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

[jmoran19]

Tony Martinez continuation to the right with alt. configuration of two cards below him. In total the partials show 44 different cards i think. JOhn

[Kevvyg1026]

Most current price guides suggest that there are 43 SPs in the high series for 1966. If correct, this means that Topps probably used a print pattern of four rows printed 3x each and three rows printed 4x each for the full print sheet for the 7th series of 1966.

Based on the images shown in this thread, there appear to be seven unique rows of cards, as expected. The rows are as follows:

R1 (headed by Northrup) - 554, 568, 584, 581, 534, 558, 573, 536, 529, 572, 574.

R2 (headed by Mantilla) - 557, 588, 545, 526, 589, 593, 563, 578, 548, 524, 539.

R3 (headed by Shirley/Jackson) - 591, 540, 527, 577, 596, 551, 543, plus three more, not yet identified

R4 (headed by perranowski) - 555, 562, 559, 564

R5(headed by Cards rookies) - 544, 565, 547, 546

R6 (headed by Taylor) - 585, 530, 560, 571

R7 (headed by Salmon) - 594, 535, 575, 580

In addition, there are two other rows that have to be placed in this matrix. These include the McCovey row (550, 538, 579, 537) and the row with Sullivan (597, 592, 549). The McCovey row has to be placed above the 5th card in the Northrup row, so it must be in either R4, R5, R6, or R7 (since we only know 4 cards in those rows).

The location of the checklist is almost guaranteed to be in a row of SPs, and the location of the Sullivan row will probably be in a non-SP row.

If the row numbers are looked at carefully, it is clear that sometimes rows contain cards that are identified as SPs while other cards in the same row are not.

For example, Northrup is listed as a SP (#554), but no other card in that row is identified as such.

Another example: the row containing Shirley (#591) has seven identified SPs but also has card # 527 which is not listed as a SP.

A 3rd example: the row with Mantilla (#557) contains 8 cards that are commonly identified as SPs, but three cards which are not (588, 563, 539). Other examples also show this pattern of having both SP and non-SP cards in the same row, which really shouldn't be the case.

Hopefully, additional uncut or miscut material from this series will surface to help clear up these types of questions as well as identify the location within the printing of the other cards issued (e.g., Perry, Raymond, etc.).

[bb66]

Thanks Kevvyg1026. Really enjoying your posts on the 63's and 66's. Not sure what to think about some of these cards that look like they should have been SP's, too.Great work to you and to all on this site!!!

[toppcat]

I just posted some stuff in the 1961-63 SP thread that is relevant here: https://www.net54baseball.com/showpo...19&postcount=7

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

Most current price guides suggest that there are 43 SPs in the high series for 1966. If correct, this means that Topps probably used a print pattern of four rows printed 3x each and three rows printed 4x each for the full print sheet for the 7th series of 1966.

Based on the images shown in this thread, there appear to be seven unique rows of cards, as expected. The rows are as follows:

R1 (headed by Northrup) - 554, 568, 584, 581, 534, 558, 573, 536, 529, 572, 574.

R2 (headed by Mantilla) - 557, 588, 545, 526, 589, 593, 563, 578, 548, 524, 539.

R3 (headed by Shirley/Jackson) - 591, 540, 527, 577, 596, 551, 543, plus three more, not yet identified

R4 (headed by perranowski) - 555, 562, 559, 564

R5(headed by Cards rookies) - 544, 565, 547, 546

R6 (headed by Taylor) - 585, 530, 560, 571

R7 (headed by Salmon) - 594, 535, 575, 580

In addition, there are two other rows that have to be placed in this matrix. These include the McCovey row (550, 538, 579, 537) and the row with Sullivan (597, 592, 549). The McCovey row has to be placed above the 5th card in the Northrup row, so it must be in either R4, R5, R6, or R7 (since we only know 4 cards in those rows).

The location of the checklist is almost guaranteed to be in a row of SPs, and the location of the Sullivan row will probably be in a non-SP row.

If the row numbers are looked at carefully, it is clear that sometimes rows contain cards that are identified as SPs while other cards in the same row are not.

For example, Northrup is listed as a SP (#554), but no other card in that row is identified as such.

Another example: the row containing Shirley (#591) has seven identified SPs but also has card # 527 which is not listed as a SP.

A 3rd example: the row with Mantilla (#557) contains 8 cards that are commonly identified as SPs, but three cards which are not (588, 563, 539). Other examples also show this pattern of having both SP and non-SP cards in the same row, which really shouldn't be the case.

Hopefully, additional uncut or miscut material from this series will surface to help clear up these types of questions as well as identify the location within the printing of the other cards issued (e.g., Perry, Raymond, etc.).

