Can #525 Gary Bell be placed next to #546 Siebler under Choo Choo Coleman or is it believed that there may be two separate rows with Coleman? ETA, I get it now, Bell is in the fifth spot on either the Hoerner row or the Taylor row, much more likely the Hoerner row but can't be confirmed yet.

There must be more than one placement of the row with Coleman on the sheet.

I think the Sullivan is new, the McCovey-Williams is already known but I found another example.

Unless I am mistaken, it can only be Siebler, Roggenburk, or Queen to the left of Sullivan.

I think it has to be Roggenburk.

Almost positive that Bell (525) is under Choo Choo and next to Siebler while 542 (Smith) is under Bell and next to 571 (Roberts). That would put Bell in the row with Hoerner Rookie Card (what I call row C). I also suspect that Bell is always under Choo Choo in this sheet configuration.

Based on PoP reports, and the various miscut info I've seen, I suspect that the row pattern on one half-sheet was A, B, C, D, E, A, F, G, B, C, D, E while on the other is was D, E, A, F, G, B, C, D, E, A, F, G.

There is evidence that suggests row B was under both row A (northrup) and row G, which is why I prefer this configuration to others.

A = Northrup row
B = Perranowski row
C = Hoerner row
D = Taylor row
E = Salmon row
F = Mantilla row
G = Shirley (591) row.

I am almost positive that the strip 582, 597, 592, 549 is in row D and finishes that row (i.e. Columns 8, 9, 10, & 11) but need to see something to the right of 582 to confirm.

The 3 card sequence 598, 583, 569 is pretty much guaranteed to be in either row B (perranowski) or row C (hoerner) as is the sequence 532, 552.

My guess would be 598 583 and 569 would be in C since the cards below have generally been considered as non SP types. To be proven out though.

I didn’t realize that one had already been discussed, I have a good excuse this time with all of the outages and scans disappearing going on. There are no scans in those posts now.

1966 topps highs
 

Here's a miscut of 553. Posted before, but with the issues over the past week, thought I would post again. Any suggestions about what might be next to it?Attachment 409232

1966 topps highs
 

There are several possibilities. I'm thinking it might be 570, but am open to suggestions.

I have always considered 553 a not very tough get. always off center. How many unknown spots let on the salmon and taylor rows? also knowing that with what cards haven't been placed yet and generally which of those unplaced do folks consider easier or a beckett non sp?

just trying to come at this from another angle. has anyone tried to look for miscut backs for clues?

bill

I've struck out completely on the backs. A tiny sliver of the front is usually enough, due to the color scheme for different teams + the widely different backgrounds at the edges in the posed shot, enough to ID. The backs have to be much further off center to ID which card is adjacent. But then again, I've only found a few and Cliff seems to find 20 a day lol

There are six openings in the Perranowski row, Hoerner row, & Taylor row. There are three openings in both the Salmon & Shirley rows.

However, we have a four-card sequence (582, 597, 592, & 549). I suspect that this sequence is in the Taylor row since none are that hard to acquire (i.e., suspected non-SP). I also suspect that 553 is in this row.

We also have a sequence of 598, 583, & 569 adjacent to each other, with 595 under 598 and 523 under 583.

We have 532 next to 552 and most likely 576 is above 552.

And 517 (checklist) is at the end of a row, and is most likely at end of Perranowski, Hoerner, or Shirley row.

If someone wants to send me the specific card numbers, and where they go, I will be happy to plug the cards into the document I created and post another print sheet layout example. Even if it's just a few cards that are attached. Anything. Just shoot me the proper info and I'll get on it.

1966 high # miscuts
 

I found these two miscuts, and although they don't shed any new light on the 1966 high series print configuration, they do help raise an interesting question. Both of these cards exhibit some marking which highlight that they are at the edge of the sheet.Attachment 409499

Attachment 409500

There are 24 cards whose positions on the sheets are still unknown, and five must occupy an end position (since we know the cards at the end of both the Northrup & Mantilla rows). These cards are: 517, 523, 528, 531, 532, 538, 541, 549, 552, 553, 556, 566, 569, 570, 576, 582, 583, 586, 587, 590, 592, 595, 597, & 598.

