Sunday, January 22, 2017

Sunday Edition - 70's Hi Numbers


1970's Topps Hi Numbers

I just placed a rather large order on "Just Commons" for some 1976 and 1977 Topps needs (and a good number of Wallach cards obviously).  I mentioned in a previous post my intent to complete '74, '76, and '77 Topps this year.  That will give me a run of complete sets from '74 to '91.  I legitimately want to complete these sets, but I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't rather try to attack an older one.  But I'm not.  They're just too daunting at present.  The remaining single series sets I want to complete shouldn't be too hard, and will provide a lot of opportunities to break out my red sharpie and start drawing "x's" in my need list book. 


I've come to hate the term "hi number."  Working on the 1970 set has hammered home the concept to me.  But it also made me curious as to which sets put the highest premium on a hi series card. So I looked at each Topps set going backwards from '73, listed them in order of how expensive their respective high numbers are.  The list below shows the number of cards in the final series, and what my old price guide says commons are "worth" versus commons in the first series of the same set.  I'd use the values, but I've never seen much correlation between a cards listed "value" and what it actually costs to buy.  And as if hi series weren't already enough of a pain in the ass, '71 had an uneven print run with 66 double printed cards and 44 single printed cards on the sheets.  I went with the price for the single prints for that set.

1. 1970 Topps: #634-720, 87 cards ................................ 13.3x more than first series
2. 1972 Topps: 657-787, 130 cards ................................. 12x more 
3. (tie) 1967 Topps: 534-609, 75 cards ............................. 10x
3. (tie) 1966 Topps: 523-598, 75 cards ............................. 10x
3. (tie) 1961 Topps: 523-589, 65 cards ............................. 10x
6. 1971 Topps: 644-752, 110 cards (66 SP's) ................... 8x 
7. 1973 Topps: 529-660, 130 cards ................................... 6x  
8. 1964 Topps: 523-587, 65 cards ....................................... 5x
9. 1952 Topps: 311-407, 97 cards ....................................... 4.2x
10. (tie) 1965 Topps: 371-598, 228 cards ........................... 4x
10. (tie) 1962 Topps: 523-598, 75 cards ............................. 4x
12. (tie) 1960 Topps: 507-572, 65 cards ............................. 3.75x
12. (tie) 1963 Topps: 523-576, 54 cards ............................. 3.75x
14. 1953 Topps: 221-280, 60 cards ..................................... 3.3x
15. 1959 Topps: 507-572, 65 cards ..................................... 2.5x
16. 1955 Topps: 161-210, 50 cards ..................................... 2.5x
17. (tie) 1968 Topps: 458-598, 141 cards ............................ 2x
17. (tie) 1969 Topps: 589-664, 76 cards .............................. 2x
19. 1956 Topps: 261-340, 80 cards ...................................... 1.2x
20. 1954 Topps: 76-250, 175 cards ...................................... same
21. 1957 Topps: 353-407, 54 cards ...................................... 20% less
22. 1958 Topps: 111-495, 384 cards .................................... 33% less

I'd be remiss not to immediately point out a few errors on the list above.  Most striking in 1952.  I've been slowly building a low grade copy of that set for nearly a decade now.  I've never seen a hi numbered card sell for much under a $100, and I'm talking copies with glasses and lipstick drawn on players with multiple hole punches and large section of corners torn off.  A typical mid series card sells for $3-6, Hi for $100-150.  Just another example of why price guides are closer to being porn for card dealers than actual reflections of the market.  Also, a few of the 50's sets at the bottom have other mid-series that are more expensive, but nothing that far out of line with the rest of the set.

What I take away from the list, is that the 1970's sets are well represented at the top.  Which supports my theory that they're a bigger pain in the ass to deal with than a lot of the sets that came before them.  It wasn't just recency bias from dealing with the 1970 set.  Below is what I deem to be the ten most annoying hi-numbered cards from the 1970's Topps sets.  The rankings are a combination of price and my subjective "worthiness" of the card.  Feel free to disagree.


Top 10 Most Annoying 1970's Hi Number Cards


1. 1970 Nolan Ryan: This card is probably the most expensive hi number card to found from the 70's hi numbers.  I'm not a Ryan guy, and it's not his rookie, so having to shell out for it was a really tough pill for me to swallow.  Mercifully, after two years of following all the listings on eBay, I got lucky and didn't have to blow three months of my card budget on a decent copy.  In fairness to the card, it is a really nice looking shot of Ryan in a Mets uniform, and if you believe the card following a season (as I do) is the correct one to document it, this is the appropriate card for the '69 Mets World Series.


2. 1970 Johnny Bench: Like Ryan, this is the third card of Bench, and second solo card.  In addition to being a Hall of Famer, Bench won the NL MVP in 1970, and as collector's over 35 may remember, back in the 1980's, collecting the cards of MVP's from the year they won the award, used to be a very popular thing.  My feelings about Johnny Bench are pretty neutral, and I think the card itself is kind of bland (and what was at his feet that demanded they crop them out for all that extra sky?), so this was a very difficult card to justify paying for.  Were it card number 60, I probably could have found one in the neighborhood of $5, but since it's 660, it ended up being one of the more expensive cards I've ever bought.  My copy has a pen mark on the front that helped ease the pain to my wallet, but it still hurt.


