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

[G1911]

I know there are as many opinions about the high series as there are cards in it. I think there is clearly a scarcity division between single prints and double prints, though there seem to be several different tiers of short prints that I'm just not seeing myself. 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?

The cards considered scarce fluctuate with time. I recall when Perry and McCovey were considered awfully tough, and today they aren't. My 2015 Standard Catalog doesn't even list Snyder as a SP at all, but I recall when he was considered one of the toughest SP's and was frequently one of the last ones folks needed. From my own experiences, the SP's seem to all exist in roughly equal population over time, though some can seem tougher over a certain stretch. There have been good threads on Net54 before on these, but I've never seen any uncut material that might help show whether Coleman, Jackson and others are actually tougher, or if people just think so.

[Rich Klein]

In my opinion, there are definitely 1966 hi #'s which are SP's and the reason we see the tougher ones is,, they are more likely to be asked for.

One aspect that grading brings to the fray is one is more likely to have those tougher cards graded (or a higher percent thereof) so what you see in the graded population does not match what you see in the "raw" population.

And yes, I'd love to see a sheet (s) to see myself. I know there are 1967 hi # sheets and yet the major dealer stocks don't agree with the partial sheet we saw because,,, there are truly more of what we call DP's in 1967 although the sheet Dave Hornish has shown does not verify those DP"s.

Rich

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[ejstel]

Hi not sure if you have checked but it might be a good idea to check some of the premiere sports auction houses. 50-60's uncut sheets usually end up there $$$. Also on the sites they tend to leave up completed auctions...might be a good way to get some pics of sheets.

Best,
Ed

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[ejstel]

Does this help....saw it for sale = Miscut





Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[ejstel]

Also back

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[Kevvyg1026]

Thank you. Dick Egan is above Chi Chi Olivio at one spot on Slit A and two spots on Slit B. Pretty certain that is what we see on this miscut.

[Kevvyg1026]

Cliff determined there is a small recurring flaw on the Cox (549) rookie card and that the Nicholson card (576) is the card above it. So 576 is at end of the Hoerner row (in C11). We can also place Mahaffey (570) next to Nicholson and above Rodgers (592) based on a miscut found by Bill P.

66 nicholsxon 2.jpg

66 cox.jpg

1966_High_sheet_L.jpg