Based on miscut information, we know that 517 is one of those five. We can eliminate 523, 532, 582, 583, 592, 595, 597, & 598 from consideration because we know there are cards to the right of those. That leaves 15 possible cards (528, 531, 538, 541, 549, 552, 553, 556, 566, 569, 570, 576, 586, 587, & 590) for the remaining four end positions.

If anyone has miscuts of these cards that show edge of sheet markings, please post!

I hope this one hasn't already been posted. ETA: yep, it was back in post #166, maybe someone can figure it out with a back scan.

I expect Howser to be above 559 Pena, but can not tell for certain from the scan.

Not wanting to lose focus on this great thread, I haven't found anything more yet. I'm trying to look for border lines on the right of cards to maybe pin down all 7 right border cards. I know we have some looking for others, In particular w sox checklist with lines.

1966 topps highs
 

I am fairly certain that the four card strip 582, 597, 592, 549 belongs in the Taylor row because all four are readily available (i.e., non SPs). And although I haven't found 549 with the border marking yet, I suspect it is at the edge of the sheet.

If that four card strip (582, 597, 592, 549) is in the Taylor row, then any miscut under 582, 597, 592, or 549 would allow us to place cards in the Salmon row. The card under 582 is a key card, because if it is Franks (537), then we have strong evidence that the four card strip is indeed in the Taylor row since Franks is in column 8 of the Salmon row.

Now for some real speculation: We have a 3 card strip, 598, 583, 569 with 595 under 598 and 523 under 583. I speculate that 595 & 523 are also in the Taylor row, occupying columns 6 & 7, with 582, 597, 592, 549 occupying columns 8, 9, 10, & 11 in that same row.

It would be very satisfying if a miscut of 523 (Sadowski) was found with 582 (Roggenburk) next to it. Similarly, a miscut of 523 with Jackson (595) on its left would be significant validation, as would a miscut of Jackson (595) having 542 (Smith) on its left. Even a miscut of 569 showing 582 below it would be very helpful information.

If evidence for the above can be found, then this would allow us to place 598, 583, & 569 in the Hoerner row as the cards in columns 6, 7, & 8.

I agree completely, so what assumed non SP's does that leave for the salmon row? I'm thing 531 553 and the checklist.

I think a card by card breakdown, as we did with 67 would be very interesting here. (If already done, I apologize)

Rich

The checklist should be in a sp row since it was also printed during the last print run. Perhaps 587 is in the salmon row as well as 553 and 531

This is a great thread with a lot of contributions from a lot of dedicated folks

Agreed. For once I wish I had a lot of miscut cards!!

Mike

Rich, here is a breakdown (summary) by card.

Row A, headed by Northrup, has 554, 568, 584, 581, 534, 558, 573, 536, 529, 572, and 574. Based on recent ebay POP report (July 23), the average availability for cards in this row was 61.2, with a standard deviation of 19.5. The high was 94, the low 34, and median was 69.

Row B, headed by Perranowski, has cards 555, 562, 559, 564, & 561, plus 6, as yet unidentified cards. I suspect one card is 517, W. Sox variation. The ebay Pop report provides: Avg - 31.2, StD - 12.2, High - 55, low - 18, med - 28, with the large variation driven by the relatively high count of 564 (Chance).

Row C, headed by Hoerner rookie, has cards 544, 565, 547, 546, and 525. The ebay Pop report provides: Avg - 27.2, StD - 3.9, High - 31, low - 21, med - 27

Row D, headed by Taylor, has 585, 530, 560, 571, 542, and most likely 582, 597, 592, and 549, plus two more, as yet unidentified with certainty. The ebay POP report yields Avg - 74.3, StD - 21.2, High - 121, low - 50, med - 74.

Row E, headed by Salmon, has 594, 535, 575, 580, 550, 533, 579, and 537, plus three more (suspected to be either 531, 587, 538, or 553). The ebay POP report yields Avg - 55.4, StD - 19.7, High - 88, low - 42, med - 46.5 (both Adair & Franks have high availability).

Row F, headed by Mantilla, has 557, 588, 545, 526, 589, 593, 563, 578, 548, 524, and 539. The ebay POP report yields Avg - 27.0, StD - 14.8, High - 58, low - 12, med - 21. The Tovar rookie is the low availability card.

Row G, headed by Grant Jackson, has 591, 540, 567, 527, 577, 596, 551, and 543, with three positions as yet unidentified. The ebay POP report yields Avg - 30.9, StD - 13.9, High - 53, low - 11, med - 31. Navarro is the card with lowest availability.

