1967 Topps High Numbers

[Kevvyg1026]

I certainly know I didn't have any 6th or 7th series cards from 1967 in my "kid" collection that year and I lived in the Phoenix area. Mostly, I purchased packs from my local 7-11 store.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

I certainly know I didn't have any 6th or 7th series cards from 1967 in my "kid" collection that year and I lived in the Phoenix area. Mostly, I purchased packs from my local 7-11 store.

I have to find the old article I saved about this but IIRC 7-11 was one of the main sellers in certain SW areas and they did not get either series in 1967.

[bb66]

We had 6th and 7th Series 1967 cards. I bought packs from a locally owned 7-11 type store. East Tennessee-Knoxville.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by toppcat

I have to find the old article I saved about this but IIRC 7-11 was one of the main sellers in certain SW areas and they did not get either series in 1967.

Interesting because that was one of my main sources in Orange County, CA. At the corner of our subdivision there was a 7-11 and Stop-N-Go that we bought cards from. I also remember getting 6th series cards from the ice cream man. I know that we had more 6th series cards than any other series in 1967 and completed our sets 1-6 series but had no 7th. 6th series cards were plentiful in collections that we bought but got almost no high numbers. I bought them from Card Collectors Co.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by rats60

Interesting because that was one of my main sources in Orange County, CA. At the corner of our subdivision there was a 7-11 and Stop-N-Go that we bought cards from. I also remember getting 6th series cards from the ice cream man. I know that we had more 6th series cards than any other series in 1967 and completed our sets 1-6 series but had no 7th. 6th series cards were plentiful in collections that we bought but got almost no high numbers. I bought them from Card Collectors Co.

To be clear, it was not all areas where 7-11 was located. I think a lot of Topps California distribution was direct to chain stores though. Ice cream men would have been supplied via a jobber most likely. CCC had massive 67 high number lots at one point that they were selling through The Trader Speaks (Sept. 1977 ad below). They had vending boxes for some time thereafter as well and I think I have another ad where they were selling high number vending cases.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by toppcat

To be clear, it was not all areas where 7-11 was located. I think a lot of Topps California distribution was direct to chain stores though. Ice cream men would have been supplied via a jobber most likely. CCC had lots of 67 high number cases at one point they were selling through The Trader Speaks (Sept. 1977 ad below). They had vending boxes for some time thereafter as well.

I don’t remember if we got them at 7-11, it was too long ago. Every time we went in to a store that had baseball cards, we would buy a pack. If they were a series we didn’t have, we would each buy a box and trade to complete our series. In 1967, we kept buying packs in hopes they would be 7th series and kept getting 6th.

[JollyElm]

Just a side note, but it's really important not to forget about football/basketball/hockey's role in the downfall of high numbers throughout the Topps years. After collecting baseball cards all summer long and piling up stacks of doubles after stacks of doubles, we used to jump right off the train when the other sports cards suddenly appeared in the stationery store (and squeezed the baseball boxes off of the shelves). Anything NEW!!!! to a kid just takes all the focus away. That was my experience growing up. Plus, in an odd way, it also signified that summer was officially over. You had to go back to school and all of the 'cold' sports were starting up again, so the green grass of baseball was in the rearview mirror...and there was no going back.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Just a side note, but it's really important not to forget about football/basketball/hockey's role in the downfall of high numbers throughout the Topps years. After collecting baseball cards all summer long and piling up stacks of doubles after stacks of doubles, we used to jump right off the train when the other sports cards suddenly appeared in the stationery store (and squeezed the baseball boxes off of the shelves). Anything NEW!!!! to a kid just takes all the focus away. That was my experience growing up. Plus, in an odd way, it also signified that summer was officially over. You had to go back to school and all of the 'cold' sports were starting up again, so the green grass of baseball was in the rearview mirror...and there was no going back.

Tru dat. If I had 25 cents back then to spend per week it was a lot.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

Row A with Pinson as leading card and Carew at the end of the row is at top of both half-sheets. Row E with the checklist as leading card is at the bottom of one half-sheet. This row also has B Robby in it as well as Bunning, W Sox team, W Sox Rookies, etc.

