NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. When you click on links to eBay on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Postwar Sportscard Forums > Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-06-2013, 05:29 AM
robsbessette robsbessette is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,175
Default 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.
__________________
Member of OBC (Old Baseball Cards), the longest running online collecting club www.oldbaseball.com
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-06-2013, 06:14 AM
rsdill2 rsdill2 is offline
Robert D!ll!ngham
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 502
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-06-2013, 08:00 AM
Zach Wheat Zach Wheat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,640
Default 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
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-06-2013, 08:01 AM
Griffins Griffins is offline
Anthøny N. ex
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,282
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-06-2013, 12:15 PM
stlcardsfan stlcardsfan is offline
D.an Jackso.n
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Near the STL
Posts: 758
Default

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.

Last edited by stlcardsfan; 12-06-2013 at 12:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-06-2013, 03:14 PM
brob28's Avatar
brob28 brob28 is offline
Bi11..R0berts
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,134
Default

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.
__________________
Successful transactions with: Chesboro41, jimivintage, Bocabirdman, marcdelpercio, Jollyelm, Smanzari, asoriano, pclpads, joem36, nolemmings, t206blogcom, Northviewcats, Xplainer, Kickstand19, GrayGhost, btcarfango, Brian Van Horn, USMC09, G36, scotgreb, tere1071, kurri17, wrm, David James, tjenkins, SteveWhite, OhioCard Collector, sysks22, ejstel. Marty

Last edited by brob28; 12-06-2013 at 03:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-07-2013, 04:33 AM
glynparson's Avatar
glynparson glynparson is offline
Glyn Parson
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Blandon PA
Posts: 2,184
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-07-2013, 06:23 AM
robsbessette robsbessette is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,175
Default

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.
__________________
Member of OBC (Old Baseball Cards), the longest running online collecting club www.oldbaseball.com

Last edited by robsbessette; 12-07-2013 at 07:00 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-07-2013, 07:49 AM
Samsdaddy Samsdaddy is offline
Erik
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 389
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-07-2013, 08:34 AM
Tomman1961 Tomman1961 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 270
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-07-2013, 09:08 AM
Rich Klein Rich Klein is offline
Rich Klein
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Plano Tx
Posts: 4,470
Default 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

Last edited by Rich Klein; 12-07-2013 at 09:12 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-07-2013, 02:23 PM
hangman62 hangman62 is offline
Ralph Gee
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: N.J.
Posts: 1,358
Default 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
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-07-2013, 02:34 PM
mintacular's Avatar
mintacular mintacular is offline
Patrick N.
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,906
Default $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.
__________________
My First YouTube Video:
https://youtu.be/1nW2r1NgdOA
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-08-2013, 12:41 AM
Harliduck's Avatar
Harliduck Harliduck is offline
John Otto
J0hn Ot.to
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Marysville, Wa
Posts: 1,679
Default

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...
__________________
John Otto

1963 Fleer - 1981-90 Fleer/Donruss/Score/Leaf Complete
1953 - 1990 Topps/Bowman Complete
1953-55 Dormand SGC COMPLETE SGC AVG Score - 4.03
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-13-2013, 03:32 PM
rsdill2 rsdill2 is offline
Robert D!ll!ngham
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 502
Default

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.

















Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-17-2013, 09:41 PM
darrend505 darrend505 is offline
Darren DeBruhl
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Indiana
Posts: 170
Default

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!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-18-2013, 06:29 AM
Jim65's Avatar
Jim65 Jim65 is offline
Jam.es Braci.liano
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 2,277
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-18-2013, 07:30 AM
robsbessette robsbessette is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,175
Default

Poor Claude Raymond #586 forgot his fly was down. A little breezy down there for the big fella.
__________________
Member of OBC (Old Baseball Cards), the longest running online collecting club www.oldbaseball.com
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-18-2013, 12:28 PM
Beatles Guy's Avatar
Beatles Guy Beatles Guy is offline
Jason Albregts
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wright City, MO
Posts: 1,501
Default

Ah, the Mahaffey and Cardinal Rookie Stars. It was very frustrating trying to pick those up for my Cardinals team set.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-19-2013, 11:11 AM
parkerj33 parkerj33 is offline
Jim Parker
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NY
Posts: 264
Default

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

Last edited by parkerj33; 12-19-2013 at 11:15 AM. Reason: added link
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-19-2013, 11:55 AM
7nohitter's Avatar
7nohitter 7nohitter is offline
Member
And.rew Mil.ler
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: MA
Posts: 1,522
Default

thanks parker!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-19-2013, 02:19 PM
parkerj33 parkerj33 is offline
Jim Parker
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NY
Posts: 264
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-19-2013, 02:29 PM
Rich Klein Rich Klein is offline
Rich Klein
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Plano Tx
Posts: 4,470
Default Dave and I argue about 67 Hi's

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

Rich
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-24-2013, 01:46 PM
BillP BillP is offline
Bill par.sons
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 267
Default 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
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-24-2013, 02:46 PM
JollyElm's Avatar
JollyElm JollyElm is offline
D@rrΣn Hu.ghΣs
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 7,304
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillP View Post
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.
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-26-2013, 03:50 AM
glynparson's Avatar
glynparson glynparson is offline
Glyn Parson
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Blandon PA
Posts: 2,184
Default 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.

Last edited by glynparson; 12-26-2013 at 03:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-26-2013, 07:16 AM
stlcardsfan stlcardsfan is offline
D.an Jackso.n
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Near the STL
Posts: 758
Default

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillP View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-26-2013, 07:34 AM
toppcat's Avatar
toppcat toppcat is offline
Dave.Horn.ish
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by parkerj33 View Post
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
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
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-30-2013, 05:11 PM
BillP BillP is offline
Bill par.sons
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 267
Default

If the 2nd sheet was made up only of the accepted 11 DP cards times 12. Possible?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-31-2013, 05:34 AM
toppcat's Avatar
toppcat toppcat is offline
Dave.Horn.ish
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillP View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-03-2020, 02:26 PM
Kevvyg1026 Kevvyg1026 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 438
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-03-2020, 07:15 PM
BillP BillP is offline
Bill par.sons
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-03-2020, 08:04 PM
toppcat's Avatar
toppcat toppcat is offline
Dave.Horn.ish
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillP View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-04-2020, 08:35 AM
ALBB ALBB is offline
Albert Bee
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 1,085
Default 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
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-04-2020, 11:44 AM
BillP BillP is offline
Bill par.sons
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by toppcat View Post
Mid Atlantic Coin Exchange?
Sounds right. I can't be 100% sure though. I know there were in the Philly area and published ads in SCD.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-04-2020, 12:32 PM
toppcat's Avatar
toppcat toppcat is offline
Dave.Horn.ish
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillP View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Did You Buy '52 Topps High Numbers As A Kid? toppcat Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) 3 03-25-2010 10:42 PM
O/T - Did You Buy '52 Topps High Numbers As A Kid? toppcat Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 33 03-03-2010 11:12 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:26 AM.


ebay GSB