You probably figured out my count was for all examples of the checklist. The odd and extreme overprinting of only a handful of cards is bizarre but real. Wonder why?

So, yes it is interesting that the POP surveys show these results. However, such counts are not necessarily reflective of what took place 50+ years ago. As we have "discovered" for other years (e.g., 1963), some of the lore surrounding short prints that has been accepted for many years is not always entirely accurate.

In the Northrup row, card 581 (martinez) consistently has higher counts than others in the same row. That card is in column 4.

In the Perranowski row, the same thing is true for Chance (564), which is located in column 4.

Most of the cards in the Hoerner row appear to have comparable POPs.

Roberts (#571) has the highest counts on the Taylor row and it is also in column 4.

For the Salmon row, card 533 (Adair) typically has the higher counts, but Franks (537) is not that far behind. Those cards are in columns 6 & 8 respectively. Williams is in column 4, so perhaps his ebay POP count may be influenced by his star & Cub recognition, meaning perhaps people don't want to part with the card.

The Mantilla row has two cards (593, 548) which appear much more often than others in that row. Those two cards are located in 6 and 9. Card 563 (Tovar), located in column 7, normally has the lowest population available for sale. The Column 4 card is the Twins team card, and that usually has a low POP count.

Most of the cards in the Shirley/Jackson row have comparable POPs, although both McLain (540, in C2) and Navarro (527, C4) are typically on the low side.

And for what it matters, I suspect that the Northrup and Salmon rows occupy the top and bottom rows on one slit while the Taylor and Shirley rows most likely occupy the top/bottom rows on the other slit.

Having said all of the above, I still believe that if examined for a long enough period, this type of data would yield a reasonably accurate representation. So, for example, if one examined Worthpoint and removed duplicate sales from the PoP, a more accurate picture might emerge. I wish I had the time and energy to undertake such a project, but alas, I don't. I will have to be content with simply trying to reconstruct the sheet configuration!

One thing I should have made clearer during all these debates.

When I was at Beckett, we did prefer to see these sheets and then followed that up with actual physical counting cards available. That was the best 1/2 way of doing things.

So that's why I like having card counts to go with the visible sheets.

In the case of the 1961 5th series, I did have the memories of the material Rosen found back in the day which for example had the Skowron (#371) row at 1/2 the availability of the other cards. Then when I saw the sheet in 1993 at a show that was confirmed by the sheet. While we knew from empirical evidence the short prints, the sheet confirmed and finished the row and added to our knowledge. So that could work vice versa as well.

Rich

Thank you Rich.

The main point I was trying to make is that PoP reports are simply a snapshot at one particular moment in time, so variations in card counts from just a few such reports may not be an accurate indicator of the sheet configuration.

Certainly, the PoP reports can't tell us how many cards were destroyed, thrown away, still reside in a shoebox, or remain in collections. Moreover, the PoP counts seem to be in the 10s to 100s, and certainly many more cards than that were printed and distributed. However, I find them useful since they provide some relative information. And if this data can be accumulated over an extensive period of time with duplicate cards eliminated (re: don't count the sale of the same card more than once), then a more accurate reconstruction may be possible.

Wouldn't it be so much simpler if Topps had records such as photos, notes, etc. and made such archival material available for research purposes?

I think Topps took perverse pride in NOT keeping any records like this!

I speculate that it is likely that Choo Choo (in row B, headed by Perranowski) will always be above 525 (in row C, headed by Hoerner) for all three rows in which the card appears. So, I believe it is safe to place 525 below Choo Choo. We also have a miscut with 542 (Smith) above 550 (McCovey), so it is safe to place 542 in the 5th column in row D (below Bell, 525) since McCovey is in the 5th column in row E.

Can you put 561 next to Chance (564), and then 525 under 561 (i.e., next to 546), and 542 next to 571 (and above 550)?

Okay, I'm ready to update, but am a bit confused. These two graphics seem to be the most up-to-date (accurate?) layouts I have so far, with some notable differences in row placements (check out who lies beneath Northrup)...

Attachment 412796

Attachment 412797

So, what should definitely be added and where? And more importantly, is it 'proven' by the miscuts?

If Smith (#542) should appear above McCovey, do we have a connection to the Dave Roberts (#571) card that would abut it...or could it possibly be a different row appearing above Willie, that is NOT the Tony Taylor row?

There are seven distinct rows for this series.

