|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Ranking high # series by degree of difficulty (and why?)
Now that I am close on my post war set run, I was wondering if anyone had an opinion on the high numbers. Difficult is a relative term because they all seem readily available- it is just that some cost more than others. What I am wondering is why? We obviously know the 52 high story - but what happened in 66 and 67 that didnt happen in 65 and 68? Why is 69 easier than 70?
I would rank them - Tough (much more expensive than low # commons) 52 53 67 66 62 61 55 72 70 Tougher than normal but not as out of control as the first group 59 57 (mid) 71 63 Not much of a noticeable difference 54 56 58 64 65 68 69 It has been a while since I built some of the sets so my memory fails me a bit on 64 and 63 For those who collected these out of the packs, did something different happen in the tough years? Late issue? Better than average football set that diverted attention? I understand the concept of the high series and why collectors might have lost steam, I just dont understand what makes one year more expensive than another. With the exception of dumping them in the ocean I would expect similar relative scarcity. Thoughts? Your ranking of toughness?
__________________
2024 Collecting Goals: 53-55 Red Mans Complete Set |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
I don't collect the early 50's, but when it comes to the 60's and 70's sets, your rankings are spot on. 1961, 1962, 1966 and 1967 are beyond the pale tough to find at 'reasonable' prices in nice shape. So many of mine need to be upgraded, but I ain't holding my breath.
__________________
All the cool kids love my YouTube Channel:
Elm's Adventures in Cardboard Land https://www.youtube.com/@TheJollyElm Looking to trade? Here's my bucket: https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706 I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice. Casey Stengel Spelling "Yastrzemski" correctly without needing to look it up since the 1980s. Overpaying yesterday is simply underpaying tomorrow. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Since this is discussed as a "post war" set run list and not just a Topps run, when other regularly distributed sets are considered, the 51 Bowman set followed by the 55 and 53 Bowman sets could be added to the list. If it were my list I would include the 51 set in the top list near the top (obvious reasons) and the 55 and 53 sets to the lower part of the middle list I have not started on the 48 or 49 Bowman sets so I am not sure where the higher numbers would fall on the list. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
The 1963 6th series is much tougher than the 1962 high numbers. I was able to complete the 1962 set collecting in the late 60s, early 70s. My 1963 set wasn't completed until the 80s. My rank would be
1952 1953 1961 1963 6th series 1967 1966 1962 1955. I posted this before, but my recollection was that some years the final series wasn't released until later in the year. I remember being able to buy 6th and 7th series cards in August 1969, but the next year I was buying 4th series in August and still waiting for the 7th series in September. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
My 2 cents as a 60's collector:
61 - selected cards are tougher in high grade. All stars tougher by player Grade 8 of 10 for toughness (10 being highest) 62 - similar with SP cards in high condition tougher. Grade 8 of 10 due to condition of the wood design 63 - 6th series tougher than 7th and still waiting on which 6th series cards are SP's v others as lately this is driving price. Long, #496, Killebrew, Roseboro, Hook, Tresh come mind as candidates. 6th series: 7 7th series 5. 64 - weren't really difficult for me, no SP's per se. So Grade 4. 65 - never have been tough even though SP's exist. Grade 3. 66 - selected cards very tough in centering and high grade, discussed on this forum often. Other high cards very easy to obtain. Tough highs 8, easy highs 3. 67 - same as 66 but higher profile cards makes prices/demand an issue. Even more than 66 easy cards 11-22 of them are readily out there for the same as semi high 6th series. Tough highs (11 cards - produced 2x v 3x or 4x) Grade 9. Easy highs 2 68 - not tough grade 3 69 - 4th series grade 4 highs 2-3. Comments welcome, billp |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Why is 1960 Topps omitted?
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
My mistake. I tried to do all by memory. I would probably put in the middle bucket around 59
__________________
2024 Collecting Goals: 53-55 Red Mans Complete Set |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
A poll on toughest non-high series would be interesting.
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, I don't collect 1960 so I can't comment.
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
IMHO 1960 hi #'s are similar to 59 Hi's in toughness.
__________________
Look for our show listings in the Net 54 Calendar section |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
As an auction house writer I've been through countless numbers of each set. I think the OPs list is pretty accurate. I would switch 61 and 67 though.
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Question to Orioles1954: would you rank 66's harder/ higher than 67s? I think people of course don't collect 66's as much (and maybe don't drag along to card shows) so that might have something to do with it.
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
I would give the edge to 1966s as being tougher because of super shortprints like Coleman, Snyder, Jackson RC, etc. But make no mistake.....ain't nothing rare about any 1960s Topps card....unless, we're talking test issues of course.
Last edited by Orioles1954; 07-14-2018 at 04:55 PM. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
I personally would move up 64's one group
__________________
Look for our show listings in the Net 54 Calendar section |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
So how tough are they?
I'm doing both sets and didn't see any posts on those years. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
A few cards are expensive because they are rookies : 59 Bob Gibson or because they are Mantle/Mays/Aaron All Stars, etc. But nothing really to compare with the 62/66/67 short prints or the 61's general toughness
Rich
__________________
Look for our show listings in the Net 54 Calendar section |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
This...
