View Single Post
  #18  
Old 12-02-2020, 11:16 AM
jchcollins's Avatar
jchcollins jchcollins is offline
J0hn Collin$
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: NC
Posts: 3,258
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malibu39 View Post
If I might ask about High Numbers in general, were they really produced in smaller quantities or harder to obtain? or is it a myth that gives fodder to people who want to sell them for more than Lower Numbers?
I don't know about actual production from year to year, that probably varied, but certainly in terms of distribution, yes - the high numbers were generally less available. Some years are worse than others, and in general I think some high numbers are more mythical than expensive. For example, '72 Topps aren't horrible, I don't think. The Carew is expensive, but still highly desirable Traded cards such as Morgan and Carlton aren't, really - even in nicer shape. I've never understood that. Compare that to just two years earlier, where the 1970 #712 Nolan Ryan is a card that can always be counted on to have a hefty price tag, even in midgrade and lower - (as well as the #660 Bench).

Besides the infamous '52 Topps set, I think most collectors would agree that the '66 and '67 sets have the toughest high numbers. Even commons there in nice shape can go for fairly ridiculous prices. But compare those to say, 1961 or 1963 Topps - and the earlier cards aren't really that bad. Even the '61 Topps All Stars for the most part aren't super expensive, and they are all high numbers.
__________________
Postwar stars & HOF'ers.

Last edited by jchcollins; 12-02-2020 at 11:22 AM.
Reply With Quote