toughest high number series from post 50's baseball

[goudey1933]

Toughest as far as scarcity/also which as far as condition?Post some pics too for our vexing pleasure.

[tedzan]

Hi # series cards #311 - 407






.





TED Z
.

[tedzan]

In my opinion the most scarce series of BB cards in the post-WWII era are the 49 cards issued in the Summer of 1949 by the LEAF GUM Co.


. . .


TED Z
.

[ALR-bishop]

Agree with Ted for 50s sets. Ironically, the Mantles, Thompsons and Robinsons are the easiest to find from that series. Not the cheapest, but easiest to find. And that series is easier to find than cards 131 to 180 in gray backs

[swarmee]

Except the question in the title is "Post 50s" which would mean 60-73... ;-)

[Griffins]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Except the question in the title is "Post 50s" which would mean 60-73... ;-)

we give the old folks a bit of latitude

I'd go with '66 Topps. The short prints were brutal, and while it's not the entire series I just found them tougher than '67 overall.

[KCRfan1]

I would rank 1967, 1966, and 1961 as the toughest. If I stumble across any 67 highs in nice shape and reasonably priced, I'm usually buying. That doesn't happen very often at local shows or the card shop though.

[ALR-bishop]

Good point John

Anthony has had a lot of practice giving me leeway over the years

So now I will go with Lou. We have to be flexible in old age

[toppcat]

66 or 67 probably are the toughest. I never completed my 66 set but those SP's are tough. Same with '67. There must have been issues with both because the scarcity of high numbers and how Topps correlated their print runs with series breakdowns changed after 1967.

I think there are more 52 highs out there than we have been led to believe. Sy Berger's story of the garbage scows dumping them is BS IMO.

[Zach Wheat]

I have to agree with Dave on '67 being one of the toughest sets to complete due to high numbers. I also have to chime in that if the condition/centering issues are taken into consideration, I would probably add a few different sets to the list - including '71 Topps

Z

[moeson]

On top of the tough SPs, 66 High numbers seem to have more miscuts than the earlier series. The same could probably be said for the 72 highs, but at least those are much easier to complete.

[Zach Wheat]

Agreed re: '72's. The set is so large and the semi-hi num's are difficult to find as well.

Z

[rats60]

Originally Posted by KCRfan1

I would rank 1967, 1966, and 1961 as the toughest. If I stumble across any 67 highs in nice shape and reasonably priced, I'm usually buying. That doesn't happen very often at local shows or the card shop though.

I would agree with this. I would also add the 1963 6th series (semi highs). I think it was regional. The 66s were easier for me than the 67s. The 61s and 63s were the toughest for me.

[ALR-bishop]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

I have to agree with Dave on '67 being one of the toughest sets to complete due to high numbers. I also have to chime in that if the condition/centering issues are taken into consideration, I would probably add a few different sets to the list - including '71 Topps

Z

Zach-- don't you just hate when you have to agree with Dave

[tedzan]

I have completed (piecewise) Topps sets from 1960 - 69. My favorite of these sets is the 1966 (which I have completed 2 sets
in ExMt to near Mt condition).

Here is a list of the tougher Hi #s which I ran into while completing these 2 sets ......

#526 Twins team
#527 Bell
#535 Davis
#538 Allen
#540 McLain
#543 Craig
#545 Green
#547 Clarke
#552 Tebbetts
#556 Queen
#557 Mantilla
#558 Geo Scott rookie
#561 Coleman
#563 Tovar rookie
#565 Piersall
#566 Cuellar
#570 Art Mahaffey
#583 Tigers team
#589 Klimchock
#590 Skowron
#591 Grant Jackson rookie
#593 Camilli
#598 Gaylord Perry (in Nr Mt condition)

and,
Semi-Hi # 490 Bobby Richardson



TED Z
.

[ALR-bishop]

At least you and I are now in the correct era Ted. Not bad for old guys

[tedzan]

Hey Al

These younger guys have to cut me some slack

I hastily read this thread's title and I thought: "post '50"....so, I posted my 1952 Topps stuff.