Row G, with Belanger, Adcock, Yankees & A's rookies, Ty Cline, and the Seaver RC, is a leading candidate to be the bottom row on the other half-sheet. If there were factory miscuts associated with the equipment used, I would expect the other cards in the row to exhibit similar types of issues. Based on what was said earlier, some of those cards may, so I suspect factory miscuts but I haven't seen enough or measured enough samples of these cards to determine that for certain.

I should also mention that the Seaver from my set has that legit looking fairly minor grade 4ish vintage corner wear (on all four) that's consistent with the rest of the entire set, yet no strange changes or oblong areas on the edges between the corners (which you'd think would be necessary for a card that was trimmed w/o the corners being touched).

At least I'd assume so, as I know nothing about the intricacies of altering!

So that seems to make trimming even less likely. Especially given the various cuts of my high numbers in general (and in a situation that shouldn't have any relation to deceitfully trimming to increase value, outside of the Seaver possibility)

[toppcat]

I found the original listing from July 1984 issue of Current Card Prices where the high number SP's and DP's were introduced (sort of). This was to be based upon my researching one of the uncut sheet slits at the time. The publisher had his own thoughts based upon his dealer experience also the thought a differently arrayed slit might be out there based upon his (extensive) inventory, which eventually turned out to be right of course.

We never addressed the 66 high number SP's; first I can find that happening is in 1989 issues of Baseball Cards magazine.

Enjoy the trip down Memory Lane!

[Kevvyg1026]

Here's a miscut of Seaver with Ty Cline next to it. Nothing new, but thought it would be of interest.1967_seaver.JPG

[Kevvyg1026]

Does this conclusively show that the bottom 3 rows of the 2nd slit contain rows A (Pinson), F (Rohr), and G (Belanger)?

1967High.jpg

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

Does this conclusively show that the bottom 3 rows of the 2nd slit contain rows A (Pinson), F (Rohr), and G (Belanger)?

Hard to say as that sequence appears on the known full sheet but it's intriguing and would give you the five Pinson rows and Belanger rookie row at the bottom if true, which supports the prevailing theory right now. It's not unusual to see two groups of proofs for a series, here a 44 then 33 card section would apply as such without revealing row locations overall.

Where did that proof come from, Topps Vault?

[Kevvyg1026]

What does this card mean relative to row placement? Saw it listed on ebay last week.

1967_569.jpg

[Kevvyg1026]

The CCP July 84 price guide is interesting. 9 of the 11 cards in the Pinson row (all except Pinson & Carew) are shown at a lower price than the other high number cards and Pinson is at only a slight premium ($2 vs. $1.75). However, the other high numbers listed at $1.75 are from several different rows, and none are from the Rohr (#547) row.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

What does this card mean relative to row placement? Saw it listed on ebay last week.

Attachment 420877

I am not sure, possibly from a last minute strip in of the Pinson row? Carew is at far end of course.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

The CCP July 84 price guide is interesting. 9 of the 11 cards in the Pinson row (all except Pinson & Carew) are shown at a lower price than the other high number cards and Pinson is at only a slight premium ($2 vs. $1.75). However, the other high numbers listed at $1.75 are from several different rows, and none are from the Rohr (#547) row.

Richie and I had differing philosophies on what was what, so IIRC that's what he went with as he was in agreement with the extra prints.

[cardsagain74]

Going back to what I was trying to decide about the size of the Seaver/other high numbers cuts....noticed this today (from a listing for a '67 set from a longtime dealer).

The Seaver seems smaller here too, especially horizontally. Similar to mine.

Edit, it's actually easier to notice in the smaller pic in the listing

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1967-Topps-...X/333747691459

[bb66]

Just wanted to pull this up from a year ago. Very interesting read!

[toppcat]

Not to throw a spanner in the works but I ran the PSA pops, and just like the pops for the semi's they are smoother than the eBay data suggests. I accounted for HOF'ers and popular cards like the Wills and B. Robby so some of this is a little subjective but I think it's as a good a count as can be done. 42,165 cards are in the PSA pop.

