Joined: July 14th, 2004, 9:01 pm

August 24th, 2007, 1:30 am #11

Most people would consider the '52 Topps high numbers to be pretty scarce. How about after these high numbers? Out of the other Topps sets which high number series is the next scarcest? Perhaps you don't agree with the '52 Topps high numbers as being the scarcest.

Peter C.
I know you asked about Topps, but 1965 OPC hi-numbers are quite tough. For those who use pop reports as a gauge, the numbers substantiate this. And for those who may not know, 1974 is a very tough OPC year. I realize low OPC demand plays into the low pop numbers.

off tangent...I've never seen a 1965 unopened OPC wax pack, one collector remembers having three about 15 years ago. However, I nobody I know has or has seen a 1969 OPC pack.

"Take your life in your own hands and what happens? A terrible thing: no one to blame." -- Erica Jong
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 12:23 am

August 24th, 2007, 2:46 am #12

Most people would consider the '52 Topps high numbers to be pretty scarce. How about after these high numbers? Out of the other Topps sets which high number series is the next scarcest? Perhaps you don't agree with the '52 Topps high numbers as being the scarcest.

Peter C.
57 Topps mids are pretty tough. And I didn't search but some Bowman hi's must be more difficult than these.

OPC is tough, especially in nice shape, as well but can they really be said to include high numbers?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 14th, 2004, 9:01 pm

August 24th, 2007, 3:00 am #13

Most people would consider the '52 Topps high numbers to be pretty scarce. How about after these high numbers? Out of the other Topps sets which high number series is the next scarcest? Perhaps you don't agree with the '52 Topps high numbers as being the scarcest.

Peter C.
Not sure which OPCs were issued in series, but fairly certain that 1965 was. Maybe 1970-1974 also.

"Take your life in your own hands and what happens? A terrible thing: no one to blame." -- Erica Jong
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 2nd, 2004, 2:34 am

August 27th, 2007, 7:53 pm #14

Most people would consider the '52 Topps high numbers to be pretty scarce. How about after these high numbers? Out of the other Topps sets which high number series is the next scarcest? Perhaps you don't agree with the '52 Topps high numbers as being the scarcest.

Peter C.
For Topps, 1961 and 1962 hands down.

Scott
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 6th, 2005, 9:38 pm

August 27th, 2007, 8:18 pm #15

Most people would consider the '52 Topps high numbers to be pretty scarce. How about after these high numbers? Out of the other Topps sets which high number series is the next scarcest? Perhaps you don't agree with the '52 Topps high numbers as being the scarcest.

Peter C.
DAVE H

The 1949 Bowman regular issue 108 Hi #s (#145 - 240 + the 12 variations) are just as tough as the 1952 Topps 97 Hi #s.

Especially, the 1949 Bowman's #145 -180, which are even tougher than the other 72 Hi #s in this set.

TED Z

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 21st, 2006, 1:24 am

August 27th, 2007, 9:05 pm #16

Most people would consider the '52 Topps high numbers to be pretty scarce. How about after these high numbers? Out of the other Topps sets which high number series is the next scarcest? Perhaps you don't agree with the '52 Topps high numbers as being the scarcest.

Peter C.
Ted,

Thanks for explaining to me why I'm having difficulties finding the the Duke Snider in the '49 Bowman High Nos.

Peter C.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 12th, 2007, 3:42 am

August 27th, 2007, 9:54 pm #17

Most people would consider the '52 Topps high numbers to be pretty scarce. How about after these high numbers? Out of the other Topps sets which high number series is the next scarcest? Perhaps you don't agree with the '52 Topps high numbers as being the scarcest.

Peter C.
...and why it's very very pricey when you do find one.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 31st, 2003, 1:44 am

August 27th, 2007, 11:17 pm #18

Most people would consider the '52 Topps high numbers to be pretty scarce. How about after these high numbers? Out of the other Topps sets which high number series is the next scarcest? Perhaps you don't agree with the '52 Topps high numbers as being the scarcest.

Peter C.
1957 Topps 4th series is a killer. The Koufax in that series is especially hard to find in high grade.

Frank
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 6th, 2005, 9:38 pm

August 28th, 2007, 1:04 am #19

Most people would consider the '52 Topps high numbers to be pretty scarce. How about after these high numbers? Out of the other Topps sets which high number series is the next scarcest? Perhaps you don't agree with the '52 Topps high numbers as being the scarcest.

Peter C.
PETER....PAUL

Perhaps, the reason you can't find Snider cards too easy, is because I have four of them. here is my most unusual one.

An extremely rare SLATE background (color error) example of "The Duke"......Gee, is that a great smile....or what ?

This card (#226), as the Paige (#224) and Ashburn (#214), are very tough to find....not only because they are highly
sought after HOFer/rookie cards.....but, you have to appreciate that the 1949 Bowman Hi# series (108 cards) are really
tough to find.

And, because of this scarcity factor, they have become very expensive.....it boils down to the old law of "supply vs demand".

TED Z



Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 25th, 2008, 4:56 am

April 3rd, 2009, 5:01 am #20

DAVE H

The 1949 Bowman regular issue 108 Hi #s (#145 - 240 + the 12 variations) are just as tough as the 1952 Topps 97 Hi #s.

Especially, the 1949 Bowman's #145 -180, which are even tougher than the other 72 Hi #s in this set.

TED Z
What are the 12 1949 bowman variations
Quote
Like
Share