1967 Topps high # "unofficial" price guide

[Harliduck]

Originally Posted by glynparson

There are several I would buy every copy you can get me at some of those prices.

Me too. I have built two 67 sets in the last 3 years and auctions and set breaks are really competitive. Most of those seem like some of the VG+ stale BIN prices honestly. If this is as you said "see that price grab it" then yes, absolutely. I've never seen a Belanger at that price but I haven't had to look in about a year...THANK GOODNESS...lol.

I think it needs to be said that prices are pretty strong on some of the 6th Series cards as well. Shoendists and McCarver come to mind...very auction competitive...

[Rich Klein]

Red S and Tim M are higher priced for 2 reasons

1) I think they are legit harder in that series

2) They are both popular Cardinals and for whatever reason the 6th series did NOT hit the St Louis area in 1967 -- but the 7th series was released in much larger than expected quantities for a final series. I suspect the 7th series has something to do with the Cardinals coasting to the NL Pennant and then the World Series win versus the Red Sox (probably the last time I ever rooted for the Red Sox other than 75 vs the Reds)

Yes, anything is possible with the 67 Hi series and yes I bet some of the "Tougher" cards are cheap at the listed price but that list approaches realty for the most part.

[Harliduck]

Rich...great stuff and thanks for that info, makes a lot of sense.

There is a trend, especially in commons, for certain years for certain teams to carry a slight premium -

1964 - Mets
1968 - Tigers
1969 - Mets

I am sure there are more but 67 in Cardinals in general would probably make that list. Crazy to learn an entire market didn't get a series of cards. No different than my childhood with 75 Topps...I didn't see a large card until a show in the late 80s...all we had were mini's. And those dreaded OPeeCHee cards (I lived close to the border north of Seattle)...we hated them..ripped them up and threw them out...haha...I still have a few beaters in my childhood collection from the late 70's....

Thanks again for that...I love that info

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by Harliduck

Rich...great stuff and thanks for that info, makes a lot of sense.

There is a trend, especially in commons, for certain years for certain teams to carry a slight premium -

1964 - Mets
1968 - Tigers
1969 - Mets

I am sure there are more but 67 in Cardinals in general would probably make that list. Crazy to learn an entire market didn't get a series of cards. No different than my childhood with 75 Topps...I didn't see a large card until a show in the late 80s...all we had were mini's. And those dreaded OPeeCHee cards (I lived close to the border north of Seattle)...we hated them..ripped them up and threw them out...haha...I still have a few beaters in my childhood collection from the late 70's....

Thanks again for that...I love that info

Don't you mean 62 Mets The only interesting thing about 64 Mets is ALL the high numbers they have. Oh and the Tim Harkness #45 card is far easier than Amado Samuel (#128)

Rich

[Harliduck]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

Don't you mean 62 Mets The only interesting thing about 64 Mets is ALL the high numbers they have. Oh and the Tim Harkness #45 card is far easier than Amado Samuel (#128)

Rich

I'm putting my first 1962 Topps together now, and I haven't noticed any premium on Mets...yet?

I am on my second 64 set...I have a few cards in my notes on common cards like -

#95 George Altman
#345 Frank Thomas
#361 Jay Hook
#422 Jack Fisher
#447 Mike Joyce
#442 Pumpsie Green
#457 Jessie Gonder

All seem to carry a premium over non Met commons...just my observations? There is no doubt on #477 Joyce...this must be a SP card.

Sorry to hijack the thread a little. BlackandGold...I do believe I have some VGish 67 highs sitting in my "lot" boxes. I will see what I have and PM you later in the week when I get back home.

[blackandgold]

Originally Posted by Harliduck

I'm putting my first 1962 Topps together now, and I haven't noticed any premium on Mets...yet?

I am on my second 64 set...I have a few cards in my notes on common cards like -

#95 George Altman
#345 Frank Thomas
#361 Jay Hook
#422 Jack Fisher
#447 Mike Joyce
#442 Pumpsie Green
#457 Jessie Gonder

All seem to carry a premium over non Met commons...just my observations? There is no doubt on #477 Joyce...this must be a SP card.

