NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
T206s on Ebay
Pre-WWII Cards
Post WWII Cards
Vintage Memorabilia
Babe Ruth Cards
Ty Cobb Cards
Lou Gehrig Cards
Mickey Mantle Cards
Goudey Cards
Bowman Cards
T205s on Ebay
Tobacco "T" Cards
Caramel "E" Cards
Vintage Baseball Postcards
Football Cards on Ebay
Exhibit Cards
Strip Cards
Baking Cards
Sporting News
Playball Cards on Ebay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Postwar Sportscard Forums > Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-11-2019, 01:50 PM
Bocabirdman's Avatar
Bocabirdman Bocabirdman is offline
Mike
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Rat Mouth
Posts: 2,504
Default 1965 Topps High Numbers Question

Hi Guys,

What number do 1965 Topps Hi Numbers start with? I looked around and different sources sort of fudge it by saying the Seventh Series. I know the # 523 Brumley is the first of the Short Prints. Is THAT where the Hi# start? Hell, I even found an article that cited 371-598 as Hi Numbers Is there really such a thing as a 1965 Semi-Hi Number? If so, what qualifies for that?

Last edited by Bocabirdman; 10-11-2019 at 01:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-11-2019, 01:56 PM
jchcollins's Avatar
jchcollins jchcollins is offline
J0hn C0llin$
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: NC
Posts: 1,457
Default

I'm not 100% sure, but the 7th series checklist starts with #507. I would assume that is the official start of the highs...
__________________
HOF postwar singles. Preference on mid-to lower technical grades with eye appeal.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-11-2019, 01:58 PM
Bocabirdman's Avatar
Bocabirdman Bocabirdman is offline
Mike
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Rat Mouth
Posts: 2,504
Default

I am beginning to think that might be it....or it could be dealer's choice.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-11-2019, 02:12 PM
jchcollins's Avatar
jchcollins jchcollins is offline
J0hn C0llin$
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: NC
Posts: 1,457
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bocabirdman View Post
I am beginning to think that might be it....or it could be dealer's choice.
If a dealer is trying to pass off a semi-high as a high...well ok, but that's kind of BS. There is a defined starting point for all of them. That being said, '65 high numbers aren't really notorious as difficult ones, so as long as you are not buying like uber high-end graded cards, I would not think they are going to be dramatically more expensive for commons.
__________________
HOF postwar singles. Preference on mid-to lower technical grades with eye appeal.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-11-2019, 02:22 PM
Bocabirdman's Avatar
Bocabirdman Bocabirdman is offline
Mike
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Rat Mouth
Posts: 2,504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jchcollins View Post
If a dealer is trying to pass off a semi-high as a high...well ok, but that's kind of BS. There is a defined starting point for all of them. That being said, '65 high numbers aren't really notorious as difficult ones, so as long as you are not buying like uber high-end graded cards, I would not think they are going to be dramatically more expensive for commons.
I have seen some steady Centering issues with a good percentage of the Hi #s


Yes, I think that the Semi-Hi moniker is sort of a marketing ploy. However, they do seem to command SLIGHTLY more than low numbers. The Hi #/SP Premium is still not much compared to say 1967 or 1966. I am returning to the world of Topps after a decade flopping around in the Tobacco Card end of the pool. I am just trying to confirm (relearn to some extent.). Thank You for your help.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-11-2019, 02:36 PM
jchcollins's Avatar
jchcollins jchcollins is offline
J0hn C0llin$
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: NC
Posts: 1,457
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bocabirdman View Post
I have seen some steady Centering issues with a good percentage of the Hi #s


Yes, I think that the Semi-Hi moniker is sort of a marketing ploy. However, they do seem to command SLIGHTLY more than low numbers. The Hi #/SP Premium is still not much compared to say 1967 or 1966. I am returning to the world of Topps after a decade flopping around in the Tobacco Card end of the pool. I am just trying to confirm (relearn to some extent.). Thank You for your help.
To me, much of the high number hoopla is a moot point in today's tidily allocated marketplace / collecting world, where virtually any card ever produced, or at least a good 95% of them - can be at your doorstep within a week assuming you can afford it. A lot of the original drama around high numbers being difficult is that they actually were impossible to find back in the shop and show shoeleather days in the 1980's and earlier of having to go somewhere and look at tables, and in bins trying to find something. Back then, you literally couldn't find the card. It may not have been overly expensive, but some other collector beat you to it 20 minutes earlier. Today for all intents and purposes - as we all sit in our pajamas in front of the keyboard - "rare" cards simply mean they cost more if you want to pony up.
__________________
HOF postwar singles. Preference on mid-to lower technical grades with eye appeal.

