely to be handled and were more desirable, but it seems like some #1s are priced extremely high by virtue of their number alone. Again, are they really that hard to find?
regards................Todd