After the '52 High Nos. What is the Scarcest High No. Series

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

August 22nd, 2007, 5:14 pm #1

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.
Quote
Like
Share

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

August 22nd, 2007, 5:28 pm #2

PETER C

Try the 1949 Leaf scarce series.

Start by reading my 1949 Leaf BB article in the OLD CARDBOARD (OC) magazine....or, if you don't subscribe to OC, then
just read more posts on Net54....the scarcity of the Leaf 2nd series cards (otherwise known as Short Prints) have been
discussed numerous times on this forum.

The 49 cards in this 2nd series of Leaf's are an order of magnitude tougher than the 97 Hi@s in the 1952 Topps issue.

And, just as tough as these Leaf SP's, if not tougher, are the 36 cards of the 1949 Bowman PCL set.

TED Z
Last edited by tedzan on August 22nd, 2007, 5:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 2nd, 2006, 3:42 am

August 22nd, 2007, 8:21 pm #3

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 might just be on a run of hard luck, but I've found the '50 Bowman low numbers to be a lot tougher than some of the other "scarcer" series cards. They are certainly tougher than high numbers in '51 Bowman, or '55, '66 or '67 Topps, and the 2nd series of '57 Topps.
Agreed on the Leaf sp's- at least you can find '52 hi's, you can get stuck forever on finding Leafs in any condition.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 30th, 2004, 2:01 am

August 23rd, 2007, 10:56 pm #4

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've had a theory for years that the true test of a scarce series is how difficult it is to obtain the cards in nice shape. The 1950 Bowman low numbers, for instance, seem way tougher to find in nice shape than the rest of the cards in the set. 1967 Topps high numbers, on the other hand, are often found in great shape. Back in the 70s, a collector once showed me an incredible stash of '67 high numbers, all in seemingly perfect condition. Seeing a bunch of supposedly rare cards in great shape makes me very suspicious. It seems to me they were not short-printed, but rather had a limited distribution during the season when they were printed ...
Quote
Like
Share

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

August 23rd, 2007, 11:49 pm #5

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.
Although the '75 minis came out in one series, their distribution was limited to only parts of the U.S., they seem difficult to find in nice condition. Much more difficult to find than the '75 Topps regular set.

Peter C.
Quote
Like
Share

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

August 23rd, 2007, 11:58 pm #6

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.
If you stick with Topps, the 61 highs were once thought to be tougher than they are now. Those 67's (and also 66) are tough because of some shortprints but are plentiful enoguh overall. I searched some Topps Hi #'s completed listings on Ebay and here is what I found (includes lots, singles, etc. I just counted "hits"):

52T = 34
53T = 83
57T (mid) = 100
59T = 316
61T = 163
62T = 100
63T = 132
64T = 108
65T = 136
66T = 124
67T = 148

1960 returned too many hits, it picked up all 1960's highs. Very unscientific but it certainly shows how tough 52's are in comparison to other Topps high #'s. But if you want NM cards, the 62, 63, 70 and 71's are going to be harder because of the colored borders.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 11th, 2004, 1:39 pm

August 24th, 2007, 12:08 am #7

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.
good post dave, with the topps hi ,they are a lot easier w/bay then the old show and scd days. i found that completing the 56,58,64,65 were pretty easy pre-ebay because of the hi #'s not being not hard to find at all. where as i had ahard time getting the hi's on 61-66 and 67.
Quote
Like
Share

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

August 24th, 2007, 12:17 am #8

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

My experience collecting 67T Hi#s and helping others with their wantlists boils down to these 17 cards being the toughest....

Barker
Boswell
Cardwell
Clendenon
Ferrera
Krausse
Red Sox Team card
Rojas
Schneider
Shannon
Shaw/Sutherland Rookies

All of the above 11 cards happen to occupy the same row on the Hi# sheet....interesting ?

Also, I'll add....

Sandy Alomar
Jim Bunning
Norm Cash
Rocky Colavito
Wes Westrum
White Sox team card.

TED Z
Quote
Like
Share

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

August 24th, 2007, 12:18 am #9

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.
Some 67's were fairly tough for me and cost a lot more than others (see my post below on 1967 Hugh Number uncut sheets) and not everything corresponded to the guide's SP listings. I gave up on the Topps sets prior to 67 so can't say for certain how difficult the 66 SP's are. Some like the 66 Choo Choo Coleman were going for crazy money last year (one in VG-EX went for $90!) but have leveled. I looked for months for a reasonable one, then found two last year with the same dealer at Hofstra (Joe Esposito) who let me pick one for $5 in EX/MT. I left the other one behind for someone else to buy. But some 67 high's in EX/MT were $40 or $50 when I finished off the set with very competitive bidding. Others were $3., including some SP's.
Quote
Like
Share

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

August 24th, 2007, 12:26 am #10

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,

Thanks for your list. Apparently the '57 Topps mid-high series is pretty difficult to find.

Peter C.
Quote
Like
Share