Another theaory on why High Number series are rare

[darkhorse9]

The usual explanation is production was lower since orders were down from stores that still had earlier series cards. Kids going back to school, football season coming yada, yada, yada

But thumbing through my binders one thing jumped out at me. It seems like all the superstar cards are in the lower series groups. They front loaded them to get kids interest right off the bat.

That could mean that kids already got the cards of the players they wanted so they had no interest in buying more packs just to get journeymen they never heard of, managers and rookies (Remember, few people cared about rookie cards back then). How often did a player - who was a superstar at the time - appear in a sixth or seventh series?

So it may very well have been a self-fulfilling prophesy by Topps to grab all the cash early and then move on from there.

[Elberson]

that’s a good one, I’m working on 61 Topps now but I’m always pissed spending 20-30 for a nobody common card lol

[deweyinthehall]

Well, with the exception of 1952, Mantle was never in high series I don't think. And just off the top of my head, neither were Mays, Koufax, Aaron....

[cesarcap]

How about the All Star cards in 60 and 61? Those should have been in demand after the seasons the M&M boys had? But when were the released? If it was after school started or after the World Series then the reduced demand makes sense to me.

[Tere1071]

Some years of high numbers are easier to find than others, but like amny other sets finding them centered can be frustrating. For example, I am assembling complete Topps sets for 1968 and 1969 and I have no problems finding high numbers for those years. I am also putting a 1967 Topps Baseball "set" together for numbers 1-533 because some of the numbers in that series are harder and more expensive to obtain; the same goes for the 1966 issue as well.

For those of us who complete sets that include high numbers, let's share which card series that include high numbers are easier or more difficult to complete.

Where I grew up in southeastern Los Angeles County we weren't aware of high numbers. I started collecting with greater frequency beginning in 1970 and the corner liquor store began carrying football around September where we made that switch and basketball followed around November. In 1974, that liquor store put out a box of high number packs from 1970 which we purchased, but we didn't have any knowledge of them being harder to get than others.

Phil aka Tere1071

Currently assembling lower grade Topps Baseball sets from 1967-1969

[NiceDocter]

Right off the bat I think of Brooks Robinson 1967 Topps and of course the Seaver rookie ( but that would have been speculative).

[tjisonline]

Originally Posted by deweyinthehall

Well, with the exception of 1952, Mantle was never in high series I don't think. And just off the top of my head, neither were Mays, Koufax, Aaron....

Only 1 other high Mantle base card I can think of is his 1969 5th series . It was 500 in the 664-card set. 7 total series in that set. Most stars ended up in higher series near / at end of their careers. E.g. Clemente

[Kevvyg1026]

Certainly, in the early 60s, the high series' have more speculative cards (rookie stars, etc) but they do have all-star and MVP cards, which obviously display some superstars. And, by the 70s, some of the interest in the previous decade's superstars (Mays, Aaron, Gibson, Banks, Rose, Yaz) might have been fading (from a consumer interest standpoint) and turning to players like Bench, Munson, Garvey, Reggie Jax, etc. Certainly, as 1970 cards illustrate, the semi high and high series cards, can be populated with both fading stars and up and coming stars.

Moreover, from what I can tell by looking at ads in baseball magazines, many times these series were available in June or July from major card distributors.
So, my opinion is that Topps simply printed smaller quantities of these series, anticipating lower demand from retailers and consumers in mid-to-late summer.

[nolemmings]

I can't agree with the OP's premise. Frankly, it would almost seem a better strategy for Topps to hold back on a few of the superstars until the end just so kids would continue the chase. Also, set and team collectors, which I believe far outnumbered those who just wanted star players, would trudge on regardless.

FWIW, McCovey was frequently in the high-numbered or next to high numbered series.