Al.....these guys are just jealous of us older dudes, because we were kids during the decade of the 1950's and grew up watching some of the greatest BB players,
and BB games in modern history.

For example: I was glued to our TV on Oct 8th 1956, seeing Don Larsen's Perfect World Series game. It doesn't get any better than that. And what was the "icing
on the cake" in that game was watching Mickey Mantle chase down Gil Hodges' tremendous drive deep into Yankee Stadium's "death valley".


TED Z
.

[ALR-bishop]

[KCRfan1]

That's so cool Al! I love the stuff you and Ted post.

[PowderedH2O]

I agree with the 1966 and 1967 thoughts. To pick up a decent Grant Jackson rookie from 1966, you'll be out at least $100 (and more likely, a lot more). You can get two nice Mantles for the price of one Jackson. If that doesn't make you want to shake your head...

[Sean1125]

The following years have a series of tough high numbers. Each has it's share of cards that are found and can be had at well below book while some cards go well over book every time they come up for sale.

61, 62, 63 (upper-middle series), 66, 67, 70, 71, 72

All of the above mentioned 60's sets have glorious high number runs that in near mint condition amount to thousands of dollars.

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by alr-bishop

zach-- don't you just hate when you have to agree with dave

☺

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Hey Al

These younger guys have to cut me some slack

I hastily read this thread's title and I thought: "post '50"....so, I posted my 1952 Topps stuff......


TED Z
.

Ted,

My first memory of you in a pre-war post had something to do with the belief you were contemporaneous with dinosaurs. . Your knowledge and insight is always appreciated.....

Z

[BearBailey]

1966 and 1967 by far the most difficult. 1961 and 1963 semi highs would be next.

[hoot-owl]

how about 1971 OPC--scarce is too nice a word.

Topps--I would go with either 1966 or 1967. The 1961s are a close third--but not nearly as many SPs as there are in 66 and 67.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Hi Al

Thanks for posting Larsen's book. I will have to get this book. Recently, I read the book titled "Perfect" (by Lew Paper).
It's written in the form of 17 chapters. Each of these chapters cover each half inning of Larsen's game. The author goes
into great detail of the batters' history in that particular half inning. It's excellently written: and, I highly recommend it.

Also, several years ago, I met Don Larsen in Cooperstown. I had a delightful conversation with him for half an hour.







TED Z
.

[BillP]

Originally Posted by hoot-owl

how about 1971 OPC--scarce is too nice a word.

Topps--I would go with either 1966 or 1967. The 1961s are a close third--but not nearly as many SPs as there are in 66 and 67.

1st, they can all be had for a price. But looking at the 61 set, the highs can be had, but how attractive is that set to the collector. I got through series 1-6 pretty easily until I hit the allstar cards at the end. Had to be very patient. I have always Thought on the whole that 66 was tougher. But saying that selected 67's are tougher than the 66's. The 11 very SP cards in 67 (seaver rc, redsox team, #587, colavito etc) are tougher than 66's.
If all the 11 or so very tough 66 sp's were produced in equal numbers, why is #591 so expensive? My thought is that like the '64 flood #103, somebodies hoarding these.

[glynparson]

There was a time not so long ago I had close to a hundred copies. Still probably have around 50. It isn't expensive because of this though. It being considered so difficult is why I bought so many. It has always been tougher partially because of 1) phillies and dodgers collectors 2)it is often miscut and also 3) often will have a black print line in the border. Plus it has the reputation of being so tough.

[BillP]

Originally Posted by glynparson

There was a time not so long ago I had close to a hundred copies. Still probably have around 50. It isn't expensive because of this though. It being considered so difficult is why I bought so many. It has always been tougher partially because of 1) phillies and dodgers collectors 2)it is often miscut and also 3) often will have a black print line in the border. Plus it has the reputation of being so tough.

Did you go after just #591 or Clarke, coleman peranoski just to name a few?