This about nails it, I think. For the Mantila row, "DP"'s 588, 563 and 539 are the last 3 non-"SP" High Numbers still on my want list (16 cards to finish the set, all highs). Pretty sure now these are actually in one of the rows printed less often. Looks like I was completely wrong on 554 Northrup being an actual SP.


I still wonder where the perception of rarity came from originally. Some cards being printed 4 times and others 3 seems to roughly equate to what I've seen collecting the set; there are noticeable SP's, but they are not THAT much tougher to find. Why does 544 Hoerner carry such a premium? When did people decide Grant Jackson/Shirley was a magic Super SP? I've been collecting 60's Topps since the late 90's and everything periodical and guide I have repeats the accepted claim that some cards are extra SP's, and not in multiple of 11's.

[Kevvyg1026]

I grew up in the Phoenix area and I do not recall ever seeing 7th series for either 1966 or 1967 in their release years. Now, as I've just got back into collecting, I do find some cards harder to find (e.g., on eBay) than others.

For example, a recent survey I conducted, showed some of the 1966 highs had 20 to 30 copies for sale while others had between 70 to 100 copies. Finding Shirley/Jackson for under BV is an issue but only because of pricing. There are a number of these cards on the market but asking price is typically BV or higher for cards in VG-Ex condition. Same thing for Perry.

The Hoerner card (544) is another example. Finding a well-centered card might be somewhat of an issue since it is on the far left of the sheet and one of the three rows containing this card may well have on the bottom of the sheet. Yet, a recent survey of the PSA distribution showed over half of the cards submitted (234/460) were at grade 7 or higher. This card does exist on the market in reasonable quantity (e.g., last week, there were over 50 available on ebay), but the asking price always seems to be more than BV, even for VG examples, so there is a perceived scarcity.

Interestingly, the two cards I struggled to obtain to complete my 1966 set were 565 Piersall and 569 McFarlane. Although there are a number of both cards available for sale, I was unwilling to pay $30-$40 for VG (at best) cards. After several months, I eventually was able to acquire the cards, but I probably overpaid a little simply so I could complete the set.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

I grew up in the Phoenix area and I do not recall ever seeing 7th series for either 1966 or 1967 in their release years. Now, as I've just got back into collecting, I do find some cards harder to find (e.g., on eBay) than others.

For example, a recent survey I conducted, showed some of the 1966 highs had 20 to 30 copies for sale while others had between 70 to 100 copies. Finding Shirley/Jackson for under BV is an issue but only because of pricing. There are a number of these cards on the market but asking price is typically BV or higher for cards in VG-Ex condition. Same thing for Perry.

The Hoerner card (544) is another example. Finding a well-centered card might be somewhat of an issue since it is on the far left of the sheet and one of the three rows containing this card may well have on the bottom of the sheet. Yet, a recent survey of the PSA distribution showed over half of the cards submitted (234/460) were at grade 7 or higher. This card does exist on the market in reasonable quantity (e.g., last week, there were over 50 available on ebay), but the asking price always seems to be more than BV, even for VG examples, so there is a perceived scarcity.

Interestingly, the two cards I struggled to obtain to complete my 1966 set were 565 Piersall and 569 McFarlane. Although there are a number of both cards available for sale, I was unwilling to pay $30-$40 for VG (at best) cards. After several months, I eventually was able to acquire the cards, but I probably overpaid a little simply so I could complete the set.

I imagine the 7th series was limited distribution. From the anecdotal side, my 3 uncles who collected in that year in the SF Bay Area have "complete sets" that end at the 5th series. They found out series 6 and 7 only existed last year when I showed my not quite complete set after finding out they still had their childhood card collections. The 1964 and 1967 sets are missing the last series, 1965, 68 and 69 sets are 100% complete. One has a 61-63 set run that is missing the highs in all three years, and the last 2 series in 63.


I am in that same boat on finishing, I have all the stars and most of the highs but the remaining ones are a bit hard to justify the price tag on for cards which I don't think are actually nearly as tough as stated. 66 and 67 are odd in how highs are priced, with some cards of commons being quite expensive in low grade even (well, relatively expensive depending on ones wallet), and others on the same row being pretty cheap. I love the 66's best of the 60's sets, so I will end up coughing up at some point. Skowron I found to be expensive too, and Bob Allen I haven't found for a reasonable price yet. Plenty of all cards for sale at all times, but some the prices don't seemed based in actual print runs or scarcity.


Off topic from the highs, but series 1 and 6 (especially 6, the difference is night and day), appear to have stock variations that are never mentioned. 6 has the very bright white stock or cream that is clearly not toning or aging.

