1963 topps 6th and 7th series prices

[jchcollins]

I think it largely doesn't matter. People have been calling the high numbers rare if not SP's for certain sets - and '63 is certainly one of them - forever and old habits die hard.

For example (correct me if I'm wrong), I think it was finally dispelled, & that the '66 Topps Billy Williams isn't actually an SP. But it hasn't suddenly become a cheap card in the interim since that news came out.

When I am looking for even EX-ish commons for '63 at shows - the 6th and 7th series are always like $7 and up in binders while the lower series are more like $2 or $3 in the same condition.

[Balticfox]

Are/were the 6th and 7th series of the 1963 Topps tougher to find than the 6th and 7th series of the surrounding years?

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Are/were the 6th and 7th series of the 1963 Topps tougher to find than the 6th and 7th series of the surrounding years?

63 highs are not that tough. Harder than 64 or 65, but way easier than 61 or 62, or 66 and 67.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[stkuhl]

I would agree that the 63s are not super tough to find. It did seem like the 63 6th series was a little harder to track down than the 7th series. As Al mentioned, the 64 and 65 high numbers were fairly easy to find but as everyone knows the 66s and 67s are a bear to complete.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

63 highs are not that tough. Harder than 64 or 65, but way easier than 61 or 62, or 66 and 67.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

I would agree with this for the 1963 7th series. The 1963 6th series is more difficult than the 1963 7th series or any of year's 6th series.

[BillP]

part of me thinks the 5th series is tpugher than 6 and at least 7.