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

[jmoran19]

Originally Posted by toppcat

I wonder if at the end of the day the 66 and 67 full high number sheets (two half sheets) have the same configurations. I wonder why this was done as well, it would seem to be easier to run off three consecutive 77 card runs across both half sheets and then overprint the remaining 33 cards. Packaging considerations? Seems unlikely but who knows.

And has anyone ever seen 1965 high number sheets? 77 card high series from 1965-67 and yet the 65's seem not nearly as wonky.

I only have one half of the 264 card sheet for 1965 and 1967 high #'s (see below).

Although i dont have definitive proof I'm pretty sure 77 card series had 4 rows printed 3 times on the 264 card sheet (132 total) and then 3 rows printed 4 times (132). "IF" both half sheets are identical it would result in 2 rows, #7 and 8 on each sheet below, printed twice (44 total) and 5 rows printed 4 times (220 total)

John

65series7.jpg

67highfull2.jpg

[BillP]

Originally Posted by jmoran19

I only have one half of the 264 card sheet for 1965 and 1967 high #'s (see below).

Although i dont have definitive proof I'm pretty sure 77 card series had 4 rows printed 3 times on the 264 card sheet (132 total) and then 3 rows printed 4 times (132). "IF" both half sheets are identical it would result in 2 rows, #7 and 8 on each sheet below, printed twice (44 total) and 5 rows printed 4 times (220 total)

John

Attachment 354777

Attachment 354778

Another great view, whats interesting here is that the row above the accepted true 11 sp's (Belanger rookie row)is a once printed row of 11 accepted highly common DP's printed only once on this sheet. Also the row with Pinson on it is out of order with the normal sequence. It repeats earlier than the row 2-5 above. I think Topps basically screwed up the sheets and therefore we've got this crazy distribution that makes 67 highs so challenging. billp

[Bigdaddy]

You could do this manually, but a simple search of ebay listings (both current and sold) could give some idea as to the relative population of these cards. And maybe give some insight into the true 'SP' numbers. There may be some skewing of the data as far as between stars and commons, but I think there is some information hidden in those numbers.

I been eBay searching for a 1957 Clemente and Koufax for a while, and the numbers certainly show that Clemente supply is way more than the Koufax supply. This lines up with the fact Koufax is an SP and also in the tough mid-series. Just doing a quick search now turns up 185 Clemente and 88 Koufax cards.

Anybody up for a try?

[toppcat]

For whatever reason the 67 high # sheet shown above is the one that always pops up. Keith Olbermann has a remnant of a high # sheet with a different configuration though. So for 1967 the half sheets have different configurations. Topps clearly mucked with the '67 arrays for unknown reasons, as my attachment will show.

I've blogged about it here: https://toppsarchives.blogspot.com/s...High%20Numbers

And here is the KO remnant (from the top left corner):

[jmoran19]

Originally Posted by toppcat

For whatever reason the 67 high # sheet shown above is the one that always pops up. Keith Olbermann has a remnant of a high # sheet with a different configuration though. So for 1967 the half sheets have different configurations. Topps clearly mucked with the '67 arrays for unknown reasons, as my attachment will show.

I've blogged about it here: https://toppsarchives.blogspot.com/s...High%20Numbers

And here is the KO remnant (from the top left corner):

Mucking with the placement of the rows was common practice for 109/110 card series

[BillP]

Originally Posted by jmoran19

Mucking with the placement of the rows was common practice for 109/110 card series

from the 65 sheet above, which has the same pattern as the 67 sheet, i.e. the 1st and 6th rows repeat and the 7th and 8th don't, if someone had the other 65 sheet then maybe the total 67 would follow suit. The olbermann sheet let's call a s'alesmans sample.

but for an uncut sheet, what luck getting those cards of severe DP's on a sheet

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by BillP

from the 65 sheet above, which has the same pattern as the 67 sheet, i.e. the 1st and 6th rows repeat and the 7th and 8th don't, if someone had the other 65 sheet then maybe the total 67 would follow suit. The olbermann sheet let's call a s'alesmans sample.

but for an uncut sheet, what luck getting those cards of severe DP's on a sheet

Not sure why it would be a sample, it's from a production sheet.

The 65 and 67 mirroring is interesting, hadn't realized that. Maybe something to do with avoiding repeat cards in the wax packs somehow?

Why are the 65's so much easier though in terms of SP's? Maybe just more of them?

I wonder how many high number A and B sheets we can show patterns for from 1961-67?

[jmoran19]

Originally Posted by toppcat

Not sure why it would be a sample, it's from a production sheet.

The 65 and 67 mirroring is interesting, hadn't realized that. Maybe something to do with avoiding repeat cards in the wax packs somehow?

Why are the 65's so much easier though in terms of SP's? Maybe just more of them?

I wonder how many high number A and B sheets we can show patterns for from 1961-67?

The only 77 card series where i have copies of both sheets is 1969 series 6, see below. Using the first picture rows 1, 3 and 4 end up being printed 4 times across the 2 half sheets (132 total) and rows 2, 5, 7 and 8 are printed 3 times (132 total). The 3 prints include Nolan Ryan and Jim Palmer.

Breaking down the layout of each sheet shows the first one has row 1 repeated in row 6 and rows 2 thru 5 being repeated in rows 9 thru 12. The 2nd/right half sheet is def. configured different. It has rows 1 and 2 repeated in rows 7 and 8 and rows 3 thru 5 repeated in rows 10 thru 12.

John