Ranking high # series by degree of difficulty (and why?)

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by kailes2872

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.