The most likely two slit patterns (slit = half-sheet) are as follows:
Slit A: A, B, C, D, E, A, F, G, B. C, D, E
Slit B: D, E, A, F, G, B, C, D, E, A, F, G

Row A = headed by Northrup
Row B = headed by Perranowski
Row C = headed by Hoerner RC
Row D = headed by Taylor
Row E = headed by Salmon
Row F = headed by Mantilla
Row G = headed by Shirley RC

There is a miscut that identifies Bell as being below Choo Choo and there is a miscut which identifies Smith as being above McCovey. Thus both cards must be in Column 5.

The first partial (with McCovey row above Northrup and Mantilla below) is part of the slit where we see row E above row A, then row F & G below Northrup. It could be from the middle of slit A or near the top of slit B.

The second partial (with Perranowski below Northrup) is from the top of slit A.

The issue you noted about the Northrup row occurs because both the Perranowski row and the Mantilla row appear beneath Northrup, depending on the sheet location.

Hopefully, that clears up any confusion regarding the two graphics you have put together.

I also suspect that the balance of the cards in row D (headed by Taylor) are: 595, 523, 582, 597, 592, 549 but I have not found a miscut that ties 595 to 542 or one that attaches 523 to 582, which I believe is needed for confirmation.

IFF (that's math lingo for if and only if) the above is true, then the sequence 598, 583, 569 would be placed in row C in columns 6, 7, & 8 respectively.

So the search for additional miscuts continues.

1966 topps highs
 

I have been keep track of the new ebay listings each day, and keeping a running tabulation. These counts were then organized into the row positions. So starting in mid-July through listings posted 8/19, the counts look like the following for average, standard deviation, median, high, low:


A: 78.4 17.9 76.0 108.0 54.0
B: 45.7 11.0 42.0 70.0 32.0
C: 49.1 8.1 48.0 69.0 40.0
D: 81.2 23.1 81.0 138.0 48.0
E: 82.4 17.5 77.0 107.0 59.0
F: 46.7 14.7 43.0 77.0 33.0
G: 46.3 9.0 47.0 67.0 35.0

So, these counts certainly give the impression that the pattern was four rows (B, C, F, G) the same frequency as each other and three rows (A, D, E) the same; i.e., a pattern of 4x3 and 3x4.

Some of the "rarer" cards that pop up:
517 (W. Sox variation) - 32 cards have come up for sale
563 (Tovar) - 33 cards
566 (Cuellar) - 38 cards
526 (Twins) - 38 cards
527 (Navarro) - 35 cards
528 (Gonder) - 36 cards
524 (Giants rookies) - 39 cards
545 (Green) - 34 cards
555 (Perranowski) - 36 cards
559 (Pena) - 39 cards

Conversely, traditionally listed SP cards 580 (B Williams) and 550 (McCovey) have both had over 70 copies listed.

Continued great analysis. Of the rarer cards you listed, not counting the checklist, the one that I had the most trouble with was Green. He was one of the last I needed. None of the other really stand out to me, at least in my experience, in completing the set. Some of the other last ones I remember needing were Snyder, Klimchock, McClain. I agree with your assessment of McCovey and Williams. Really a great thread.

2nd that, lets keep this topic going as for years it's been debated. my sleeper tough card was always snyder. even now a centered one. the opposite end was priddy. available any day. kind of like duliba in 67 highs

I've completed and then divested multiple complete runs of this set over the years. I typically had trouble obtaining cards of Cuellar (566), Purkey (551), Mahaffey (570), and Queen (556) but I could find cards of 591 (Jackson/Shirley), Perry (598), Cards Rookies (544), and the two team cards (526, 583) as long as I was willing to pay more than I really thought those cards were worth.

Now I suspect that #591 is on a bottom row on one of the half-sheets, but because it is at an edge (i.e., it is a leading card), it might be less susceptible to factory damage. I suspect the other cards (526, 583, 598) are all on rows that are in the middle of the half-sheets, and therefore not too affected by the cutting/sorting processes used by Topps.

Conversely, I suspect that some of the cards like #551 (which is in row G with Shirley), 528 (Gonder), 556 (Queen), or Cuellar (566) may be on a short-print row that is on the edge of the half-sheet (probably in Shirley row). It would be nice to find some miscuts to answer these types of questions.

I also find it interesting that Skowron (590), Pena (569), Oliver (541), Raymond (586), or Nicholson (576) haven't shown up on anyone's "difficult to find" list. To quote a childhood book, "curiouser and curiouser".