There's still an anomaly or two though with the average number of impressions of a single card per row:

RECAP
A 450
B 382
C 393
D 412
E 397
F 414
G 390

St. Dev. 22.78784137
Mean 405.4285714

1 Std Dev 427.7878
1 Std Dev 382.2122
2 Std Dev 450.5757

Chucking the HOF, popular subjects, etc, the lowest pop card is Al Ferrara (293 pop) who heads the B Slit. Highest pop is the White Sox Team card (530 pop), in the D row. Data is all over the place, no pattern that I can find. The A Row headed by Pinson is just a hair under two standard deviations away from the mean, none of the other rows are over 1 standard deviation, although the B row is close the other way.

I'm trying to recall my statistics classes but I think two standard deviations means there's only a 5% or so chance it's random. So 4x3 and 3x4 looks possible but that A row is bugging me. It's almost like something happened mid press run and they had to swap in a row.

So D & F look like 4x rows, B, C, E & G like 3x rows and row A still taunts but is "at least" a 4x row.

[Kevvyg1026]

There has been evidence posted for 17 of the 24 rows of the two slits. These known rows exhibit (so far) the following frequencies:

row A (Pinson) - 4x
row B (Ferrara) - 2x
row C (NL RS) - 2x
row D (Colavito) - 2x
row E (check 7) - 2x
row F (Sox RS) - 3x
row G (Orioles RS) - 2x

So, if a 4x3 & 3x4 pattern was used, the Pinson row could not be part of the remaining 7 rows. This means that at least one of the other rows (and most likely 2) have to abut different rows in the remaining 7 than what we already know exists.

Out of the 60+ miscuts already known, not one has shown evidence that this is true. The available evidence (miscuts, uncut material) still supports a 1x5, 1x4, 5x3 row distribution.

I wouldn't rely on POP reports, particularly those of graded cards, to assess row distributions since such reports rely on collectors submitting cards subject to fee structures. These fees may (probably?) support high value cards being graded more frequently relative to their lower value brethren.

For example, in the 1966 highs, we know the pattern of both slits (thanks to a lot of effort from people in this forum). We know that the McCovey (550), Williams (580), and Salmon (594) card are in the same row. Despite this, a recent PSA POP report showed that McCovey had 979 submissions, Williams had 764, and Salmon had 187. Another example shows that Tony Taylor (585), who heads one of the 4x rows, had 222 submissions whereas the Grant/Shirley RS, a card in one of the 3x rows, had 633 submissions.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

There has been evidence posted for 17 of the 24 rows of the two slits. These known rows exhibit (so far) the following frequencies:

row A (Pinson) - 4x
row B (Ferrara) - 2x
row C (NL RS) - 2x
row D (Colavito) - 2x
row E (check 7) - 2x
row F (Sox RS) - 3x
row G (Orioles RS) - 2x

So, if a 4x3 & 3x4 pattern was used, the Pinson row could not be part of the remaining 7 rows. This means that at least one of the other rows (and most likely 2) have to abut different rows in the remaining 7 than what we already know exists.

Out of the 60+ miscuts already known, not one has shown evidence that this is true. The available evidence (miscuts, uncut material) still supports a 1x5, 1x4, 5x3 row distribution.

I wouldn't rely on POP reports, particularly those of graded cards, to assess row distributions since such reports rely on collectors submitting cards subject to fee structures. These fees may (probably?) support high value cards being graded more frequently relative to their lower value brethren.

For example, in the 1966 highs, we know the pattern of both slits (thanks to a lot of effort from people in this forum). We know that the McCovey (550), Williams (580), and Salmon (594) card are in the same row. Despite this, a recent PSA POP report showed that McCovey had 979 submissions, Williams had 764, and Salmon had 187. Another example shows that Tony Taylor (585), who heads one of the 4x rows, had 222 submissions whereas the Grant/Shirley RS, a card in one of the 3x rows, had 633 submissions.

I try to factor out the higher value cards when looking at pops but it's sometimes inconsistent with other results and you can't factor for cards that are often off-center or miscut. I also wonder if Topps had some way to auto-reject really bad cuts.

At one point Topps kept reference copies of all their sheets in Duryea but they were sold off in various ways over several years. Maddening.

[Kevvyg1026]

I wish someone had taken a pic of the uncut 6th series array that sold in 1989 auction. That array appears to have disappeared.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

I wish someone had taken a pic of the uncut 6th series array that sold in 1989 auction. That array appears to have disappeared.

