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 give an opinion of a person or company your full name needs to be in your post. Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-10-2018, 10:36 PM
kailes2872's Avatar
kailes2872 kailes2872 is offline
Kev1n @1les
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Pittsburgh Area
Posts: 643
Default 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 didn’t 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 don’t 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?
__________________
2018 Collecting Goals:

1952 Bowman (prefer a graded Mantle)

1970's Football and Basketball Sets
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-11-2018, 03:51 AM
JollyElm's Avatar
JollyElm JollyElm is offline
D@rrΣn Hu.ghΣs
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,515
Default

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.
__________________
Check out my bucket(s). Virtually everything is available for trade:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706
http://s1226.photobucket.com/albums/ee404/JollyElm/
http://s1036.photobucket.com/user/elmjack44/library/

“I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.”
Casey Stengel
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-11-2018, 06:42 AM
savedfrommyspokes savedfrommyspokes is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,312
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kailes2872 View Post
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 didn’t 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 don’t 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?
Kevin, IMO, you have compiled a very accurate list. I am 25 cards short on the 52s, otherwise complete with all of these other Topps sets. The one subtle change I would make is I would move the 64s hi#s up to the bottom of the middle list. IMO, the 6th series of the 63 Topps set is tougher than the 7Th series....If the 6th series was considered, the 63 set might rank higher on the list than it would if just the 7th series was considered..

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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-11-2018, 08:34 AM
rats60's Avatar
rats60 rats60 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,381
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-11-2018, 11:59 AM
BillP BillP is offline
Bill par.sons
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 73
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-13-2018, 08:35 PM
1963Topps Set 1963Topps Set is offline
Tom
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: America
Posts: 817
Default

Why is 1960 Topps omitted?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-13-2018, 09:53 PM
kailes2872's Avatar
kailes2872 kailes2872 is offline
Kev1n @1les
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Pittsburgh Area
Posts: 643
Default

My mistake. I tried to do all by memory. I would probably put in the middle bucket around ‘59
__________________
2018 Collecting Goals:

1952 Bowman (prefer a graded Mantle)

1970's Football and Basketball Sets
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-14-2018, 09:18 AM
toppcat's Avatar
toppcat toppcat is offline
Dave.Horn.ish
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,896
Default

A poll on toughest non-high series would be interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-14-2018, 10:47 AM
BillP BillP is offline
Bill par.sons
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 73
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1963Topps Set View Post
Why is 1960 Topps omitted?
Sorry, I don't collect 1960 so I can't comment.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-14-2018, 03:28 PM
Rich Klein Rich Klein is offline
Rich Klein
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Plano Tx
Posts: 3,468
Default

IMHO 1960 hi #'s are similar to 59 Hi's in toughness.
__________________
Look for our show listings in the Net 54 Calendar section
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
Degree of difficulty...T207 backs Vintagecatcher Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 3 03-30-2015 10:30 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 01:44 PM
Ranking the difficulty of nineteenth century issues ? Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 16 05-24-2005 08:29 PM
Ranking the difficulty of 20th Century Prewar sets Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 13 05-24-2005 08:20 PM
Degree of Difficulty: American Beauty Backs Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 4 11-12-2002 09:50 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:41 PM.


ebay GSB