Back in about 1975 I received a huge lot of Topps 1955-1974 cards from an older cousin. In that lot were about 150 cards from ‘66. Unfortunately only about 8-10 of those were high #s. But at least there were some! Thinking about it years later it was probably one pack from the high series. When I started to build my set about 30 years later I felt very fortunate because of that small group it included the following, some of which are considered valuable and maybe at one time thought to be short printed:
Williams, Clarke, Perry (the miscut one I posted earlier in this thread), 544, Tony Taylor, And a few others I can’t recall. Not sure if any of those cards grouped together means anything but I thought I would share.

Thanks for those numbers. Though doing the math, the ratio of rows A, D and E to rows B, C, F and G is approximately 1.71:1. But since the ratio has to be whole numbers, that is closer to a 5:3 ratio (1.66:1), not a 4:3 (1.33:1) ratio.

That is correct regarding the ratio. However, this is only one month of continuous data and such a snapshot is most likely not reflective of what transpired 50+ years ago. I do hope, that over time, enough data will emerge to tell a more complete story.

Attachment 414887

Found this partial. I believe that this firmly establishes that 582, 597, 592, and 549 are in what I call row D, headed by Taylor. This run of 4 cards would be at the end of that row.

It also shows that row E (headed by Salmon) has 587, 531, and 553 at the end of that row.

Okay, here's what I got so far...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...ff2e7b3a_h.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...421dee20_h.jpg

LMK if there's anything that should be edited/changed/added/subtracted/whatever.

You can put 525 under Choo Choo (561) and 542 under 525. You can also fill in the cards to the left of McCovey in the top frame with the Salmon, through Williams cards, and put the first 5 cards headed by Taylor (through 542) in the row above that (i.e., we know 9 of the 11 cards in the row headed by Taylor, but the cards in columns 6 and 7 are currently not firmly established.

We now know all 11 cards in the row headed by Salmon.

So Taylor row should be: 585 530 560 571 542 X X 582 597 592 549

and Salmon row is: 594 535 575 580 550 533 579 537 587 531 553


I do strongly suspect that the two Xs in Taylor row are 595, 523 but that is, as yet, unconfirmed.

You would expect that because set collectors are taking one of each card off the market leaving excess of the cards printed four times.

if we know 595 is below 598 then doesnt that mean that we know the placement of the 598 583 569 string and then 542 is below 583?

542 is to the left of the potential spot I suspect is occupied by 595.

I still need a miscut to firmly identify this, but I suspect that 598, 583, & 569 are in columns 6, 7, & 8 of row C whereas 542 would be in column 5 of row D, with 595 & 523 in columns 6 & 7 of row D.

I agree. I'd take that leap. With this are all the non SP rows i.e. the 4 per sheet now identified? so all that is left are the suspected true sp's albeit placement on some are still unknown?

Great stuff.

If 595 & 523 are in row D, then we know all cards in row A, D, & E (i.e., the non-SP) rows and what remains are to identify the placement of 6 cards from row B, 4 cards from row C, and 3 cards from row G, all of which should be cards identified as SPs (except for 517, W. Sox variation).

SP's (real and imagined) are looking like a combination or influence of:

• Composition or technical issues (pulling a row, subbing another real quick) prior to printing
• Number of impressions per card on the sheets
• Card coordinate on sheet
• Superstars being called SP's instead of "high demand"
• Collation and Packaging Damage
• Original Distribution skewing pops
• Boxes being opened in the old hobby days with bad collation
• After Market Events (1975 Card Collectors Co fire) skewing remaining inventories

Most years seem to follow a 4:3 or 3:2 ratio for overprints but some like 1967 seem to have an outlier row.

67 highs
 

As mentioned in an earlier Post, the 67 highs most likely had one row printed 5x, one row 4x, and the other five rows 3x. Then, all the other factors mentioned above also came into play.

There is an ebay offer for a miscut 517 w. sox on right now that has a thin black/grey down the bottom half of the right of the card. I think Ill but it just to remind me of this thread. My guess it's a b or c row card. What other sp cards that are left based on miscuts, i.e. very wide right border could be the other 2? guesses?

I'm thinking the fifth 5X row was a last minute sub for one of the others. It's too out of sequence, even for Topps, otherwise.