Hope that helps.

The 7th series cards whose positions are still unknown are: 517, 523, 528, 531, 532, 538, 541, 549, 552, 553, 556, 566, 569, 570, 576, 582, 583, 586, 587, 590, 592, 595, 597, & 598.

However, as mentioned before, I strongly suspect that the sequence 582, 597, 592, 549 is in the Taylor row (because of the non SP designations and POP reports). I also suspect that the sequence 598, 583, 569 is in row C (headed by Hoerner) with 595 (under 598) and 523 (under 583) in row D (headed by Taylor

Furthermore, I speculate that 517 (W. Sox checklist) is at end of row B (Perranowski) or row C (Hoerner) because it was also printed in the 6th series printing and should therefore be in a SP row plus the checklist historically appeared near the top of one of the half-sheets (slits).

Based on what we know with certainty, Davis (535), Adair (533), Northrup (554), Williams (580), McCovey (550), and Roberts (571) probably do not deserve the SP designation that current price guides provide whereas 563 (Tovar rc), 527 (Navarro), 539 (Astros RC), and 588 (A's rookies) should be designate as SPs.

Tip of the cap to Kevvyg for the amazing stat-detective work.Really enjoyed watching this unfold. Also, to Cliff for all the critical discoveries and pictures of the miscuts.Thanks. JollyElm that is a great visual for me on that sheet/slit--puts it all on display.And to all the others for their great input ,too.This thread has been my favorite from the beginning.Appreciate everyone!

1966 topps miscut
 

Does any one know what that broken line is at the top of the Sadowski card?Attachment 411427

My opinion is that there is a half sheet with selected rows: Northrup, Salmon, Taylor at least on it and that on that sheet the row with Sadowski is on the top.

bill

That is what I was thinking. I have previously speculated that the pattern used was
(Recall A = Northrup row, B = Perranowski row, C =Hoerner row, etc.)
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

In a recent post, I speculated that row D contained 595, 523, 582, 597, 592, 549 based on both POP data, as well as some miscut information.

If that Sadowski image is at top of sheet, that would be consistent with my row D speculation and the earlier row configurations on the two slits. It's not proof, but at least it is consistent.

I agree with your slit line up. I think that the 3 rows 4 times and 4 rows 3 times makes sense. I also would submit relative to cards 591 and 540, which according to this are the bottom 2 cards on the B slit model that these cards were highly open to damage at the production level.
When you think about the 7th series cards that command premiums somewhat without star power, 591 561 562 544 and maybe 540 and 590 come to mind.
So is it possible that either slit was produced in a different quantity that the other? With miscuts being in packs, the quality control aspect at that time may have been not as much a focus.
Surprised that when the Topps vault opened that some strips were not made available to help in this interesting effort.

Last one, why is the Piersall 565 always offcut. L to R or diamond. It's not on the border.....

Bill

It's safe to assume each slit was printed in the same quantity as the A and B slits were printed on the same master sheet. What happened during transport from the printers (two trips with backs going to lithographers from a first printer, then to Topps), cutting and packaging operations though probably explains more about many short prints than the sheet/slit arrays, especially in a 4/3 3/4 A/B setup. Edge and corner cards were vulnerable to damage and miscuts but there are casualties within the middle of the sheets that must have happened during cutting and packaging. Some type of cutting pattern most likely had outsize influence.

Thread # 158 and #166 queen and howser. The miscut seems the same, maybe queen is in that G row. It's always been a sleeper tough card along with 586 raymind.

If all the hard cards were printed on the same row, then you could suspect that row was printed twice. However that doesn't appear to be the case. It seems demand issues or production problems due to sheet placement. Hoerner and Jackson are on the end of rows. Could Perry or Tigers Team be on the end of a row too?

i think they are side by side on the hoerner row (we think).

