1972 Topps Baseball High Numbers Pricing

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

I think Phil got the answers he wanted, so I hope he won't mind if I take this thread off-course.

I think if you want to buy a card, you should be prepared to pay the market price for it. If you set a budget of $60 for a $90 card, you are going to end up with either a crappy card or no card. And while you are waiting patiently for a magic deal, the card you passed up at $90 is going up, getting farther out of range.

Shaking your fist at the market is not going to make prices come down. Certain cards are expensive for a reason. You just need to accept that and spend your money.



Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Either that or decide it's not worth it, and move on to something else.

Dealer's choice!

[jchcollins]

They are definitely more expensive than they used to be. I started a '72 set about 3-4 years ago, and am about halfway done. Nice high numbers on eBay used to could be had in the $10 range if I remember, not so much anymore. I just paid $20 for a minty Rick Dempsey RC, which was probably too much - but the card caught my eye the other day and I was rendered helpless.

[deweyinthehall]

I was fortunate to complete my set back in 1992 or so and I think most of the NM Hi's were between $2 and $3 each for commons. The Dempsey was one of the last 2 or 3 I needed (last one was Pagan IA) and I think the guy charged me maybe 6 or 7 bucks THEN. Right now I'm starting a 1966 set, so it more than evens out in the long-run...

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by deweyinthehall

I was fortunate to complete my set back in 1992 or so and I think most of the NM Hi's were between $2 and $3 each for commons. The Dempsey was one of the last 2 or 3 I needed (last one was Pagan IA) and I think the guy charged me maybe 6 or 7 bucks THEN. Right now I'm starting a 1966 set, so it more than evens out in the long-run...

Even if '72 highs feel expensive, I have a feeling they will never touch the level of insanity that '67 now has achieved. Those high number cards might be the end of me. $100 and up for VG copies of players in some cases you have never heard of. Oh, and then there are those two very popular horizontal rookie cards...

[rjackson44]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Even if '72 highs feel expensive, I have a feeling they will never touch the level of insanity that '67 now has achieved. Those high number cards might be the end of me. $100 and up for VG copies of players in some cases you have never heard of. Oh, and then there are those two very popular horizontal rookie cards...

hi john omg agree

[Gmoney328]

I’m going to resurrect this thread. I was 2 years old in 1972, so I obviously don’t remember collecting these. I’ve read a few places that 526-787 were all released at the same time. So basically the last two series. Anyone remember if this was true, and if so, why would 659-787 have such a premium over 526-658?

[Exhibitman]

I dunno that's accurate. I recall never seeing a high # in a kid's collection until a few years later when my aunt found one at a garage sale and bought it for me. They just weren't around us kids in NYC or LA.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Gmoney328

I’m going to resurrect this thread. I was 2 years old in 1972, so I obviously don’t remember collecting these. I’ve read a few places that 526-787 were all released at the same time. So basically the last two series. Anyone remember if this was true, and if so, why would 659-787 have such a premium over 526-658?

I have a (probable) theoretical explanation.

As has been said, usually when people have a box full of 1972 Topps, there's a whole bunch of cards from all across the various series, but it stops dead with no high numbers, or just a scant few.

Since retailers would begin stocking their card areas with the newly-released football, basketball and hockey cards as the season waned (knocking baseball to the back burner), my thought is they may have ordered/received (for instance) a single box of the high series cards and would fill the semi-high series box (that was already on the shelf) with them as needed.

Something along those lines.

It would now be a single box containing multiple series (I have never gotten over the fact that "series" is a zero plural. I want it to sound pluralized like "serieses"!!), so in hindsight people might think they were both issued at the same time.