Updated...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...1032bb6e_b.jpg


https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...1f5e65a2_b.jpg

thx, I think the 598 583 569 can go in next to bell and 595 below 598 next time you update.

thx for this graphic.

If those are definite, LMK and I'll add them right now.

I believe you should merge the two images into one. The one headed by Northrup goes on top, then the image leading with Roggenburk etc goes at the bottom of the other image. That row with Roggenburk is the tail end of the Taylor row.

Such a mosh up would represent the first eight rows of one of the slits. The pattern Northrup, Perranowsi, Hoerner, Taylor, Salmon, Northrup, Mantilla, Shirley is accurate.

There are also miscuts that support Row B, headed by Perranowski, being under Row G, headed by Shirley. And there are miscuts that show some cards from the Salmon row are at bottom of the sheet.

So, one slit is pretty much guaranteed to look like (leading card given): Northrup, Perranowski, Hoerner, Taylor, Salmon, Northrup, Mantilla, Shirley, Perrnowski, Hoerner, Taylor, Salmon.

1966 high # miscuts
 

Here's a miscut of the 7th series checklist which shows that it is at the edge of a sheet. Hence,it must be at the end of either row B (Perranowski), row C (Hoerner), or row G (Shirley).

Attachment 415079

If there is one thing I have learned here is that my set is incomplete. On a mission for W, Sox checklist.

thats the one i'm thinking of picking up.

LMK if this looks right...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...cc76dd7b_b.jpg

The two original graphics that were merged to create this one have been saved, so they're still on hand if we need to revert to them for some reason.

Looks great. Thank you.

Could you make a version, as yet not fully confirmed, with 595 & 523 in the two open spots in the Taylor row, and 598, 583, & 569 in columns 6, 7, 8 of the Hoerner row?

My opinion only, but i think queen 556 is the bottom right card on the sheet in the 591 row. I spent some time looking at the cuts of this card and the right border which many times is very wide. wide enough to suggest a border card. plus it commands a premium, these cards on the bottom row seem to over time have that element of premium, 591, 540 etc.
not saying play it in the jolly elm model yet, but throwing it out as a suspect.
billp

There are 17 cards whose positions are still not confirmed. These are 517, 523, 528, 532, 538, 541, 552, 556, 566, 569, 570, 576, 583, 586, 590, 595, & 598.

However, we know that:

a. 517 is at the right edge in either Row B, C, or G.

b. I strongly suspect that 595 & 523 occupy the two open spots in the Taylor row, with the sequence 598, 583, 569 occupying columns 6, 7, & 8 in the Hoerner row.

c. 532/552 are adjacent to each other, but the row is unknown.

d. 576 is above either a manager card or a rookie card.

There is a miscut where 556 appears (hard to tell) to be above a regular card, not a RC or Mgr card, which might preclude it being on the right edge.

I was looking at one from Dean's on ebay ends in 2546 (out of stock). The back is the key. The top is cut off within the salmon area but the bottom is not. This led me to believe that it belongs at least in the 591 row. Since we haven't had any more clues on fronts I'm looking at back's.

1966 topps highs
 

Here's the one I saw for Queen (556)Attachment 415267

1966 topps highs
 

and Nicholson (576).Attachment 415268

Ok, another leap, 576 is above 552 tebbetts.

Perhaps, but also possible that it is above 549 (Senator Rookies) or above 574 (Mets Rookies) or even 529 (White Sox rookies)

Since this layout example is theoretical, let's go in that direction and call this whole thing E=mc², Emplacement equals Miscut Cards squared...


https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...7d600e6a_h.jpg

Great thx! only 12 to go and we know 517 is on the right border.

Besides searching for miscuts of the missing 12+ cards, the following miscuts could prove helpful:
1. above 533, 579, 582, 597, 592, 549
2. below 558, 573, 536, 529, 572, 574, 548, 524, 539, 596, 551, 543

either left, right, above or below 517 (W. Sox variation)

The pattern I observed for many of the 77 card print series was as follows:

Slit 1: A, B, C, D, E, A, F, G, B, C, D, E
Slit 2: x1, x2, A, F, G, B, C, D, E, A, F, G

x1 & x2 varied between series and year but I have not seen any pattern to that Topps procedure other than that shown above.

In 1965, series 5, x1 & x2 were row B and row C (Blanchard & Drabowsky); in 1965, series 7, x1 & x2 were row C (Wyatt) and row E (Hiller). I have not acquired enough information to determine the pattern used in series 6.

