1961/ 1962 Fleer baseball

[brett 75]

While looking back at the 3rd edition of the standard catalog I noticed they listed the 1961 Fleer baseball numbers 89-154 were issued actually in 1962. So why are they priced slightly higher than the first 88 ? They are not technically high numbers just a continuation the following year . I always thought it odd that Fleer never had a 62 set but it sounds like they did after all. Anyone one remember or have photos of wrappers , were they the same for series 1&2 ? Any input is appreciated, Brett

[mckinneyj]

> So why are they priced slightly higher than the first 88 ?

Supply and demand - the cards in the second series were not printed in the same volume as those of the first - considerably rarer, the higher numbered commons usually fetch at least two or three times the price of lower ones in nicer conditions. You'll notice that with only a few exceptions (Ted, Honus, Cy), the major stars are all in the more common lower numbered half of the set.

[ALR-bishop]

Agree with Jim. In 1960, 61 and 62 Fleer was trying to break into the baseball card market with packs and gum, since that was the market standard set by Bowman and then Topps. Since by then most MLB players had exclusive contracts with Topps for distribution of their likeness with gum ( or candy), Fleer first went the retired player route. But sales, although decent in 60, dropped in 61 and further dropped in 62, so their "2nd series" of the 61 set was discontinued earlier and purchased less frequently.

In 63 they went to modern players, packaged with a cookie to avoid the exclusive Topps confection contracts. But even though that set is well thought of today, cookies and cards did not sell well and that set was discontinued after the "first series" for poor sales rather than Topps litigation as is commonly thought

[novakjr]

Brett, you seem to confused as to why "high numbers" often fetch more than early series. It's not just because they are "high numbers". As the other's stated, it's usually due to the fact that "high numbers" were generally printed in lower quantities. Often, by the time the high numbers were released, many people's attention were on things other than baseball. And knowing that, not as many were produced.

The Fleer issue at hand, is a slightly different story as to why they weren't produced as much(as has also been stated). But regardless of production year, it's ultimately had the same effect..

[brett 75]

Not confused on the high number issue , if there is less supply then that would make sense. What I was trying to find out is are the higher numbers really that much harder to find than the lower numbers making there value that much different ? And why are the not listed as 1962 if they came out that year ? This forum is always a great way to get more information and I always appreciate the great responses . If you don't ask ... Thanks Brett

[ALR-bishop]

My guess is they were produced in 1961 but due to poor sales were distributed over a 2 year period. Bob Lemke may have a better explanation

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by brett 75

Not confused on the high number issue , if there is less supply then that would make sense. What I was trying to find out is are the higher numbers really that much harder to find than the lower numbers making there value that much different ? And why are the not listed as 1962 if they came out that year ? This forum is always a great way to get more information and I always appreciate the great responses . If you don't ask ... Thanks Brett

Sorry Brett. I was a little thrown off by your trying to explain that they weren't technically high numbers. It led me to believe that you were more focused on the "high number" thing, rather than why "high numbers" generally carry a premium. If I offended, I apologize.

[ncinin]

I may be wrong but I believe one of George Verchek's SCD acticles about Lionel Carter mentioned he had a letter from one of the hobby heavyweights of the day dated in July 1961 mentioning that the second series of 1961 Fleer showed up in their town.

He mentioned Cy Young was in a suit instead of a baseball uniform.

I read that somehwere over the years but I believe it was an article about Carter.