1955-1969 Topps Virtual Series Sheets

[Kevvyg1026]

Saw this for sale recently, so the 1958 series 4 slits are now known, Series 4 has 88 cards, so there are 8 rows printed 3x each across the sheet. Series 4 printng has cards 287 to 374.

1958_4a.jpg

[Cliff Bowman]

Here is a 1955 Topps Slit that was reconstucted by a board member a few years back. While the other known 1955 Topps 1st Series Slit makes sense with the pattern of fifty different cards with forty printed 2x and ten printed 3x, this Slit makes no sense and has cards printed all over with no patterns other than the Diering horizontal row being printed twice. I am baffled how the 1955 Topps set was printed by each Series and the quantities of each card.

[toppcat]

At a guess, things like the "double Spahn" above Jackie could have been due to a player exclusive to Bowman being pulled last second. This is also the sheet the Baseball Stamps were culled from.

[deweyinthehall]

For a long time we've had a less-than-perfect image of one of the '67 high number slits. Detective work done by others on these boards has now allowed us to create a faux version of the other slit. In mocking up this faux version I went ahead and put one together of the "known" slit to give us the chance to see both side by side as they may have appeared originally on the full sheet layout. Sizing issues with the images used for this have led to some issues impacting the alignment of these cards.

Still, an interesting image - 6 rows X3, 1 row X4 and 1 row X5.

[deweyinthehall]

FYI I tried uploading a larger version without success...

[Cliff Bowman]

Fantastic! This is only my opinion but I have no doubt that someone at Topps screwed up by repeating the Pinson row and the Red Sox Rookie Stars row twice on the first slit but they decided to just run with it anyway rather than take the time and money required to fix it. I believe the first two rows on the first slit were supposed to be either the Ferrara row and the NL Rookie Stars row or the NL Rookie Stars row and the Colavito row.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

Fantastic! This is only my opinion but I have no doubt that someone at Topps screwed up by repeating the Pinson row and the Red Sox Rookie Stars row twice on the first slit but they decided to just run with it anyway rather than take the time and money required to fix it. I believe the first two rows on the first slit were supposed to be either the Ferrara row and the NL Rookie Stars row or the NL Rookie Stars row and the Colavito row.

Yes, or something got damaged with no time to fix the row up again. The row with the Seaver rookie and the ten other "SP" running along the bottom of one slit is interesting as well-what happened there, some mangling during cutting? The 11 in that row are the toughies (relatively) in the highs.

[Cliff Bowman]

I was able to make them a little bigger. Here is Slit A.

[Cliff Bowman]

Here is a little bigger Slit B.

[stlcardsfan]

Great seeing these side by side, thanks Cliff. Explains a lot after building that set!

[Cliff Bowman]

Kevin found this recently from Heritage Auctions, it looks like we got everything right but it feels like we did all of that work for nothing for however long it was on that sheet. It's a shame it wasn't the 1966 6th Series.

[stevepoland]

Anyone have a series 5 sheet of '67?

[jmoran19]

series 5 for 1967

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by jmoran19

series 5 for 1967

Nice! What’s bizarre about that series is that many sellers on eBay and even Dean’s Cards have 44 of the 88 cards listed as double prints which of course they’re not. Trading Card Database (TCDB) also had 44 of them listed as DP’s a couple of years ago so I used my privileges and removed all of the DP designations from the 44 cards and a few hours later I was contacted by an administrator/mod and asked why I did that, I explained that the 1967 5th Series is 88 cards with each printed evenly 3x over the two Slits with no SP’s or DP’s. They must have believed me because it was never changed back.

[deweyinthehall]

A composite faux slit from the semi-hi series from '62.

As usual, owing to irregularities in size and tilt of available images and because of the wood borders, it's probably best to not zoom in too closely - as Dr. Zeus said to Taylor, you may not like what you find (it ain't pretty).

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by deweyinthehall

A composite faux slit from the semi-hi series from '62.

As usual, owing to irregularities in size and tilt of available images and because of the wood borders, it's probably best to not zoom in too closely - as Dr. Zeus said to Taylor, you may not like what you find (it ain't pretty).

It looks beautiful to me ! It's been so long since we did that one I forgot which rows are 3x and which ones are 4x. I'm sure Kevin knows. ETA: The McLish row and the Bunning row are 3x, I will have to determine the other two 3x rows.

[deweyinthehall]

Frankensteined together by detective work done by others:

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by deweyinthehall

Frankensteined together by detective work done by others:

Beautiful work as always! The 1966 Topps 4th Series might not be interesting to some because it’s an 88 card series with no SP’s but this was the longest and most difficult one that Kevin and I have completed so far, that is unless we ever finish the 1969 Topps 3rd Series.

[Kevvyg1026]

Such confidence, but I expect the 1966 series 6 and the 1965 series 6 to keep us occupied until the end of my collecting days. LOL

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

Beautiful work as always! The 1966 Topps 4th Series might not be interesting to some because it’s an 88 card series with no SP’s but this was the longest and most difficult one that Kevin and I have completed so far, that is unless we ever finish the 1969 Topps 3rd Series.