In 1966, I haven't completely determine the pattern for series 5, but the row with Downing and the row with Kuenn are repeated at the top of a sheet, so I think that x1 & x2 were rows B & C. I don't have sufficient information for series 6, but for series 7, the miscuts and information I've seen, lead me to think that x1 & x2 were rows D & E (taylor & Salmon).

and for series 6, 1969, x1 & x2 were C (newman) & D (green).

In 1967, they used rows A (Pinson) & F (Rohr) for x1 & x2 at the top of the 2nd slit in series 7.

This 100% matches up for 1967. The 5X of row A is weird and probably unintended originally and the Belanger row used to cause people fits before eBay (I recall posting about the row years ago and Ted Z mentioned all 11 cards in that row were the last ones he obtained). But this explains the row distributions from canvassing eBay-well done!

Not sure if this helps the effort at all, but after digging through all of my doubles, I found miscuts of both versions of #517. Unfortunately, they each only show a tiny, tiny bit of an adjoining card, but who knows...

Attachment 415657Attachment 415658

Attachment 415659Attachment 415660

On the "White Sox" card, it is clearly beneath a rookies card with a light blue nameplate, or a team card.

Thanks. The White Sox version is from the series 6 printing. However, the RCs in that series are: Cubs, Orioles, Red Sox, Yankees, Giants (511), Pirates, & Braves (518). The team cards are: Phillies & A's.

The W. Sox card is interesting. The blue at top edge may eliminate 552, 556, 570, and 590 from being adjacent to the checklist, but 528, 538, 541 (too light?), 566, & 586 are certainly still possibilities.

I remember reading posts in this thread regarding "White Sox" being a part of the sixth series printing, but let me play devil's advocate for a moment. Is it possible that that version could have also appeared in the last series (along with the "W. Sox" cards)? Since there was no 'future' checklist to print, because it was the last series of cards for the year, did they double up on #517...and possibly have the two different versions coming off of the presses at the same time? I mean, is there a way to definitively rule out that scenario, circumstantial evidence aside? That would really throw a monkey wrench into the works, wouldn't it? Ha ha.

In every year I have researched, Topps printed checklist 1 twice in the first print run. Then in print run 2, both checklists 2 & 3 appeared, in print run 3, checklists 3 & 4 appeared, in print run 4, checklists 4 & 5, in print run 5, checklists 5 & 6, in print run 6, checklists 6 & 7, Then in the last run, only checklist 7 appeared. Also, there are only 77 unique spots in the sheet, and we have 77 cards (523-598 + 517). I sincerely doubt whether there were two different versions of the checklist 7 in the series 7 printing.

Plus, I have found the White Sox version marked up through number 522 but not after.

Great find. My vote is for 538. The black broader at the top ruled out some of the candidates for me. I think 586 is to light so is 528. That left 566 and 538 and based on the black boarder top right corner I went with 538.

Also, the latest ebay 1966 topps high listing by Greg Morris has 4 severly offcut highs that look like they could piece together. 590, 566, 552 and 562. a couple have borders on the left from another card. Taking the liberty to assume that the seller originally purchased these at the same time out of a pack(seems right because who would have purchased these individually like that to comple a collection). That these 4 could fit together. For 552, no 532 was listed in this grouping. There are others that has offcut boarders but not as severe. Check it out and comment on your opinion.

billp

Hi not sure if you have checked but it might be a good idea to check some of the premiere sports auction houses. 50-60's uncut sheets usually end up there $$$. Also on the sites they tend to leave up completed auctions...might be a good way to get some pics of sheets.

Best,
Ed

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Just noting that the "White Sox" miscut must have been on a 6th series sheet, not a 7th, due to the bright white stock that was not used for the 7th series. It's possible both versions were issued in series 7 until we finish a sheet layout and can then know one way or another; but this particular example certainly was a 6th series card.

It has to be #518 Braves Rookies above the #517 Checklist White Sox version, it is the only rookie card between 447-522 with a violet(?) name stripe and neither of the two team cards in that series have a violet(?) stripe.

The stripe is definitely light blue. In fact, it seems to be just a tad darker than the light blue in the body of the checklist.

Here's #518 stuck above the #517 in question. The colors are not a match...

