|
1967 High Number Sheets
Posted By: <b>Dave Hornish</b><p>OK, the 1971 Hi Number sheets show how Topps would use an A and B sheet for each series. Most series work out with no short prints in the 60's and 70's but onc you get to the high numbers, that can change.<br /><br />I first got interested in Short Prints researching the 1967 hi's when I worked for Current Card Prices way back in the day. I had found a low-res picture in Baseball Hobby News (or BCN) of a 67 high # sheet and using a price guide and Beckett Team Checklist book (I had no 71's at the time) managed to create a schematic that was close to perfect (some rookie cards could not be id'd properly). Now sometime after that Beckett listed high # Double Prints in one of their annual guides and theirs did not match mine. Light bulb goes off and I realize two sheets exist. <br /><br />If anyone has these sheets, I would be very interested in scans. The sheet I sketched out has the Seaver Rookie as a single print. After comparing the Becket DP's with my schematic I believe there are 11 true short prints in the 67 high numbers but need visual proof before I can be certain. That DP list also helped me figure out my problematic rookie cards. Rich Klein tried to suss out for me when he worked at Beckett (he probably does not remember as it was years ago) but did not have a copy of the hi # sheet Beckett used. Every picture of the high # sheets (3 total) I have seen since matches the one I had but Rich was certain of Beckett's DP count and Topps m.o. was to print two sheets (on one master 264 card full sheet). Topps Vault sold a sheet a couple years ago ($700 bucks or so, a true bargain) but they never sent me a scan despite repeated requests and I do not know which sheet it was. I have lost my picture of the one sheet but still have my schematic and will post it if I can get it to scan legibly.<br /><br />It's likely the two different sheets will reveal Double, Triple and Quadruple Prints when the totals from the two sheets are tallied and combined. Any help is appreciated as this is a long standing mystery for me!<br /><br />Thanks, Dave
|
1967 High Number Sheets
Posted By: <b>Larry P.</b><p>I think there are 22 short prints and 55 double prints, but I have not seen a second sheet.
|
1967 High Number Sheets
Posted By: <b>John Moran</b><p>Ask and you shall receive. Row 1 is hard to see but it is the same as row 6.<br /><br /><img src="http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jmoran19j/67highfull.jpg"><br /><br />P.S. Most of these are photos I saved, only own a few 71 and 72 uncut sheets.
|
1967 High Number Sheets
Posted By: <b>John Moran</b><p>Dang, you beat me by a minute <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>
|
1967 High Number Sheets
Posted By: <b>Dave Hornish</b><p>John -Excellent!<br /><br />Let's call this the A sheet, which matches my schematic. Now, if somebody has the B sheet, we are in business!<br /><br />As for the A sheet, if we identify rows by the left most player we get:<br /><br />Pinson<br />Ferrara<br />N. League Rookies<br />Colavito<br />Checklist<br />Pinson<br />Red Sox Rookies<br />Orioles Rookies<br />Ferrara<br />N. League Rookies<br />Colavito<br />Checklist<br /><br />Or 55 DP and 22 SP<br /><br />Excluding the checklist, which Beckett shows as a DP likely due to it's inclusion on the 6th series sheets (a confirmed method of Topps previewing the next series), both Beckett and SCD essentially show cards in the rows started by Pinson and Red Sox Rookies as DP's (I believe Rich Klein called them "multiple prints" many moons ago). The only difference between the two guides other than the Checklist is that #601 Bryan (a Yankee appearing in the Red Sox Rookies row) is not shown as a DP in the SCD guide I used, which likely an oversight.<br /><br />Also, SCD identifies Brooks Robinson as a Short Print, which is accepted hobby lore (and I recall an early 80's article in some hobby pub indicating it was noted to be short printed as observed on an uncut sheet) but he is clearly Double Printed on the A sheet. <br /><br />What follows is theory (and if I have made an obvious blunder, don't be shy; I have a history of missing the obvious when I concentrate on the obscure): <br /><br />If the Checklist row is short printed on the B sheet to allow for prior observation of the Brooks Robinson card being short printed, as is the row starting with the Orioles Rookies as it was not id'd by Beckett or SCD as containing DP cards (and is a single printed row on the A sheet) and you necessarily presume the other 5 rows must be double printed to allow for 77 cards in the series, then a pattern emerges for each row of 11 cards:<br /><br />Pinson Quadruple Printed (QP)over 2 sheets<br />Ferrara QP<br />N. League Rookies QP<br />Colavito QP<br />Checklist Triple Printed (TP) over 2 sheets<br />Red Sox Rookies TP<br />Orioles Rookies Double Printed (DP) over 2 sheets<br /><br />The math works, I believe and it also allows for the Beckett sheet configuration. 