Sheets from 1957 and on contain 264 cards, with the sheet split into 2 half sheets. A individual series contained between 66-132 cards. If the subject count of a series a number that multiplies evenly into 264, generally there is no short printing. They didn't print cards in any other way (that is, for full production cards, some proofing probably used very small testing sheets etc. but it would have been extremely impractical and senseless to print a card at a time or some other scheme for such mass produced goods).

If a subject count didn't align to 264, then there is some short printing, with certain rows of 11 subjects appearing less on the layout of the 264 sheet. This affects a minority of series, and has nothing to do with short printing stars. The short printed rows were picked seemingly at random and don't feature the 11 'best players' in that series. At other times Topps even went to effort to make the stars more common. Like the triple printed 1958 Mantle and Musial AS's and the 1952 DP's of repeating Mantle/Robinson/Bobby Thomson to fill out the 100 card sheet used then.

Series were printed to expected demand. Series 1 tended to have the largest print run and be the most common. Usually, big stars are in the earlier series that have the larger print runs (remember that the hot rookie card to get today may not have been a notable subject at time of issue). So #1 Willie Mays is among the most common subjects and #598 Gaylord Perry among the least. The later series are less common because as the season wore on, interest tailed off among buyers.

The 66 highs (series 7) thread where we figured out the sheet is a fun one (fast forward to the end for the results): https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=258947. Cliff has recent threads with series 5 and 6. There are images of 132 card half sheets for the more common lower series that have survived and don't require piecing them together with this much work.

Basic math.
There are fewer star cards simply because there are fewer star players than there are scrubs (as my brother-in-law is wont to say) on any given team or in the league as a whole. :cool:

There is a better chance of hitting the Powerball than finding a pic of a 1966 6th Series sheet, the others are on this great site. https://mrpekrul.wixsite.com/narcissism/1966

Many thanks for the mention, Cliff!

I would like to pose this question to the group:

On a 264-card slit there are 24 rows of 11 cards.

In a 66 card series, each card is printed 4x. In a 132-card series, each is printed 2x. If there are 88 cards, each is printed 3x.

After that, some difference in numbers is forced.

In a 77-card series, 44 are printed 3x and 33 are printed 4x.
In a 99-card series, 66 are printed 3x and 33 are printed 2x.
For a 110-card series, 66 are 2x and 44 are 3x.

In the case of a 99-card series, those 33 2x cards rightfully can be call "SPs" as they are printed fewer times than the majority of cards in the series.

What about 77 and 110 card series? The majority of cards in each series are printed fewer times than a minority, yet the majority are referred to as "SPs". Take the Grant Jackson hi-number (591) from 1966 - it is one of 44 cards printed 3x across the 264-card full sheet. A lesser number of cards, 33 , are printed 4x. Yet we call Jackson's card, and the other 43 in the majority, SPs. Short printed relative to what?

I maintain that we should actually refer to the 33 as over-prints. Look at it this way - each of the 77 cards is printed 3 times. But 3 rows are printed an additional time to fill out the sheet. If 66 cards were printed 3x and 11 were 4x, would we still call the 66 "SPs"?

By this was of thinking, only a 99-card series would result in true SPs, and, at least from 1966 onward, only one series is 99 cards - 1969, series 4.

I understand that the definition of SPs is baked into the hobby, so tilting at this particular windmill is pointless. But, if it were up to me, I'd change the price guides. If, say, the 1966 hi-series had commons priced at $15 with SPs at $30 (making this up), I would change it so that commons were simply priced at $30 and "OPs" - over-prints - were $15.

Thoughts?

Thanks for all the replies , and what a great website , now it is all starting to make sense ! I'm such a visual learner , w/o photos my eyes start to glaze over :) I really appreciate the work you all have put in and shared about this stuff. Thank you!

This pretty much hits the nail on its head but I expect it's a tall hill to climb to change the mentality.