What a difference a couple decades makes. 20 years later and you're blithely snapping pix with your cell phone.

[deweyinthehall]

This post could have easily gone under the 6th series thread as well.

I'm working on a master '67 set and am wondering (although I think I saw a mentioned about it here someplace) whether we know or think we know which versions of the 7th checklist were printed on the 6th series sheets and which on the 7th.

There are 4 versions of the checklist - Chin touches line, names and numbers higher than boxes; chin touches line names and numbers even; chin doesn't touch line, names and numbers higher; chin doesn't touch names and numbers even.

Since the checklist appears across 4 different slits, it would stand to reason that one version each was from each of the 4 slits (2 each from the 6th and 7th series), with the ones from the 7th series printing 2x compared to their counterparts from the 6th which had to share their slits with 6th series checklists.

It's not possible to tell from the grainy image of the known 7th slit which one is there.

Any thoughts/opinions on how these were placed and, as a result, how common or rare the versions might be amongst each other?

Here they are for comparison:

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by deweyinthehall

This post could have easily gone under the 6th series thread as well.

I'm working on a master '67 set and am wondering (although I think I saw a mentioned about it here someplace) whether we know or think we know which versions of the 7th checklist were printed on the 6th series sheets and which on the 7th.

There are 4 versions of the checklist - Chin touches line, names and numbers higher than boxes; chin touches line names and numbers even; chin doesn't touch line, names and numbers higher; chin doesn't touch names and numbers even.

Since the checklist appears across 4 different slits, it would stand to reason that one version each was from each of the 4 slits (2 each from the 6th and 7th series), with the ones from the 7th series printing 2x compared to their counterparts from the 6th which had to share their slits with 6th series checklists.

It's not possible to tell from the grainy image of the known 7th slit which one is there.

Any thoughts/opinions on how these were placed and, as a result, how common or rare the versions might be amongst each other?

Here they are for comparison:

I wonder if every checklist from 1961-73 can be found with a variant from each slit/series? Kinda makes sense but some differences could be extremely minute. There's usually at least one checklist variation per series but per slit seems more likely.

[mikemb]

A quick check of my 1965 to 1967 Topps checklists has one with 4 variations, the 1965 #189 3rd series checklist. Has a smooth or uneven (blue bleed) top border and either a dot or no dot over the second i in #211 Ridzik. A couple of checklists have 3 variations. If I star looking for high or low boxes, there probably will be more.

Mike

img008 (2).jpg

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

Row G, with Belanger, Adcock, Yankees & A's rookies, Ty Cline, and the Seaver RC, is a leading candidate to be the bottom row on the other half-sheet. If there were factory miscuts associated with the equipment used, I would expect the other cards in the row to exhibit similar types of issues. Based on what was said earlier, some of those cards may, so I suspect factory miscuts but I haven't seen enough or measured enough samples of these cards to determine that for certain.

I don't think it was ever confirmed in this thread but it seems to me this should be proof enough that the Belanger row with Seaver is the bottom row on the A Slit.

[jchcollins]

When Card Collectors Company and other early mail order outfits got the '67 7th series cases, did they get them directly from Topps? Wondering just in general how these suddenly became available in the early, mostly pre-retail hobby days circa 1970-80.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

When Card Collectors Company and other early mail order outfits got the '67 7th series cases, did they get them directly from Topps? Wondering just in general how these suddenly became available in the early, mostly pre-retail hobby days circa 1970-80.

Yes Card Collectors Company especially got their cards direct from Topps as Richard Gelman, who helmed the company for the 70's and 80's was Woody's son.

The other outlets from the 1970's got vending cases from Topps to make their sets. Wholesale Cards (well as Dave H. points out in the next point indirectly), Fritsch, etc.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

Yes Card Collectors Company especially got their cards direct from Topps as Richard Gelman, who helmed the company for the 70's and 80's was Woody's son.

The other outlets from the 1970's got vending cases from Topps to make their sets. Wholesale Cards, Fritsch, etc.

I have learned that Wholesale cards actually got theirs from Gelman.

[Kevvyg1026]

1967_+607_MC.jpg

Nothing new here since we knew that TJ is in 2nd column, above Bunning, but still a nice miscut.