I think the issue we will never solve is the latest discussion on printing issues/quality issues on selected cards and there placement in rows. We have miscuts that show neither 598 perry or 583 tigers is on a border. Also 561 coleman is not either. I also commented that I can never find a 565 piersall, 555 peranoski or 556 queen well centered. This is similar to 1967 shannon (605) which is never centered. Conversely, a lot of the non sp's like 572 573 529 550 523 seem to be mostly well centered when offered. Not sure if this is due to the process or that these cards were on a row/slit that was better centered for cutting. Also while I'm at it. rookie cards 591,544, 524 are more diamond cut that many of the other cards.
I know a lot of these topics can't be answered, but they just add to the mystery and interest of this series.

bill

I believe that the Perranowski row is always above the Hoerner row on both half-slits, so the Bell card can be placed in row C under Choo Choo and next to Siebler. That puts George Smith (542) next to Roberts in row D. The Smith card should be under Bell in three rows but will be at the top of the 2nd half-slit. In other words, Smith is in row D and the pattern across the two half-slits or sheets is:

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

Well I did an eBay canvass of the highs this AM and got some interesting results, not the least of which is that the overall eBay item count never matches the actual number of items, which was a PITA (I had the same issue with the 1967 high # count).

First, this is the count in numerical card order. The average is 35.8 of each card. I have no idea why #571 (Roberts) would be skewed so much but I checked it three times.

NO COUNT
517 34
523 28
524 16
525 17
526 11
527 9
528 12
529 54
530 61
531 64
532 19
533 73
534 30
535 39
536 72
537 72
538 48
539 18
540 17
541 30
542 65
543 22
544 27
545 13
546 21
547 25
548 49
549 54
550 38
551 33
552 22
553 27
554 39
555 14
556 18
557 16
558 40
559 15
560 43
561 24
562 25
563 8
564 45
565 19
566 17
567 27
568 58
569 19
570 32
571 117
572 65
573 63
574 32
575 31
576 24
577 45
578 26
579 37
580 42
581 77
582 60
583 15
584 32
585 43
586 16
587 71
588 21
589 19
590 29
591 27
592 63
593 52
594 40
595 53
596 18
597 27
598 35

And here is the count in ascending order of the eBay count:

NO COUNT
563 8
527 9
526 11
528 12
545 13
555 14
559 15
583 15
524 16
557 16
586 16
525 17
540 17
566 17
539 18
556 18
596 18
532 19
565 19
569 19
589 19
546 21
588 21
543 22
552 22
561 24
576 24
547 25
562 25
578 26
544 27
553 27
567 27
591 27
597 27
523 28
590 29
534 30
541 30
575 31
570 32
574 32
584 32
551 33
517 34
598 35
579 37
550 38
535 39
554 39
558 40
594 40
580 42
560 43
585 43
564 45
577 45
538 48
548 49
593 52
595 53
529 54
549 54
568 58
582 60
530 61
573 63
592 63
531 64
542 65
572 65
587 71
536 72
537 72
533 73
581 77
571 117

Ok. I added these counts to the ones I've been keeping since May and averaged them. Thus, I have counts performed in early May, late June, early July, mid July, and end July. Please note that the 517 count should only include the W. Sox variation not both.

The results are as follows (note that I put 598, 583, & 569 in row C since I am relatively certain about their positions. I also put 595, 523, 582, 597, 592, & 549 in row D for the same reason):

The results for the various rows for average, stdev, median, high, and low) are as follows:

Row A (all cards known):
Row B (5 cards known)
Row C (8 cards known)
Row D (all known)
Row E (8 cards known)
Row F (all known)
Row G (8 known)

A: 59.6 19.0 66.8 90.0 35.0
B: 28.4 12.9 24.6 52.5 18.3
C: 29.8 5.7 29.9 38.8 20.0
D: 67.1 19.9 67.0 117.3 38.0
E. 54.7 17.9 48.6 86.0 38.8
F: 27.6 15.8 20.8 62.3 12.8
G: 32.2 11.7 34.9 44.8 12.5

The large std dev for row D (Taylor) is driven mostly by the Roberts card (571), which typically has much higher counts than any other card in that row.

The large Std dev for row F (Mantilla) is primarily due to the high counts for both 593 (Camilli) and 548 (Kolb).

And Row B has the Chance card (564), which also typically has almost twice as many cards available as other cards in that row.

Great stuff and I for one am glad you have kept this monthly data. I think this bears out the 3 x 4 and 4 x 3 theory well. 2 variations I'd like to bring up:

559 Pena, blue dot bottom right
582 roggenburk, blue blob in the sky

Both probably on one of the slits v a clean version on the other.
Also looking at 554 Northrup, border frame off center

thx for this data.
bill

1966 topps highs
 

The Perry card also seems to appear both with and without clouds or white blobs in the sky

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.