PDA

View Full Version : 1968 Topps Plaks Numbering


Archive
04-09-2009, 10:05 AM
Posted By: <b>Dave Hornish</b><p>Got my Davis in from Mile High today and was surprised to see the back was numbered (17, same as his # on the checklist). Check it out:<br><br><img src="http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p280/dsh46/68tplaksdavisreverse.jpg" alt="[linked image]"><br><br>If anyone can confirm numbers on the back of other Plaks that would be cool. Very interested if the two Mantle variants have the same number.<br><br>More on my blog about Davis here (click the first link for even more on the set):<br><br><a href="http://toppsarchives.blogspot.com/search/label/1968%20Topps%20Plaks" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://toppsarchives.blogspot.com/search/label/1968%20Topps%20Plaks</a>

Archive
04-09-2009, 06:07 PM
Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>David,<br><br>Great write up! I'll try and check out the backs of my Plaks and let you know about the other numbers. The fact that these are numbered makes me doubt the current wisdom that there were only 19 produced. That doesn't seem to make sense.<br><br>Bob<br>

Archive
04-09-2009, 06:55 PM
Posted By: <b>larry</b><p>the plaks that come in the middle of the triple plaks do not have any #s<br>only the ends...when mile high had all the plaks in front of him he looked at all the singles If a player only came on either end of a triple there were no singles of that player without a #... If a player only came in the middle of his triples there were no singles of that player with a #<br>a little more reinforcement that the 5 do not exist<br>and yes the #'ered plaks do match the checklists

Archive
04-09-2009, 07:05 PM
Posted By: <b>Dave Hornish</b><p>Larry-that is interesting indeed. I assume one of the Mantles is unnumbered then, even though they are left and right on the sprue?

Archive
04-09-2009, 07:38 PM
Posted By: <b>larry</b><p>only plaks in the middle are unnumbered<br>left and right on the triples are #ed

toppcat
05-04-2009, 06:31 AM
I just noticed the wrapper code (0-490-94-01-7)for this set indicates a '67 product, not a '68. Yet another mystery/anomaly with this release.