[toppcat]

I may have old SCD article about the distribution of the 1967 highs but the gist was there were issues, especially outside of the Northeast. Will try to dig it out later.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by G1911

Off topic from the highs, but series 1 and 6 (especially 6, the difference is night and day), appear to have stock variations that are never mentioned. 6 has the very bright white stock or cream that is clearly not toning or aging.

They are definitely a card stock variation. All you need to do is find 1 of each and split the card to see it is the stock and not toning. Unlike some other white/grey, white/cream sets, the '66 set gets no 'variation' love for this.

[G1911]

Post #21 by Jmoran19 showing a partial sheet can be extended. I have a miscut Choo-Choo Coleman that shows a very thin sliver of the upper right corner of the next card. Comparing the coloring and pattern carefully to every other high number, it can only possibly be Bob Chance that was on his left. Chance is the last card show in the second row of this partial sheet in post 21. So that's one more clue filled in.

This site won't let me attach higher quality images than 78kb that won't show much here; PM for an email if anyone wants a better confirmation. Below is Coleman next to Chance plus some of my favorites in the high series, because we can always do with more cards.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

I grew up in the Phoenix area and I do not recall ever seeing 7th series for either 1966 or 1967 in their release years. Now, as I've just got back into collecting, I do find some cards harder to find (e.g., on eBay) than others.

For example, a recent survey I conducted, showed some of the 1966 highs had 20 to 30 copies for sale while others had between 70 to 100 copies. Finding Shirley/Jackson for under BV is an issue but only because of pricing. There are a number of these cards on the market but asking price is typically BV or higher for cards in VG-Ex condition. Same thing for Perry.

The Hoerner card (544) is another example. Finding a well-centered card might be somewhat of an issue since it is on the far left of the sheet and one of the three rows containing this card may well have on the bottom of the sheet. Yet, a recent survey of the PSA distribution showed over half of the cards submitted (234/460) were at grade 7 or higher. This card does exist on the market in reasonable quantity (e.g., last week, there were over 50 available on ebay), but the asking price always seems to be more than BV, even for VG examples, so there is a perceived scarcity.

Interestingly, the two cards I struggled to obtain to complete my 1966 set were 565 Piersall and 569 McFarlane. Although there are a number of both cards available for sale, I was unwilling to pay $30-$40 for VG (at best) cards. After several months, I eventually was able to acquire the cards, but I probably overpaid a little simply so I could complete the set.

We got the 7th series in 1966 in Orange Co. CA, but never saw the 7th series in 1967.

[JollyElm]

Are there any specific facts known about the actual distribution of cards within the packs from the high series? Here's why. There are always great discussions about whether or not the print sheets had SP's involved, and/or how many cards were actually short printed, but there really could be much more to the issue. For instance, like multiple people here indicated, their neck of the woods either didn't get the late series cards, or they only received a limited number of them. The logical conclusion would lead you to believe that Topps didn't print as many cards for the late series and sent a lot of cardboard to the furnaces as they began to concentrate on football, basketball and hockey cards instead.

But which cards got destroyed (or were never distributed)? Was it an equal amount of each card across the series? Or was there something else to it? Were there more cards on the second print sheet that got eliminated? Or maybe the cards appearing on the low end of the sheets, for some reason? In other words, where were the cuts made to decrease the amount of cards printed? If you can see what I'm getting at here, it may help to determine why some cards may NOT appear to be SP's (when looking at uncut sheets), but in reality there were far fewer of them sent out to the stores. Food for thought.

[toppcat]

No luck on the 67 high number article from SCD. I did find a reference in a message I was exchanging with a St Louis collector years ago who said they never got the 6th series there but did get the 7th.

I did find a 9/18/92 Brigandi Coin Co. ad showing the following semi-highs as purported SP's:

#460 Killebrew
#475 Palmer
#476 Perez

The problem with the old ads like these is they never listed the SP commons, only stars. Anyway, Brigandi's take on the high # SP's was off so who knows what their source was.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Are there any specific facts known about the actual distribution of cards within the packs from the high series? Here's why. There are always great discussions about whether or not the print sheets had SP's involved, and/or how many cards were actually short printed, but there really could be much more to the issue. For instance, like multiple people here indicated, their neck of the woods either didn't get the late series cards, or they only received a limited number of them. The logical conclusion would lead you to believe that Topps didn't print as many cards for the late series and sent a lot of cardboard to the furnaces as they began to concentrate on football, basketball and hockey cards instead.

But which cards got destroyed (or were never distributed)? Was it an equal amount of each card across the series? Or was there something else to it? Were there more cards on the second print sheet that got eliminated? Or maybe the cards appearing on the low end of the sheets, for some reason? In other words, where were the cuts made to decrease the amount of cards printed? If you can see what I'm getting at here, it may help to determine why some cards may NOT appear to be SP's (when looking at uncut sheets), but in reality there were far fewer of them sent out to the stores. Food for thought.

