1966 Topps High's - Any uncut sheets or partial sheets known?

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by G1911

Example, I have no difficulty finding Grant Jackson or Choo Choo Coleman more than any other SP really. It's just that everyone is asking $50 for their beater. Is it the last card people need to finish because it's the rarest, or because a card of a common player goes for a pretty penny that people don't really want to pay until it's the only thing in the way of completion?

IMO, the only reason you have no difficulty in finding the Grant Jackson card is because owners of this card are asking $50+ for their beater. Instead, if they were asking $10 for their beater you would have great difficulty finding this card.

[rats60]

I had trouble finding Grant Jackson and Gaylord Perry in 1973. No trouble finding Mccovey, but maybe just lucky. If you bought a pack, you would probably get at least 1 SP.

It would be interesting to see an uncut sheet and see if these cards are on the same row or different rows. The 1967 sheets/partial sheets really helped define which cards are truly SPs and which are not.

[toppcat]

Topps definitely tweaked the high number sheets in 66 and 67. You would need both 132 card half sheets from each year to tell but the SP's are legit. I've never seen a 66 high # sheet (I don't think), but have seen a 67 sheet and a scrap of another, different sheet. Some cards get legendary status they deserve and some don't. Like Brooks Robinson in 1967, where the scarcity was perceived but not real because of an early hobby find that must have only come from cards printed on one half sheet. And I believe the 66 Jackson is not all that tough compared to some other cards in the highs. There is a lot of disparity too in which cards people think are the SP's in '66 to boot.

There's 11 true SP's in 1967 and I studied the hell out of those highs to figure it out but I never really looked at the 66's. 1965 had a 77 card high series as well but it's not yielded any type of true SP's. 66 and 67 were both 77 card runs as well and something intentionally happened when those were printed. We just don't quite have all the pieces yet.

[mrmopar]

I have no expert opinion on this card, but have casually looked for it a few times as it also includes Dodger Bart Shirley. This card and the McMullen (Rose RC) are two only vintage Topps Dodger base cards, outside of the 52 Topps Hi #'s, I don't have and probably will never own.

At the times I have looked for it, even the beater copies were selling for close to $100, but there seemed to be a fair number of high quality/graded copies sitting unsold at higher than expected asking prices.

I would tend to believe that it is like the Andy Pafko 1952 Topps. The card itself outside of high condition really should not be worth that much. The price for that card I believe was driven by the fact that nice copies were harder to find due to rubber bands and such damaging the first card (or top card) in the set. The crazy prices on the high end copies then seem to filter down to the worse condition copies, as set builders, team collectors and player fans are forced to buy the cheaper copies and fight for them so they don't have to spend the big bucks on a high end copy.

I can't come up with a better answer, as the Jackson/Shirley card doesn't seem to be any less plentiful than the average SP card from other similar era Topps sets that routinely sell for less.

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

IMO, the only reason you have no difficulty in finding the Grant Jackson card is because owners of this card are asking $50+ for their beater. Instead, if they were asking $10 for their beater you would have great difficulty finding this card.

[G1911]

I don’t doubt the short prints exist at all. Perry, Jackson, Coleman, Piersall, Northrup, Clarke are all, I think, properly labeled short prints. What I question is how certain short prints are labeled extra short prints and said to be much tougher than other short prints. It just doesn’t seem to be that there are several different tiers of short prints from what I have seen over the years. Maybe one day we will find a sheet, the 67 sheets are very helpful for the set. I dread starting the 67 highs after I finish these

[quitcrab]

i have a first series sheet. If I recall Koufax and Catfish Hunter was a DP.

[BillP]

I have seen over the past 30 years or so, at least 3 8 card sheets of 66 highs and at least 1 12 card sheet. If I recall, Jackson, coleman, #544, perry, twins team, tigers team, mclain, cards that I consider the shorter sp's were not among them. I don't consider mccovey or Clarke very short sp's. Never a full one. Not to shift the conversation but, why has topps never come forward with information? Print qtys by series, uncut sheets? surely there must be some archive records somewhere. Even sales volumes by month by year could help people understand why selected years (1965) appear to have lower production numbers.

I collect 66 highs and think that the #591 is artificially high. #598 last card in 6 or better I get the cost. The all these, they are available if you have means. Any card really.

Also, the 66 highs about a third of the time are diamond cut, I dislike that.

Comments welcome.

[Rich Klein]

Bill:

In all honesty I don't think Topps kept that information nor cared about that information back in those days. Sorry but it's up to us to find the information!

[G1911]

Originally Posted by quitcrab

i have a first series sheet. If I recall Koufax and Catfish Hunter was a DP.

That's awesome! Hunter Sounds right, a 66 Catfish seems to be in every lot of random 60's Topps stuff I buy.

[jmoran19]

Originally Posted by quitcrab

i have a first series sheet. If I recall Koufax and Catfish Hunter was a DP.

As well as Pete Rose and Mickey Mantle on the opposite 132 card series 1 sheet.

