1967 Topps 6th Series

[deweyinthehall]

So, when I began to work on a 1967 set earlier this year, I knew the 7th series was going to kick my butt (and my wallet), but the 6th series?

I get that cards generally get increasingly harder to find as you move up series to series, culminating in the high series.

But, looking on line so many 6th series commons (not exactly in MT condition, either) are priced more than many 7th series common DPs.

What's odd is that the stars (Palmer, Marichal, Killebrew etc) don't seem to carry proportionate premiums...in other words if commons are often listed between 10-20, the stars can be had for 30-50 in nice shape. With the pricing on the commons, I would have expected the stars to be around 80-100, especially a 2nd year Palmer.

So the question I have is this - is this just more silliness in this season of vintage silliness, or does the 6th series carry genuine production/distribution/scarcity issues like the 7th?

[G1911]

Off memory, series 6 is 458-533. Adding the checklist DP, 77 cards, 7 unique rows. So there should be SP'd rows to fit the Topps sheet size. Tony Perez and Tony Perez alone used to be listed in the Standard Catalogs (mine is the Vintage only, 5th edition) as a SP; he may or may not be but he is obviously not the only one; unless a card was pulled from production there should always be at least 10 others just as tough.

Tolan and Helms seem to be more popular than I had expected in set building. I too found the HOF's in this series pretty easy and cheap. McCovey, Palmer, Killebrew, Marichal, all were pretty easy.

[jchcollins]

I would imagine the 6th series is tougher than the 1st, but I know of no accepted explanation of it being anywhere on par with the difficulty of the 7th series.

What bugs me is sellers who don't know the numbers and just generally list cards with 500 or up on the back as a "high number." Uh, no, high numbers start at #534.

[deweyinthehall]

I assume there are no known images of 6th series sheets out there? I checked my small but growing uncut sheet folder and I have sample images from 1-5 and 7 (some grabbed from these boards).

[G1911]

I checked my archive and do not have an image of the sheet either. Not that that means much

[Gorditadogg]

I'm telling ya Mark, just take a deep breath and go on and buy that Shaw.

https://www.deanscards.com/search?s=1967+470

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

I'm telling ya Mark, just take a deep breath and go on and buy that Shaw.

https://www.deanscards.com/search?s=1967+470

I like that the grade 6 Shaw is half the price of his grade 5 Shaw.

[deweyinthehall]

Originally Posted by G1911

I like that the grade 6 Shaw is half the price of his grade 5 Shaw.

And the "grade" 4 and 4.5 are more than the 6 as well!

I actually found a half dozen 6th series commons - including Shaw - last night at Mantlerulz on eBay for decent prices. Grabbed them for $40 shipped, which tells you they were priced a lot nicer than most.

[Rich Klein]

Also -- these cards were interestingly released around the country. The first sale I made at the 1984 NSCC was to a St. Louis dealer who was always short on those cards. Apparently they were not released in St. Louis but the 7th series was so there were always a lot of the high series in St. Louis back in the day. Makes sense as the Cardinals would win the WS that season.

So I would wager the production of the 6th series was not as high as you might think for a semi-high series. At one point I also heard that Tim McCarver #475 was always an instant sell-out

[rats60]

I remember the 6th series cards were always popular in St Louis because of low distribution there. These were all shipped to Southern California. I was surprised to find out that these carried any premium at all. We had more 6th series cards in 1967 (and no 7th) than any other series. I think the issue was more irregular distribution than lack of production.

[Kevvyg1026]

I am not aware of any uncut 6th series material, and the dearth of miscut and wrong back material has made me leery of attempting to reconstruct the sheet. The series does indeed have 77 cards, so the likelihood is that there are 33 cards printed 4x each and 33 cards printed 3x each (i.e., the SPs).

I know that Peterson, 495, is above Fisher, 533 at one point on the sheet, and that Shaw, 470 has a WB of Dodgers team (503).

The image I have seen for the 5th series sheet suggests that the no ear version of the checklist 6 was issued in series 5 while the ear version was probably issued in series 6 printing.

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by deweyinthehall

I assume there are no known images of 6th series sheets out there? I checked my small but growing uncut sheet folder and I have sample images from 1-5 and 7 (some grabbed from these boards).

I collect sheets but have not seen a 6th series sheet

[rugbymarine]

Nothing to add to the discussion on 6th series pricing, but here's a card I sold a few months ago.

[/url]

[Cliff Bowman]

There are two series sheets from the 60’s that Kevvyg1026 and I can’t even commence to reconstruct, 1966 Topps 6th Series and 1967 Topps 6th Series because of the lack of partial sheets, wrong backs, and miscuts. 1966 Topps 4th Series, 1969 Topps 3rd Series, and 1969 Topps 7th Series aren’t far behind.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by rats60

I remember the 6th series cards were always popular in St Louis because of low distribution there. These were all shipped to Southern California. I was surprised to find out that these carried any premium at all. We had more 6th series cards in 1967 (and no 7th) than any other series. I think the issue was more irregular distribution than lack of production.