24 total rows over 2 sheets=16 rows with the QP's, 6 rows with the TP's and 2 rows with the DP but there remain a couple of questions. <br />The first question is does the other sheet support this theory? The second question is, does the sheet Beckett used to determine their DP listings then have to be considered a partial (due to Rich's old e-mail comments regarding multiple prints of their DP listings) Of the 77 cards in this series then, 11 could be truly short printed while 22 others are a little easier and the remaining 44 are relatively common. The Seaver rookie is then the key to the set (as it is in the Orioles Rookies row) if my theory is correct and 11 cards are twice as difficult as the Quadruple Prints.<br /><br />Well, does this all make sense?<br /><br /><br /><br />
|
1967 High Number Sheets
Posted By: <b>Bob Fisk</b><p>David,<br /><br />Great analysis! The only thing that I hesitate agreeing with is the NL Rookies row being quadruple printed. Some of the last cards I located for my raw set (Boccabella, Westrum, Woodward, etc.) are in that row. Is it possible that there were only three QP rows and four TP rows? I could see the Checklist row and NL Rookies row being single printed on the B sheet with the rest double printed.<br /><br />If I had to guess (truly uneducated), I'd go with this:<br /><br />Pinson QP<br />Ferrara QP<br />Colavito QP<br />N. League Rookies TP<br />Checklist TP<br />Red Sox Rookies TP<br />Orioles Rookies TP<br /><br />I'll be anxious to see a scan of the other sheet.<br /><br />Bob
|
1967 High Number Sheets
Posted By: <b>Dave Hornish</b><p>Bob, it is certainly possible. I recall Westrum cost me dearly when completing the set, which I chalked up to the Mets/Manager angle but I think Boccabella was very expensive as well. But a couple of those cards I recall were cheap from that row (wish I had kept records but Henry and Osinski stick in my memory). I'm going to check VCP later to see if anything jumps out. I believe the last card I needed was the Red Sox Rookies and the Orioles Rookies was also one of the last ones. But there's the Belanger angle and also 67 Sox to contend with there.<br /><br />We really need to see the B sheet!
|
1967 High Number Sheets
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>When I put this set togethet (back in the Paleolithic era) the two toughest Hi#s for me were Bunning<br /> and Shannon.<br />Bunning I could understand being in Phillies country....but, why is Shannon so tough ?<br /><br />Now, I see on your sheet that Shannon is in the same row as the "infamously" tough Red Sox team card.<br />Is there something strange about that row on the Hi# sheet ?<br /><br />I ask this because over the years I have had, or seen, several "ghastly" off-center Red Sox team cards,<br />that should never have gotten past Quality Control. And, everyone's 1967 T wantlist has Shannon on it.<br /><br />T-Rex TED
|
1967 High Number Sheets
Posted By: <b>Dave Hornish</b><p>I was hoping you were one of the guys with 67 high number sheets.....
|
1967 High Number Sheets
Posted By: <b>Dave Hornish</b><p>Bumping this as there is some discussion on other threads right now.
|
1967 High Number Sheets
Posted By: <b>Rich Klein</b><p> Occassionally I would run into a group of Mike Shannon's; albeit almost never in nice shape. I once had more Shannon's than anyone else I knew.<br /><br /> To me, there is little doubt that some of the high numbers are just much much easier than others. Players such as Vada Pinson were always very easy. The Rod Carew RC was easy at 75 cents at some of the NY City shows I went to in the late 70's. I always wonder if I had really gone after these cards instead of collecting, what would have happenned.<br /><br /> Some of this was due to where I was collecting/dealing but the Shaw/Sutherland card was always a bear to get. Sandy Alomar #561 was also a tough one to get.<br /><br /> Somehow I think the multiple prints for the really easy card may be the best way to go. I think BHN did an article on this set or a blurb based on advertistments Bruce Oran used to run.<br /><br /> I love this set so any discussion is a cool one to me. I also remember, that the semi-hi cards never made it to St. Louis and when I set up at the 84 National with my inventory; I sold out of ALL my semi-his to a dealer within five minutes of dealer to dealer set-up.<br /><br />Regards<br />Rich
|
1967 High Number Sheets
Posted By: <b>Paul S</b><p>Just as Rich states that '67 semi-high # cards never made it into St. Louis, I'd venture that the last series never made it into Los Angeles as well. Every year I'd by packs all through the summer, and I have almost '67 every card, up to and including #533. Not a one after that.<br /><br />*edited to include my name
|
1967 High Number Sheets
Posted By: <b>Dave Hornish</b><p>Interesting new information regarding distribution west of the Mississippi. Any Seattle or Houston folks remember where their 67 Topps cards ended?