Thanks for this thread. I went looking for a blog post or article out on the interwebs recently on exactly this subject and could not find anything that was not focused on mainly just the merits of individual sets - but I was curious. I was born in 1977, so never had to deal with anything like this as a child collector. These days, I would agree with what's been said earlier - no 1960's card outside of test issues should be called truly "rare" due to the prevalence even of SP's and highly desirable items at your fingertips online - but it is interesting to me what cards were actually more scarce back in the shoe-leather days - the infant hobby for example in the early 70's before all the attics had been cleaned out. "Scarce" to me for a '67 high number just means I'm going to have to spend more on eBay than I want. But back in the day I can see collectors going to shows and literally not being able to find something. It's those kinds of stories I find myself more interested in, and seeking out more often.
__________________
Postwar stars & HOF'ers. Prewar, Bowman & Topps Cubs team endeavors. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
And the price of the SP's jumped to appropriate levels in the Price Guides as well. Back in the 1980's whenever I had one of the tougher 1967 Mets Hi# and priced them at $15-20 the question would be,, but the Book say the card is XXX.
My 1st standard response was to give the address listed in the Beckett Price Guide and send them a check for the card. My 2nd standard response -- was: BTW -- how long have you been looking for this card? Usually the answer was 4-5 years which my response would then be -- and then you wonder why the card is priced so seemingly high. By 1991-92 most of those cards were properly priced in the guides Rich
__________________
Look for our show listings in the Net 54 Calendar section |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
I'll bet that was Sullivan!
|
#20
|
||||
|
||||
1970 and 1972 are not difficult at all in my honest opinion they have no business being in the top group. i understand the book price is higher on them but they aren't tough at all to find even if adjusting for condition. Some of the tougher 71 high number s are far tougher then the 1970 or 1972 or even the easier 66 and 67 high numbers. Not sure i agree with your the list. Here is my list and experiences from selling vintage topps cards for the last 40 years include working for arguably the leading vintage topps dealer in the country for about 10 years back in the 90s early 2000s.
Tougher : 1952 1953 1966 (the tough ones) 1967 (the tough ones) Next: 1955 1961 1962 1971 third: 1957 1962 (the sp) 1964 1965 (SPs) 1970 1972 THe Rest: Now i considered 1963 in the third group and wouldn't argue if someone put it there. The rest there isn't much or a very slight difference. occasionally there may be a slightly tougher card or two like the 1973 high nuber checklist but overall they aren't very tough. Last edited by glynparson; 07-19-2018 at 05:30 AM. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Toughest High Series
I would like to give a bit of a different perspective. When I was collecting as a kid, I started in 1962. I was able to complete that set as all of the Series released by Topps made it to my local stores. (St. Clair Shores, Michigan). I looked forward to the 63 set. However, I was only able to get cards into the 4th Series. No boxes for 5th, 6th 7th ever made it to the stores. In 1964 I made it to the 5th series. In 1965, I was able to complete the set as all Series showed up. 1966 all the way to the 7th Series. No 7th Series boxes showed up. 1967 I was able to get to the 7th. In 1968 and 1969 I was able to complete my sets.
When I started collecting again in the 80's the cards I found to be difficult were the 63 6th and 7th, 66 and 67 7th. As an aside, I completed sets from 58 through 61 and did not have that much trouble. I was fairly close to completing the 56 and 57 sets but sold the collection before I finished. Also, in 66 you could write to Topps and get cards for 4 cents apiece. I picked 10 numbers from the 7th Series at random and sent away for them. In 70 and 71 I ordered Series 5 through 7 for each set for $2.25 a Series. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Not just him but also Westrum, Alomar, Shaw/Sutherland, etc.
__________________
Look for our show listings in the Net 54 Calendar section |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Maybe it is because of the age demographic which come to my shows and the other DFW shows but 1970's and 72's hi#s sell really well for me Rich
__________________
Look for our show listings in the Net 54 Calendar section |
#24
|
||||
|
||||
Rich
I do agree that they seem to sell well but i don't think either of them are difficult at all to get. it maybe one of those geographic things where they are just easy in eastern pa so that skews my opinion.
|
#25
|
||||
|
||||
When I was a weekend warrior at the end of the 80's and in the early 90's, the 72 highs always sold here on Long Island. 70's and 71's not as much.
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#27
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Degree of difficulty...T207 backs | Vintagecatcher | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 3 | 03-30-2015 09:30 PM |
Have fun on ESPN Classic - Ranking all time Best World Series Teams | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 0 | 07-05-2006 12:44 PM |
Ranking the difficulty of nineteenth century issues ? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 16 | 05-24-2005 07:29 PM |
Ranking the difficulty of 20th Century Prewar sets | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 13 | 05-24-2005 07:20 PM |
Degree of Difficulty: American Beauty Backs | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 4 | 11-12-2002 08:50 PM |