IIRC correctly (and I may not be) some of the distro issues may have been related to Southland Corp. I believe Buck Barker also mentions somewhere the St. Louis distro issues but I cannot find my SCD tearsheets that mention this presently.

[Collectorsince62]

As a lifelong St. Louisan who collected cards back in '67 and continues collecting to this day, I can absolutely verify the scarcity of '67T series 6 and the abundance of series 7 in St. Louis. We were buying 7th series packs like crazy at the time hoping to find those elusive cards from the penultimate series. Ended up with plenty of Brooks Robinsons and those two rookie cards people seem to like, but never even saw a McCarver until I bought the entire 6th series from Bruce Yeko at Wholesale Cards in the mid-70's. Set me back a whopping $5.95 (same price by the way as the Fleer Ted Williams set w/o #68, from the same order).

I have been advertising in local papers for decades, and purchased many collections, but have never once come across any series 6 cards. I still find series 7 cards occasionally, which certainly makes the situation a lot more tolerable.

[deweyinthehall]

Was doing some shopping at Dean's Cards tonight - Yes; it is very possible to find nice conditioned singles at reasonable (compared to eBay and elsewhere) prices. But I digress.

Anyway - I noticed he listed #476, Tony Perez, as an SP, but that he didn't show any other cards from the 6th series as an SP (obviously, for there to have been 1 SP, there would need to be at least 10 others).

I sent a note asking the basis for listing the Perez as an SP and whether they have seen any 6th series sheets.

Will let everyone know what I hear back.

[Cliff Bowman]

Don't hold your breath, they still have these listed as SP's when we proved they aren't from the 1966 7th Series thread, Jerry Adair, Willie Davis, Willie McCovey, Jim Northrup, Dave Roberts, and Billy Williams.

[Cliff Bowman]

Dean's Cards has 42 cards from the 1967 Topps 5th Series listed as Double Prints from #373 to #457. The 1967 Topps 5th Series has 88 cards, there are no SP's or DP's from an 88 card Series, they are each printed three times over two Slits. I wouldn't put much stock in their knowledge of SP's and DP's.

[toppcat]

Perez has been listed as an SP practically since the day the set was issued. Not sure of the origin or if its even a tough card relative to the rest of the series.

[Cliff Bowman]

It’s difficult to tell whether star cards are SP’s from 77 card Series based on quantities, if a couple of commons were known that are on the same row as the 1967 Tony Perez we could get an idea but there are so few miscuts and no known partial sheets of the 1967 Topps 6th Series that it’s about impossible to tell.

[G1911]

The POP report suggests which of the commons might be the SP's. I don't trust it either for evaluating stars here like Perez. Palmer/Killebrew/McCovey have more. Marichal has about the same, Mazeroski significantly less.

Evidence that Perez is a SP seems to be non-existent at this point in time.

[bb66]

The Battersbox has the #476 Perez listed as SP, too.

[rats60]

With 77 cards, there are 33 cards printed 4 times and 44 cards printed 3 times. There were plenty of 6th series cards printed where it doesn't make a difference if a card is in the shorter run. For set collectors, these cards are available. Only when the series is in short supply like in 1966 and 1967 7th series, does being shorter supply make a difference. Mickey Mantle is a DP in 1966 Topps, it doesn't make that card cheap.

[G1911]

There are definitely price differences on some 6th series 1967 cards that are a bit unusual. It’s not super tough but it’s not like series 1 of 1966. Nobody ever implied a DP Mantle will be cheap at all. Some of us like to figure out the actual print patterns for historical knowledge, it’s not all about pricing.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by rats60

Mickey Mantle is a DP in 1966 Topps, it doesn't make that card cheap.

And it's not even the most famous Mantle DP!

[deweyinthehall]

Well, I received my Dean's shipment from the other night - still no answer to my question, though. I won't hold my breath.

[Cliff Bowman]

I noticed that Dean’s Cards and Trading Card Data Base (TCDB) share many of the same SP’s and DP’s, for example they both have 1967 Topps 1 The Champs, 30 Al Kaline, 100 Frank Robinson as DP’s (which may be correct, I don’t know), 42 cards in the 1967 5th Series as DP’s (wrong!), and 473 Tony Perez as a SP (who knows?). I would guess that Dean’s ‘borrowed’ the information from TCDB. I deleted all of the wrong denotations of DP from the 1967 Topps 5th Series on TCDB and I got a message from Administration asking why I did that, I explained to them that 88 card Series don’t have any SP’s or DP’s and that each card is printed three times over a 264 card sheet consisting of two 132 card Slits. They haven’t replied back to me or changed the cards back to DP’s, as of yet anyway.

[toppcat]

UPDATE 6/13-I am re-running my survey. The 6/9 results from eBay look like they were all FUBAR and I have no idea why and I have deleted them.