Sorry to hijack the thread a little. BlackandGold...I do believe I have some VGish 67 highs sitting in my "lot" boxes. I will see what I have and PM you later in the week when I get back home.

Hey John,
No worries! Thanks for checking for me, I really appreciate it.
Todd, let me know if you decide to sell. What 61's do you need, and what condition are you looking for? I don't have a lot of them, but I'll be happy to check for you.
Matt

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by Harliduck

I'm putting my first 1962 Topps together now, and I haven't noticed any premium on Mets...yet?

I am on my second 64 set...I have a few cards in my notes on common cards like -

#95 George Altman
#345 Frank Thomas
#361 Jay Hook
#422 Jack Fisher
#447 Mike Joyce
#442 Pumpsie Green
#457 Jessie Gonder

All seem to carry a premium over non Met commons...just my observations? There is no doubt on #477 Joyce...this must be a SP card.

Sorry to hijack the thread a little. BlackandGold...I do believe I have some VGish 67 highs sitting in my "lot" boxes. I will see what I have and PM you later in the week when I get back home.

Interesting, when I lived in NY I dealt very heavily in Mets cards and this makes sense but none of these were super popular compared to 62 or 69. My memory does seem to indicate these are slightly harder in their series than other 64's. I'll throw Harkness in there as well.

Rich

[toppcat]

I'm just glad to have a complete 67 set-definitely needs some upgrades, although I think the high # SP's are in decent shape. I plan to go through it and put it into a better album (and sheets) after Xmas. The only card I remember paying a lot for, other than Seaver, was the Red Sox team card but I bought it a while ago and can't remember the exact price anymore.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Guys, sorry for intruding on your thread. I am really enjoying reading it. For quite a while I have heard collectors discuss how tough the '67 highs can be. This thread is about as good as anything I have read on the subject. At least one of you referenced hunting for highs in the VG range. Is that about the overall grade of your '67 sets, or do you build the rest of the set a little higher grade compared to the highs? (I didn't know if elements of the rest of the set were tough like the highs.)

I ask all of this because in the next year or so I will be looking for a new set to start. Along with '61 and possibly '66, '67 is on my list of possibilities. Gotta polish off '54 or '65 first though.

[blackandgold]

Originally Posted by Harliduck

Me too. I have built two 67 sets in the last 3 years and auctions and set breaks are really competitive. Most of those seem like some of the VG+ stale BIN prices honestly. If this is as you said "see that price grab it" then yes, absolutely. I've never seen a Belanger at that price but I haven't had to look in about a year...THANK GOODNESS...lol.

I think it needs to be said that prices are pretty strong on some of the 6th Series cards as well. Shoendists and McCarver come to mind...very auction competitive...

I updated my want list last night, and I am done with 1-533, except for Mantle, but still need 42 high numbers, including Seaver. I checked some cards on Ebay last night, and got sticker shock on some of them, and noticed that many had no VG examples, which is what I'm after. Time to do some searching.
I know I will eventually finish this off, but it looks like it may take a little longer than I thought.

[bbcard1]

Originally Posted by blackandgold

I updated my want list last night, and I am done with 1-533, except for Mantle, but still need 42 high numbers, including Seaver. I checked some cards on Ebay last night, and got sticker shock on some of them, and noticed that many had no VG examples, which is what I'm after. Time to do some searching.
I know I will eventually finish this off, but it looks like it may take a little longer than I thought.

There were some low priced 67 highs on BST and they didn't last long. I have a bunch of dupes, but I'll probably sell them in a lot with my lows, lest I be stuck with the lows. Still stuck at 2 for the set...

535 Donn Clenendon
586 Manny Jimenez

The 61s are the ones that are killing me right now. I am trying to finish it (birth year set) but it's a grind.