3. 1973 Mike Schmidt:  The price guides say this card is less expensive than the 1970 Ryan.  That may be true for graded copies in good condition.  In the world of well-worn "raw" cards, not so much.  I wanted this card for thirty years before I finally owned one.  That's long before my set building days.  I finally found a copy I could afford because it's in really rough shape (as you can see) and it came as part of a lot of about 150 other '73 Topps cards.  Despite costing me more than the two cards above it on this list, it bothered me less, due it's iconic status as the rookie card of the best third baseman of  all-time, and it includes another great player in Ron Cey.

(not in hand, eBay image)

4. 1970 Rookie Stars: I'd never heard of any of these three pitchers.  After looking them up, I don't feel bad about that.  None of them ever made an All-Star team, the longest career was 7 seasons, and none of them ever won more than 9 games in a season.  Johnson (28-34), Klimskowski (8-12) and Zepp (10-5) aren't exactly a Koosman/Ryan rookie combo.  Yet this card is one of the most expensive in the set.  The cheapest copy currently available online (that I can find), is $18.  That's actually cheaper than any that were available a week ago.  If anyone can explain why this card demands such a premium, please fill me in.


5. 1971 Dusty Baker/Don Baylor:  This is a card I bought about twenty years ago as a young teen when my focus was on rookie cards.  It's really in very nice shape.  I don't remember what I paid, but given when I bought it, it had to be under $10.  Lucky break for me.  If you decide to build 1971 Topps good luck finding one for a reasonable price.  While Baker and Baylor are both very easy to like, and it's cool to have them on the same rookie card, the price it demands is still hard to justify.

(not in hand, eBay image)

6. 1972 Rod Carew: I love Rod Carew, and this is a great looking card, but my goodwill only goes so far.  I don't own one of these yet, but just the idea of it irritates me.  In fact, the entire 1972 set irritates me.  It's obviously awesome to look at design wise, but it's huge at 787 cards, and that extends to the hi numbers (130 of them!) and they're the 2nd most disproportionate hi number series in price there is to be found.


7. 1970 Ron Santo:  I'm not a Ron Santo fan.  I'm the opposite of one in fact.  This is another low grade warrior.  The price guides don't think much of it in great shape, but the low grade copies are tough to find under $20 on eBay.  As I narrowed down my '70 need list, the Santo is one I sort of ignored and didn't really think much about.  I figured I'd easily find one for $4 or $5.  Not so much.  I thought strongly about ranking this card a lot higher, but I'm sure there's some recency bias as I just had to pay what I deemed to be entirely too much for one.

(not in hand, eBay image)

8. 1971 Topps Richie Allen:  I get it, it's a hi number and one of the coolest looking cards you'll ever see (the pose alone is great, but that foul pole and outfield pavilion put it over the top).  But it's still a Richie Allen card from the middle of his career, and great as he was, he's not a Hall of Famer.  And even if you think he should be (I do), he's not, and non-HOF'er, non-rookie cards, shouldn't cost this much.  I'm not looking forward to coughing up for one of these, though I really want one.

(not in hand, eBay image)

9. 1973 Dwight Evans: The '73 set is, mercifully, short on HOF'ers in it's hi numbers (beyond Schmidt) obviously.  I think a side-effect of this is people overpay for the non-HOF all-stars.  Like Dwight Evans.  A well-worn copy of this shouldn't demand a Hamilton, but the market place disagrees with me.


10. 1970 Seattle Pilots: Like everyone else, I love "Ball Four."  But I don't love over-paying for 1970 Seattle Pilot's cards.  Can you imagine what a hi number Bouton in a Pilots uniform would demand?  Team cards in general are way too expensive (I blame all of you team collector's), and this one is the poster child for that trend.

(not in hand, eBay image)

Honorable Mention: 1972 Carlton Traded: Carlton is one of three Hall of Famer's to appear with the goofy black "TRADED" stamp in the '72 hi numbers.  The price guide says they should cost about the same, but they're not all created equal as far as I'm concerned.  Joe Morgan strikes a cool pose kneeling on his bat, and appears as a Red for the first time.  That's a card worth coughing up a little extra for.  Frank Robinson shows up on a Dodger card (I believe for the only time) and is shown in a neat swing follow through shot.  Carlton gets the generic sternum up school picture shot that Topps always uses for pitchers.  And no offense to Steve, but he's has what you might call a face made for radio.  Perhaps the best lefty of all-time, Topps should have found a better way to showcase him.

So these are ten that you have to look forward to if you plan on taking on 1970's sets.  If you've run into an

1 comment:

  1. The 73 High Series clist (unmarked & centered) and the 71 Dick Allen (it's an SP) are the 2 hardest cards in the early 70's, imo. As a Mike Schmidt collector, I'm in physical pain to view the condition of #3!

    ReplyDelete