High Number Trouble

[1963Topps Set]

In working on your Topps set, which year (or years) gave you the most difficulty with the high numbers? (Of course 1952 which is very noted)

I had a lot of difficulty with the high numbers of 1961, 1966 and 1967.

I think they are the toughest....

1964, 1965, 1968 and 1969 are the easiest.

[savedfrommyspokes]

From the 1960s, I would agree on your list...outside of the 52 Topps Hi#s, the 53 Hi#s are tough and the 72 Hi#s can be a challenge also.

[JollyElm]

The high numbers from the years you stated are extremely tough…and then there are the high number SP's that just kick your butt.

[ALR-bishop]

I am so old that I built those sets back in the day when it wasn't so tough

The 52 high numbers did set me back, especially the variations of the 3 DPs and the other variations

[Jim65]

I bought most of my '66 and '67 highs in the pre-internet days, nowadays all those cards are much easier to find.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by 1963Topps Set

In working on your Topps set, which year (or years) gave you the most difficulty with the high numbers? (Of course 1952 which is very noted)

I had a lot of difficulty with the high numbers of 1961, 1966 and 1967.

I think they are the toughest....

1964, 1965, 1968 and 1969 are the easiest.

Those three and the 63 semi highs. I had trouble with the 61s and 63s collecting in the 70s. The 66s and 67s weren't as tough because they were newer.

[brewing]

This is what stops me from chasing the sets. I didn't like buying the high numbers for my Tiger run.

I have a nice start to the 1967 set (over 550 different), but those SP high#'s have prices that don't fit in my world.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by brewing

This is what stops me from chasing the sets. I didn't like buying the high numbers for my Tiger run.

I have a nice start to the 1967 set (over 550 different), but those SP high#'s have prices that don't fit in my world.

Brent,

I know what you mean. I love the idea of set building but can't ever see myself doing it again. There are just so many cards in so many different sets I want that I dabble in many different sets getting little pieces here and there. I also find myself getting impatient while building a set. Paying big bucks for players I don't easily recognize gets frustrating for me, too. For instance, I really like '53 Bowman Color, but there are tons of other star cards in other sets I really want. Ultimately, I will probably buy the stars from that set I want and move on.

[1963Topps Set]

It is amazing that a high number common from some of these years will cost you more then a low number star!

[moeson]

Boy, do I agree with that having just paid up for a raw centered 1961 Rollie Sheldon!

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Tom: that can certainly be the case! I guess that was the point of this thread. Some of the '53 Topps high numbers I tussled with got interesting.

Howie: congrats on the find. There is something about finding "the one" you need! I guess that's really it. I have been looking through my '53 Topps commons and high #s. It comes back to me why I decided to build the set to begin with. For me, it is simply a work of art from start to finish. Even the most inconsequential common player has an attractive card. I remember having a pretty tough time tracking down some of the high numbers (and even non-high numbers) in the grade/price range I was looking for. I had a lot of fun. This all makes me think I might want to build '53 Bowman Color afterall. As long as I don't let myself look too long at all the other 50s stuff I like, I might be able to pull it off.

[brob28]

Originally Posted by moeson

Boy, do I agree with that having just paid up for a raw centered 1961 Rollie Sheldon!

Howie, the Sheldon was one of the toughest of the set for me to find in the condition (and centered) that I wanted, Congrats, that's a tough one! The only set that the OP mentioned that I have completed is the '61 set. The high numbers are tough particularly if you are condition sensitive and want good centering I enjoy the challenge. The one set that got to be a real chore for me was the '72 set I found myself just wanting to get it over with...

[moeson]

Thanks Robert and Bill. Yes, 72 can be a nightmare with all those diamond cuts. In other sets, even non-high numbers are effective short prints due to poor centering. For example, I have had trouble finding decently centered 1964Yankees and Orioles Team cards.

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by brob28

Howie, the Sheldon was one of the toughest of the set for me to find in the condition (and centered) that I wanted, Congrats, that's a tough one! The only set that the OP mentioned that I have completed is the '61 set. The high numbers are tough particularly if you are condition sensitive and want good centering I enjoy the challenge. The one set that got to be a real chore for me was the '72 set I found myself just wanting to get it over with...

I have to agree with Howie & Bill....the '72 Topps Hi Numbers were a real chore. Not so much that all high numbers were hard to find....but that the semi-hi numbers were equally hard to find....and this was one of the last large sets Topps created before they cut the # of cards down to a manageable size.

Cards are notoriously miscut as well.....

Z Wheat

[1963Topps Set]

Originally Posted by brob28

Howie, the Sheldon was one of the toughest of the set for me to find in the condition (and centered) that I wanted, Congrats, that's a tough one! The only set that the OP mentioned that I have completed is the '61 set. The high numbers are tough particularly if you are condition sensitive and want good centering I enjoy the challenge. The one set that got to be a real chore for me was the '72 set I found myself just wanting to get it over with...

I felt that way about the 1962 set. It was like foot slogging up Mount Everest!

The 1972 high numbers were not a problem for me as I found someone who I knew and took very good care of me. He had all of them.

[brob28]

Originally Posted by 1963Topps Set

I felt that way about the 1962 set. It was like foot slogging up Mount Everest!

The 1972 high numbers were not a problem for me as I found someone who I knew and took very good care of me. He had all of them.

I had to laugh (at myself) when I read your post. I went straight into the '62 set as I finished '61. I'm about 95% complete, with the '62 master set. There are definitely some '62 high numbers that have made me cringe as I realized what I was going to have to pay to find a well-centered copy. In the end, I love the challenge of putting together a nice set.