Last edited by jchcollins; 10-11-2019 at 02:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-11-2019, 02:55 PM
JollyElm's Avatar
JollyElm JollyElm is online now
D@rrΣn Hu.ghΣs
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,200
Default

I have always considered #507 as the starting point to the high number series.
__________________
Check out my bucket(s). Virtually everything is available for trade:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706
http://s1226.photobucket.com/albums/ee404/JollyElm/
http://s1036.photobucket.com/user/elmjack44/library/

I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.
Casey Stengel
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-11-2019, 02:56 PM
Bocabirdman's Avatar
Bocabirdman Bocabirdman is offline
Mike
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Rat Mouth
Posts: 2,504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jchcollins View Post
To me, much of the high number hoopla is a moot point in today's tidily allocated marketplace / collecting world, where virtually any card ever produced, or at least a good 95% of them - can be at your doorstep within a week assuming you can afford it. A lot of the original drama around high numbers being difficult is that they actually were impossible to find back in the shop and show shoeleather days in the 1980's and earlier of having to go somewhere and look at tables, and in bins trying to find something. Back then, you literally couldn't find the card. It may not have been overly expensive, but some other collector beat you to it 20 minutes earlier. Today for all intents and purposes - as we all sit in our pajamas in front of the keyboard - "rare" cards simply mean they cost more if you want to pony up.
The reason I gravitated towards tobacco cards is just what of you speak. One of my favorite sets is the 1951 Red backs. I investigated eBay availability. The whole run with the two variations was available by making purchases from five vendors. Ummmm, that's not collecting. That is shopping. I have decided to fool with 1965 because it was the very first year I collected as a youth. Not sure how far I will take this latest foray into the land of Topps. I really don't want to deal with 25 3-ring binders again.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-11-2019, 03:01 PM
mckinneyj mckinneyj is offline
Jim
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: South Chatham, MA USA
Posts: 254
Default

Supposedly those numbered #371 and above were printed in slightly lesser volume than the lower numbered ones. However only the SPs (some of those from #523 on as Mike noted) really command any premium and even then not really much of one. AFAIK there is no "semi-hi" series/range.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-11-2019, 03:48 PM
jchcollins's Avatar
jchcollins jchcollins is offline
J0hn C0llin$
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: NC
Posts: 1,457
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bocabirdman View Post
Ummmm, that's not collecting. That is shopping. I have decided to fool with 1965 because it was the very first year I collected as a youth.
Good analogy. It may still be collecting, not hunting - and it IS shopping, but I would put the caveat in there that it can be very expensive shopping for vintage today, and if (like me) you never collected cards in a world where the garden variety Mickey Mantle card could be had for less than $5. It can be true "collecting" today I think for those cards when you wait to find the best example in your price range - after looking for a while, and in many cases saving up your pennies too.

My first year collecting was 1986. I was 9. I probably spent more cash then on the 35 cent wax packs then than it would take to buy an entire, bindered-NM set today, but that's just the bad luck of the era in which I came of age.

'65 Topps is a nice set. I'm now pondering whether to go after it as well as I finally now have decent Mantle base card from it for the first time in a long while...and I have the Carlton lying around somewhere at home as well.
__________________
HOF postwar singles. Preference on mid-to lower technical grades with eye appeal.

Last edited by jchcollins; 10-11-2019 at 03:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-11-2019, 03:50 PM
Bocabirdman's Avatar
Bocabirdman Bocabirdman is offline
Mike
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Rat Mouth
Posts: 2,504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mckinneyj View Post
Supposedly those numbered #371 and above were printed in slightly lesser volume than the lower numbered ones. However only the SPs (some of those from #523 on as Mike noted) really command any premium and even then not really much of one. AFAIK there is no "semi-hi" series/range.
I guess that I have always looked at the pricing for EX-ish 1965 like this....