In total 4 rows were printed 3 times (132 cards) and 6 rows were printed twice (132 cards) on the 264 card sheet. Equates to 110 unique cards

John

[jmoran19]

will post all i got. These two partials go together, too lazy to cut and paste them together LOL. The 3 pic. extends the Dick Egan and CHI CHI rows to the right

66high.jpg


66high2.jpg

[jmoran19]

These two go together as well

66higher.jpg

66higher2b.jpg

[BillP]

Originally Posted by jmoran19

will post all i got. These two partials go together, too lazy to cut and paste them together LOL. The 3 pic. extends the Dick Egan and CHI CHI rows to the right


Attachment 354645


Attachment 354646

So the Egan row is definitely DP's

[BillP]

Originally Posted by jmoran19

will post all i got. These two partials go together, too lazy to cut and paste them together LOL. The 3 pic. extends the Dick Egan and CHI CHI rows to the right

Attachment 354645


Attachment 354646

This 8 card sheet would imply that olivo (in the mantilla row) is below Egan (in the northrup row), but that again doesnt line up with our sequence of the far left card in the 7 rows. So this sheet must be a clue for the other 4 rows on a possible 11 row sheet. Or else, this 8 card cut came from a separate run of 8 card blocks produced separately.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by mrmopar

I have no expert opinion on this card, but have casually looked for it a few times as it also includes Dodger Bart Shirley. This card and the McMullen (Rose RC) are two only vintage Topps Dodger base cards, outside of the 52 Topps Hi #'s, I don't have and probably will never own.

At the times I have looked for it, even the beater copies were selling for close to $100, but there seemed to be a fair number of high quality/graded copies sitting unsold at higher than expected asking prices.

I would tend to believe that it is like the Andy Pafko 1952 Topps. The card itself outside of high condition really should not be worth that much. The price for that card I believe was driven by the fact that nice copies were harder to find due to rubber bands and such damaging the first card (or top card) in the set. The crazy prices on the high end copies then seem to filter down to the worse condition copies, as set builders, team collectors and player fans are forced to buy the cheaper copies and fight for them so they don't have to spend the big bucks on a high end copy.

I can't come up with a better answer, as the Jackson/Shirley card doesn't seem to be any less plentiful than the average SP card from other similar era Topps sets that routinely sell for less.

True on the Pafko. It shouldn't have the same grade level curve than others of the first series do. The off condition cards are plentiful.

Keep in mind that for the high number cards, they came out later in the season. For a number of reasons such as waning interest, less handling time, etc, they were 'played with' less by kids than the first series. I would offer that for these high numbers, the population percentage of nice condition is probably much higher than there earlier series counterparts (though I'm not sure things like PSA pop reports would accurately reflect this). It's easy to imagine some kid opening late series packs, flipping through the cards, then putting them in a box somewhere and maybe not looking at them again.

[jchcollins]

What are the current thoughts on the difficulty of #580 Billy Williams as a SP? I recently picked one up - but more because I'm a Cubs fan; I'm not going after the '66 set. '67 unfortunately is a different story...

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

What are the current thoughts on the difficulty of #580 Billy Williams as a SP? I recently picked one up - but more because I'm a Cubs fan; I'm not going after the '66 set. '67 unfortunately is a different story...

I’ve never found him to be one of the ‘tougher’ short prints, but he seems a little undervalued to me relative to a lot of other highs. Williams, McCovey and Perry are about the only star players among the SP’s, but Williams doesn’t go for much more than a common in mid grade raw

[toppcat]

Any true SP''s should be found in multiples of 11 in 1966 or 67, or just about any year from 1959 through 71. From 1968 the print quantities seem to have stabilized and the effect is far less pronounced.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by toppcat

Any true SP''s should be found in multiples of 11 in 1966 or 67, or just about any year from 1959 through 71. From 1968 the print quantities seem to have stabilized and the effect is far less pronounced.

43 of the 76 cards are credited as Single Prints in the Standard Catalog (5th Vintage Edition). Snyder is not, but he used to be considered one, at least.

The credited SP's, for what its worth, are

524 Giants Rookies
525 Bell
526 Twins Team
528 Gonder
532 Monteaguado
533 Adair
535 Willie Davis
538 Bob Allen
540 McClain
541 Oliver
543 Craig
544 Cards Rookies
545 Green
547 Clarke
548 Kroll
550 McCovey
551 Purkey
552 Tebbetts
554 Northrup
555 Perranoski
556 Queen
557 Mantilla
559 Pena
561 Coleman
564 Chance
565 Piersall
566 Cuellar
567 Howser
569 McFarlane
570 Mahaffey
571 Dave Roberts
576 Nicholson
577 Lamabe
578 Olivio
580 Billy Williams
583 Tigers Team
586 Raymond
589 Klimchock
590 Nicholson
591 N.L. Rookies (Jackson/Shirley)
593 Camilli
596 Astros Rookies (Colbert)
598 Perry


I'm not sure all of these actually are less common than credited Double Prints, but the experiences of any 1 person are not too helpful, I think, when none of these cards are rare (just rare in comparison to others, there are still thousands of each). I'm sure uncut sheets will be discovered the week after I pay up for the "extra short" SP's

[BillP]

Originally Posted by tschock

True on the Pafko. It shouldn't have the same grade level curve than others of the first series do. The off condition cards are plentiful.

Keep in mind that for the high number cards, they came out later in the season. For a number of reasons such as waning interest, less handling time, etc, they were 'played with' less by kids than the first series. I would offer that for these high numbers, the population percentage of nice condition is probably much higher than there earlier series counterparts (though I'm not sure things like PSA pop reports would accurately reflect this). It's easy to imagine some kid opening late series packs, flipping through the cards, then putting them in a box somewhere and maybe not looking at them again.

Never thought about that, but completely agree.