Go here for the corrected count: https://www.net54baseball.com/showpo...3&postcount=59

[deweyinthehall]

Interesting.

All of the 15 cards I still need from the 6th series and can either not find or can't find at a decent price are on the lower half of this list, as are some of the cards I gave up and paid more than I wanted for.

[G1911]

Clemens was a surprising pain for me when I was building this series.

[mikemb]

I pulled out my 1967 6th series checklist which has the cards I got from buying packs at the corner store as a 10 year old. I was missing 19 cards and they are all over the list from Dave, some top, some bottom and some middle.

Mike

img06102022_043 (2).jpg

img06102022_044 (2).jpg

[toppcat]

I haven't matched to PSA pops, maybe someone who has more time can take a peek.

[Kevvyg1026]

As was observed for the 1966 highs, sometimes a high demand card like Perez is misidentified as an SP, even though it is not an SP.

Since the series has 77 cards, there is no doubt that there are SPs in this series. But as Cliff pointed out in an earlier post, reconstructing the 6th series sheet is just about impossible unless more miscut or uncut material pops up. Here are a couple of interesting cards I've seen.

1967_495.jpg

1967_shaw_wb_470_503.jpg

[deweyinthehall]

I can add this one:

[mikemb]

This onw sold on Ebay a few days ago.

Mike

s-l500 (2).jpg


s-l500 (3).jpg

[Cliff Bowman]

I found these on eBay, a Perez miscut with an unknown Rookies or Team card under it AND with a wrong back(!) of Jim Palmer, a miscut Jim Palmer with 473 Jose Santiago to his left, 518 Menke with 532 Hicks to his right, 486 Twins Rookies with 490 Cloninger to it's right, 507 Orioles Rookies with 467 O'Toole to it's right, 478 Humphreys with 512 Schoendienst to his right, 464 Coombs with 494 Rigney to his right, 523 Merritt with 473 Santiago to his right, 508 Hall with 528 Petrocelli to his right, 521 Bird Bombers with 533 Jack Fisher to it's right, 504 Martinez with 510 Mazeroski to his right.

[deweyinthehall]

Interesting. We now know 3 cards in one of the rows because of Cliff's images - MERRITT/SANTIAGO/PALMER.

For what it's worth:

In Dave's eBay count, Palmer is far and away #1 with 53. Santiago and Merritt are barely in the upper half with 16 and 15 respectively (not accounting for ties).

I checked the PSA Pop Report, and Palmer leads the pack with more than 1300 for clear reasons. Merritt is in the upper 1/4 with 307, and Santiago is in the lower half with 239.

I did a quick check of COMC, and all 3 are in the upper third with between 8 and 15 of each.

For the most part, the other pairs Cliff posted are all fairly close in counts on the eBay list.

[JollyElm]

Has the time come to start trying to put print sheets together, like you guys did with the 1966 high numbers?

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Has the time come to start trying to put print sheets together, like you guys did with the 1966 high numbers?

I wish, we’re nowhere close on this one to start reconstructing the sheet yet.

[Cliff Bowman]

I found a few more at Dean's Cards, 461 Bob Miller is above 521 Bird Bombers, 478 Bob Humphreys is above 523 Jim Merritt, 512 Red Schoendienst is above 473 Jose Santiago, 527 Dennis Ribant is above a Checklist on the right edge, 497 Ron Campbell is above a Checklist on the right edge.

[Kevvyg1026]

Found this

1967_480.jpg

[Kevvyg1026]

And a thought: In 1967, at least for series 1 through 5, the current series checklist and the upcoming checklist were on opposite sides of the slit.

[deweyinthehall]

Based upon the 1 7th series sheet we have and the reconstruction of what the other slit probably looked like which was done in another thread, series 7 probably has a row count of 4x4x4x4x3x3x2.

Since the 6th series has the same number of unique rows, is it reasonable to presume that the row count would be the same, or is even that far too much to hope for?

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

Found this

Attachment 520625

You stole my thunder on that one. Last night I went through the other 76 cards and I am 99% sure it is the Braves Team card under McCovey. I also found one of those severe back miscuts on COMC, 520 Max Alvis is to the right of 524 Felix Mantilla. On a side note, Mantilla never did play a game for the Cubs, he blew out an Achilles tendon in spring training in 1967 and then tried to make the team again in spring training in 1968 but was cut.

[Cliff Bowman]

521 Bird Bombers is above 479 Gary Bell.

[Cliff Bowman]

488 Gerry Arrigo is to the right of 481 Leo Durocher, definitely a SP row.

[Cliff Bowman]

And last but not least, 513 Marcelino Lopez is above 469 Len Gabrielson.

[G1911]

I can't contribute what Cliff has but here's the one I have in my set. #529 Wagner is above #518 Menke.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by G1911

I can't contribute what Cliff has but here's the one I have in my set. #529 Wagner is above #518 Menke.

Fantastic! I can add Wagner to one of the four mini blocks I have going on for the 1967 6th Series Sheet. This is the biggest one so far.