Commons lower than #371....slightly discounted because as it is for most years (with the exception of what...1958?) there is a glut of cards. As I recall, since most of the cards were sold by Mom n Pop Shops and 5 n 10's they would stock up on cards when they first were available, in some cases missing an entire Series or two by the time they re-ordered.

Commons from #371 to 506... Regular Price...PERHAPS a quarter more than the low #s

#507-#598... Hi#s, maybe 50% more than Regular Price and Short Prints perhaps twice that.....

EX: $.75(Low).. $1 (#371-#506)....$1.50(Non-SP High)...$3 (SP). That seems to the formula as I remember it. I do not know if the pricing itself holds true these days.....
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-11-2019, 06:32 PM
jmoran19 jmoran19 is offline
member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 136
Default

Technically the high numbers start with card #523 and run thru #598. Equates to 77 unique cards when you include the 7th series CL that was also printed with the 6 series (standard topps practice in the 60's and 70's).

Below is 1/2 of the 264 card uncut sheet. It appears that rows 7 and 8 are the SP's but that can not be verified until the other half of the 264 card sheet has been analyzed as Topps usually would select 2 different rows to print once on the other half.

The final math should work out to 4 unique rows printed 3 times (132 cards) and 3 unique rows printed 4 times (132 cards).

John
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 65series7.jpg (85.2 KB, 101 views)

Last edited by jmoran19; 10-11-2019 at 06:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-11-2019, 06:32 PM
moeson moeson is online now
Howie
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NJ
Posts: 376
Default

Topps used to preview the upcoming series by including the first few cards in the then current series packs. I wonder if that was the case with 1965, especially with the 7th series checklist being numbered near the series start at #508.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-11-2019, 06:40 PM
jmoran19 jmoran19 is offline
member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 136
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moeson View Post
Topps used to preview the upcoming series by including the first few cards in the then current series packs. I wonder if that was the case with 1965, especially with the 7th series checklist being numbered near the series start at #508.
not sure if cards were included but this was common for the printed checklists from the early 60's

Last edited by jmoran19; 10-11-2019 at 06:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-11-2019, 07:32 PM
Rich Klein Rich Klein is offline
Rich Klein
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Plano Tx
Posts: 3,695
Default

At least in NY area during the 70's and early 80's the last series was easily available and in actuality the hardest series was the one beginning about 284. I think you can make a case (and still to this day) that the cards in the 300's are harder than the final series. The semi-high series is similar to most year's semi-hi's but the 284-446 area is sneaky tough.

That's my opinion only

Rich
__________________
Look for our show listings in the Net 54 Calendar section
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-11-2019, 08:08 PM
rats60's Avatar
rats60 rats60 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,763
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moeson View Post
Topps used to preview the upcoming series by including the first few cards in the then current series packs. I wonder if that was the case with 1965, especially with the 7th series checklist being numbered near the series start at #508.
The cards in the series did not matchup with the checklists until 1967.

In 1965 the 1st series was 1-109, but the 1st checklist only listed 1-88. The 2nd checklist listed 89-176 and was part of series 1. The 2nd series was 110-196 plus #104 2nd checklist. The 3rd checklist listed 177-264, but the 3rd series was 197-283 plus #189 3rd checklist. The 4th checklist listed 265-352, but the 4th series was 284-370 plus # 273 4th checklist. The 5th checklist listed 353-429, but the 5th series was 371-446 plus #361 5th checklist. The 6th checklist listed 430-506, but the 6th series was 447-522 plus #443 6th checklist. The 7th checklist listed 507-598, but the 7th series was 523-598 plus #508 7th checklist.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-12-2019, 12:19 PM
Johnny630 Johnny630 is offline
Johnny MaZilli
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,878
Default

From my experience building this set 65 Topps the first series was the most difficult to find centered. Charlie Smith is notoriously Not Centered
Also last card Al Downing has been difficult for me.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:15 PM.


ebay GSB