Attachment 416022

My reason for wondering if "White Sox" versions of the checklist could have also appeared in the 7th series is because the card above could possibly (but most likely doubtfully) be the #526 Twins team. if you look towards the left (of the original pic, not the one posted here), there is blue over there too, matching the setup of the team cards and the rookie cards with the angled color stripe. Was there a team card in blue in the 6th series, and/or is there a different card that has a blue 'nameplate' and also a blue stripe (or whatever) on the upper left side?? If there's a 'blue' rookies card in the 6th series, than that's probably it, right?

This crap is fascinating!!!!

The #518 Braves Rookies is the only team or rookies card from #447-522 with a similar color, all of the other team and rookies cards in that series are colors nowhere even close.

Here's more food for thought...that adds even more wrinkles to the problem. The checklist has the red/magenta plate very much misaligned, so it's possible that the light blue stripe on the card above it could very well supposed to be violet/purple (or perhaps a different color?), but the red is missing (and would have been printed above the blue sliver that is visible). There's no way to know if the blue we see is as it's supposed to be, or if it is missing a part of its color makeup. This logical hole keeps getting deeper.

If anyone knows what color you get when you mix red with light blue then we can nail it :D.

One other thing of note. If you examine the blue sliver above the checklist, it is undoubtedly much thinner than the width (or is it height since the card is sideways??) of the team nameplates, so I have no problem concluding it is a rookies card up there...whether ultimately blue, violet/purple, or something else.

I'm suggesting that instead of referring to the checklist as W. Sox or White Sox, that we refer to it as Cards or Cardinals.

Interesting to note that both the White Sox and Cardinals finished with the same W/L record in 1966 - 83/79.

Ok, something to add to the thread - if you look at the number 518 above closely, you can see that the right (bottom) side of the nameplate has a slight blue tint while the left side (top) has a more red tint. This could correspond to a slight shift of the red ink (we've seen that before) to the left (top) of the card. And given the strong shift of red in the #517 checklist, you could see where that purple nameplate would appear light blue.

Am I crazy? NVM, don't answer that.

1966 checklist color question
 

If the colors used were additive (i.e., RGB) then we get Magenta. If subtractive (CMYK), then blue-violet.

Attachment 416029

So, perhaps it might be A's team? # 492?

We know the red was misaligned, and we know the visible part of the strip is blue, but we don't know if the red was supposed to be combined with the blue, so there is no definitive answer found here.

This is cobbled together, so it's not perfectly accurate, but I made sure the cards were the same width, and like I said earlier, the team's nameplate just doesn't match the size of the blue sliver. It's gotta be a rookies card...

Attachment 416031

Perhaps 498, Pirates rookies? Red & light blue can combine for magenta (RGB)

1966 topps highs
 

Here's why I believe 525 is in the row C (Hoerner) below 561 (which is in Perranowski row).

Attachment 416499

1966 High number miscut
 

Found this miscut on #586 today. Any ideas which card might be below it?


Attachment 417780

Attachment 417781

1966 topps highs
 

Also found this. Any suggestions as to what card might be at left? The cards that are still not placed are: 528, 532 (but this has 552 on its right), 538, 541, 552, 556, 566, 569 (but I suspect it can't be this card), 570, 576, 586, 590.

Attachment 417788

I was wondering if this might be above Tigers team, #583??

I am referring to the Raymond card miscut, #586.

I believe that is the Tigers team below Raymond. I think you are right.Would that put the Tigers team somewhere in the Hoerner row and Raymond in the Perranoski row.Those are both SP cards I believe.

This is a quick take, but the Tigers Team call seems to be absolutely correct. As far as I know, the high number series only has two teams, the Twins and Tigers, right? The portion of the black seen in the miscut card has a telltale notch in it, which points squarely to Motown, as the Twins team (or more specifically, the versions I've looked at) has no such anomaly there...

Attachment 417824

If we accept that Larry Jackson (#595) is not a SP, then miscuts support 595 and 523 being in the Taylor row in Columns 6 & 7. Then, since we have a miscut of Perry (598) being above Jackson and miscuts of Tigers team (583) and McFarlane (569) being next to Perry, that would put the strip 598, 583, & 569 in Columns 6, 7, & 8 of the Hoerner row. That then places Raymond (586) in column 7 of the Perranowski row.

The miscut to the checklist left cannot be 586 (now above 583) or 532 (left of 552).

I am also surprised that the cards above and/or below the checklist haven't been identified as it would seem that a miscut would clearly show the complete yellow (front) or the carmine (?) back. And since the checklist is in column 11, most of the possibilities of the top/bottom card above it are rookie cards.