I think this is unlikely, as I don't think there were 2 sheets used to print a Topps series. The 2 half sheets are different, but they were printed together as one large 264 card sheet before being cut into the 2 easier to manage half sheets and then cut into individual cards. I can't imagine why Topps would print out X number of high series sheets, cut up off the left half of it and distribute, and then throw away most of the right half of the sheet, doubling their print costs to accomplish nothing. If anything, Topps was pretty smart about minimizing costs, shrinking card size and lowering quality after knocking out their competition, experimenting with further size reductions (such as in 1975), being late to adjust to the late 80's increase in quality, etc.

Further, it doesn't seem there actually are cards that are actually that much rarer than the others today. Just cards commanding a lot more money due to a reputation that does not appear to be grounded in fact. It's easy to find 591 or 544 or 598, they aren't that much tougher than any of the others. A 3:4 ratio makes sense with what appears to be available both online and in collections.

It may well be that the way distribution worked made certain cards greater rarities in a specific geographic location; that a high pack may have only had cards from one half sheet (they probably did), and that if one row was on the right side more than the left side, and a pack in Y city/region only had left side cards, it would make certain cards tougher. I would think this would be sequenced (Topps STILL uses sequences today that make it easy to predict the next card in the pack if one has opened enough of them) and would balance out in the next box, but who knows.

[BillP]

Originally Posted by jmoran19

Tony Martinez continuation to the right with alt. configuration of two cards below him. In total the partials show 44 different cards i think. JOhn

Same with this 12 card block. If the Northrup row is above the mantilla row then these 2 8 and 12 card sheets fit, but we know that the northrup row is above the Perranoski row,
So these have to be separate blocks of a sheet.

[BillP]

Originally Posted by BillP

Same with this 12 card block. If the Northrup row is above the mantilla row then these 2 8 and 12 card sheets fit, but we know that the northrup row is above the Perranoski row,
So these have to be separate blocks of a sheet.

Ok, last post for the afternoon on this (I promise), very interesting stuff though. I think from all the input I believe this is the row sequence:
A - Northrup
B - Taylor
C - Salmon
A - Northrup
D - Perranoski
E - Hoerner
B - Taylor
C - Salmon
A - Northrup
F - Mantilla
g - Jackson/Shirley on the bottom corner and open to damage etc.

This sequence includes the input of the 8 card and 12 card sheets and what we know from the miscuts that have been researched.

Other tidbits: Tigers Team/McFarlane has to be in the Hoerner row, so does Perry. That puts Sadowski and Jackson in the taylor row s well.

[mikemb]

Originally Posted by BillP

Ok, last post for the afternoon on this (I promise),

No! Keep ostimg. This is a great thread.

I looked at all my 66 high numbers and no miscuts. First time I wish I had some.

Mike

[BillP]

Originally Posted by mikemb

No! Keep ostimg. This is a great thread.

I looked at all my 66 high numbers and no miscuts. First time I wish I had some.

Mike

Thx Mike, others have done more than me I just had some time to go over all the threads. One takeaway is that 550 Mccovery is not an sp. 554 northrup is also not an sp. 563 twins rookies is also 562 snyder and via recent pricing these last 2 make sense. Mccovey pricing may just be star power.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BillP

Thx Mike, others have done more than me I just had some time to go over all the threads. One takeaway is that 550 Mccovery is not an sp. 554 northrup is also not an sp. 563 twins rookies is also 562 snyder and via recent pricing these last 2 make sense. Mccovey pricing may just be star power.

This seems to be the case. Snyder used to be considered a SP but in recent years has had that designation removed in most checklists and guides. Looks like the original judgement was probably correct for him, though the 90's guides used to seem to think there were different tiers of SP'ing as well that I don't think is true at all, and which I think the miscuts and partial blocks we've found in this thread indicate.

Building most of my set in the Bay Area via card shows c. 2001-2005, McCovey sure seemed tough, and Perry was the #1 to get. Probably local bias on the McCovey front; I do suspect we will find Perry is a probable SP but not to the overhyped levels 598 and 591's reputations suggest...

This has become a fantastic thread, thank you all. I heard from 3 more lower grade set collectors who report nothing but a single Coleman miscut that "might be Chance" in their stacks; fitting my card earlier and the other one that I think Cliff posted.

[Cliff Bowman]

Never mind, I screwed up royally on this post.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by BillP

Ok, last post for the afternoon on this (I promise), very interesting stuff though. I think from all the input I believe this is the row sequence:

E - Hoerner
B - Taylor

I have a scan of a miscut Jimmy Piersall with what I am positive is a sliver of the top of the Dick Green under it but I was hesitant to post it, but it now makes sense with your sequence so I will post it tonight.