|
1967 High Number Sheets
Posted By: <b>Rich Klein</b><p> Explains to some significance why the 1967 Topps Tim McCarver card was always heavily in demand. This was before he became the voice of baseball for Fox.<br /><br /> That is one part of this new "internet" age, regional scarcities really no longer exist for now we can network fairly easily instead of hoping to find stacks at out of town shows. <br /> <br /> I remember that one of the reasons Phil Spector went to Canada every year was to look for 52 Topps Hi #'s.<br /><br />I'm sure smart dealers in the 80's and early 90's had specific missions when they traveled. <br /><br />A couple of other examples.<br /><br />1972 Topps Football 3rd series was definately released in the DFW (Dallas Fort Worth area). I once picked up singles from that series at small local shows for three straight weekends. (No I don't have them any more)<br /><br />1969 Topps White Letters were released in the Albany NY area. I know several dealers who would go up there just to look for those cards. I also had great success getting those White Letter cards from Jack Smalling sell lists.<br /><br />Regards<br />Rich<br /><br />
|
1967 High Number Sheets
Posted By: <b>Paul S</b><p>Rich said: "I remember that one of the reasons Phil Spector went to Canada every year was to look for 52 Topps Hi #'s."<br /><br />And here I always thought that it was to avoid felony charges. <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14><br />
|
1967 High Number Sheets
Posted By: <b>Dave Hornish</b><p>Memory Lane has a 1969 uncut white letter sheet in their latest auction. Interesting about the upstate NY area getting these. I guess whatever print run they were in made it up that way.<br /><br />As for the lack of semi or high series in some areas, did Topps sell through wholesalers or direct at that point? Boy, a thorough history of Topps in the golden days remains to be written.
|
1967 High Number Sheets
Posted By: <b>Brian Weisner</b><p><br /> Hi Dave,<br /> I spent most of the mid 80's to early 90's building a nice 67 set and most of the high numbers I purchased came from East Coast dealers. Since I was born in 68 I didn't have a chance to buy any of these at the store, but I did buy 4 nice cello's from a show at Willow Grove in the late 80's.<br /> I think most if not all of the Hi Numbers were sold East of the Mississippi river, but that's just a guess. I'm still upgrading a few in my set to make everything Ex/Mt or better, but thanfully only a few of them are Southern Leaguers. Keep looking for the other sheets, because I'd like to know to.... Be well Brian<br /><br /><br />PS Ted, I was really counting on you to have the whole set in uncut sheets...
|
1967 High Number Sheets
Posted By: <b>Paul S</b><p>I can't imagine that Topps sold direct in Los Angeles, if selling direct to a store is what you mean. Those were the days of the great independent Mom and Pops, including liquor stores. There, it is like a convenience store, such as a 7-11, except individually owned/operated. Liquor, chips, magazines, candy racks, everything, and of boxes of baseball cards. Plus sold at supermarkets and anyone else who had a retail license. Such a geographic sprawl like you've never seen, although probably you have! But this was the original sprawl, in the 60's, chronologically earlier than other metro areas. Anyway, that's my take on it.
|
1967 High Number Sheets
Posted By: <b>Larry P.</b><p>I collected this set in the Buffalo, NY area in the summer of 1967 when I was 11 years old. The distribution issues by series remain clear in my memory to this day, as I had to ride my bike far and wide (unbeknownst to my mother) to get the high numbers.<br /><br />I distinctly recall that several local mom and pop stores and drug stores sold all the series 1 through 5, and these were easy to get. The 6th series was a little tougher, limited to 2 or 3 stores, and the 7th series was only available in 1 store, Seven-Eleven. <br /><br />When I asked the owner of the store nearest to me where were the last series cards, why didn't he have them, he told me that they were now stocking football cards instead of baseball cards, as football season was now starting and they assumed nobody would want baseball cards anymore(late August or early September as I recall) - hence no 7th series cards available. <br /><br />This drove me and my friends nuts because we already had the 7th checklist and we all desperately wanted the Brooks Robinson card, one of the World Series heroes in 1966. The Seaver and Carew rookie cards meant nothing to us at that time, and we had no inkling that the high numbers all would prove to be scarce years later.
|
1967 High Number Sheets
Posted By: <b>Paul S</b><p>Most likely then, Larry's situation in Buffalo must have been what transpired in L.A. in my own. It's not that the stores couldn't have gotten the last series, it's that they chose not to -- at least the stores I was frequenting. Bummer, to say the least.
|
1967 High Number Sheets
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>That is really the explanation for why all high numbers are difficult. They simply were released too late in the season, and the majority of candy store owners felt it didn't make sense to stock them. Why purchase something that you anticipate to be a poor seller when you know that the first series of football cards will fly off the shelves.
|
Resurrecting this from the mausoleum; A portion of the other 1967 Topps high number half sheet showed up in my inbox the other day and I posted a short piece about it: http://toppsarchives.blogspot.com/20...e-reality.html There is a different array as you will see but we only get to see the top three rows>
|
Spector's Meanderings
Quote:
|
I love it
There are two differnet Phil Spectors --
1) The lunatic brilliant record producer who locked up Ronnie for several years 2) The beloved hockey card dealer who worked for Scoreboard in the hobby glory days Rich |
Thanks for the correction, Rich. Sorry for confusing the respected card dealer with the other of the same name. But, with that straightened out, I'm still wondering if there is reliable information that the '52 Topps highs - or lows, for that matter - were easier to find in Canada than many places in the northeast U.S..
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:42 AM. |