1967 Topps High Numbers

[toppcat]

Given all the fun sussing out the 1963 and 1966 highs, I'd love to finish off the 67's. The B Slit is known as 132 card half sheets of it exist. The top five rows of the A slit are also known. I'll show those first but want to patch through and lightly edit some verbiage from my blog to show what I know and what I don't. The five row partial was found after my last post in 2012.

from www.toppsarchives.com

Now for the (B SLIT) uncut high number sheet. While the above scan is truncated at top and bottom, if you count the descending rows and use DP for double print and SP for single print, you can label them as: DP1, DP2, DP3, DP4, DP5, DP1, SP1, SP2, DP2, DP3, DP4, DP5. The odd placement of the two SP rows has always caught my eye and led me to think something was afoot but eventually I forgot about this happenstance.

Well we have to jump ahead a few years, to when I found a list of 1967 high number DP's in The SCD/Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards. They had DP's where I had SP's. I then checked one of the Beckett books and found their list did not mesh with mine either. I e-mailed Beckett and got a response that their DP listings had been created by direct observation of a (possibly partial) uncut sheet. The source of SCD's listing was never revealed to me but it seems now it was based upon tabulation data and not an uncut sheet. It was clear though that Beckett had access to a sheet that was different than the one I had sketched out. So I created a spreadsheet to show all the possibilities and came up with something quite interesting:


SUBJECT B SHEET SCD BECKETT
531 7TH SERIES CHECKLIST DP
534 BAUER SP DP DP
535 CLENDENON
536 CUBS ROOKIES (J. NIEKRO)
537 ESTRADA DP DP
538 MARTIN
539 EGAN SP DP DP
540 CASH
541 GIBBON
542 A'S ROOKIES (MONDAY) SP DP DP
543 SCHNEIDER
544 INDIANS TEAM
545 GRANT
546 WOODWARD
547 RED SOX ROOKIES SP DP DP
548 GONZALEZ DP DP
549 SANFORD
550 PINSON DP DP
551 CAMILLI DP DP
552 SAVAGE SP
553 YANKEES ROOKIES SP
554 RODGERS SP DP DP
555 CARDWELL
556 WEIS SP DP DP
557 FERRARA
558 ORIOLES ROOKIES (BELANGER) SP
559 TRACEWSKI DP DP
560 BUNNING
561 ALOMAR
562 BLASS SP DP DP
563 ADCOCK SP
564 ASTROS ROOKIES SP DP DP
565 KRAUSSE
566 GEIGER DP DP
567 HAMILTON (YANKEES)
568 SULLIVAN SP
569 A.L. ROOKIES (CAREW) DP DP
570 WILLS
571 SHERRY
572 DEMETER
573 WHITE SOX TEAM
574 BUCHEK
575 BOSWELL
576 N.L. ROOKIES
577 SHORT
578 BOCCABELLA
579 HENRY
580 COLAVITO
581 METS ROOKIES (SEAVER) SP
582 OWENS DP DP
583 BARKER (YANKEES)
584 PIERSALL
585 BUNKER
586 JIMINEZ SP
587 N.L. ROOKIES
588 KLIPPSTEIN SP DP DP
589 RICKETTS DP DP
590 RICHERT
591 CLINE SP
592 N.L. ROOKIES
593 WESTRUM
594 OSINSKI
595 ROJAS
596 CISCO SP DP DP
597 ABERNATHY SP
598 WHITE SOX ROOKIES
599 DULIBA DP DP
600 B. ROBINSON SP
601 BRYAN SP DP
602 PIZARRO
603 A'S ROOKIES SP
604 RED SOX TEAM
605 SHANNON
606 TAYLOR
607 STANLEY SP
608 CUBS ROOKIES DP DP
609 JOHN





The 7th series checklist also appeared on the 6th series press sheet, so is more abundant in theory than any other 7th series card but we'll treat it as a true high for our exercise here today. If you look at the data you will see that 11 cards identified as short prints have no corresponding DP designator from either SCD or Beckett. Logically, these 11 cards are the true 1967 high number short prints and they are all from the row I call SP2:

552 Savage
553 Yankees Rookies
558 Orioles Rookies (Belanger)
563 Adcock
568 Sullivan
581 Mets Rookies (Seaver)
586 Jiminez
591 Cline
597 Abernathy
603 A's Rookies
607 Stanley

Conversely, 11 cards that are in my SP1 row are Double Prints on both the SCD and Beckett lists (I suspect #601 Bryan, a Yankee, was left off the SCD list inadvertently):

534 Bauer
539 Egan
542 A's Rookies (Monday)
547 Red Sox Rookies
554 Rodgers
556 Weis
562 Blass
564 Astros Rookies
588 Klippstein
596 Cisco
601 Bryan

Then there is the curious case of the 11 cards shown as DP's in the other two lists and also on my sheet:

537 Estrada
548 Gonzalez
550 Pinson
551 Camilli
559 Tracewski
566 Geiger
589 AL Rookies (Carew)
582 Owens
589 Ricketts
599 Duliba
608 Cubs Rookies

A nice, neat 11 cards and all appearing in the row I have dubbed DP1. The next three rows (DP2, DP3, DP4) are not designated by either price guide but I have them as DP's. Beckett, if using a partial sheet, may not have caught these and SCD just doesn't mention them. I have them all as DP rows in order to make the Beckett sheet work,

Did you notice all three of these "odd" rows (DP1, SP1, DP2) appear as a single grouping on my sheet? Let's replicate them at the top of a theoretical second sheet:

DP1
SP1
SP2

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by toppcat

Given all the fun sussing out the 1963 and 1966 highs, I'd love to finish off the 67's. The B Slit is known as 132 card half sheets of it exist. The top five rows of the A slit are also known. I'll show those first but want to patch through and lightly edit some verbiage from my blog to show what I know and what I don't. The five row partial was found after my last post in 2012.

from www.toppsarchives.com

Now for the (B SLIT) uncut high number sheet. While the above scan is truncated at top and bottom, if you count the descending rows and use DP for double print and SP for single print, you can label them as: DP1, DP2, DP3, DP4, DP5, DP1, SP1, SP2, DP2, DP3, DP4, DP5. The odd placement of the two SP rows has always caught my eye and led me to think something was afoot but eventually I forgot about this happenstance.

Well we have to jump ahead a few years, to when I found a list of 1967 high number DP's in The SCD/Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards. They had DP's where I had SP's. I then checked one of the Beckett books and found their list did not mesh with mine either. I e-mailed Beckett and got a response that their DP listings had been created by direct observation of a (possibly partial) uncut sheet. The source of SCD's listing was never revealed to me but it seems now it was based upon tabulation data and not an uncut sheet. It was clear though that Beckett had access to a sheet that was different than the one I had sketched out. So I created a spreadsheet to show all the possibilities and came up with something quite interesting:


SUBJECT B SHEET SCD BECKETT
531 7TH SERIES CHECKLIST DP
534 BAUER SP DP DP
535 CLENDENON
536 CUBS ROOKIES (J. NIEKRO)
537 ESTRADA DP DP
538 MARTIN
539 EGAN SP DP DP
540 CASH
541 GIBBON
542 A'S ROOKIES (MONDAY) SP DP DP
543 SCHNEIDER
544 INDIANS TEAM
545 GRANT
546 WOODWARD
547 RED SOX ROOKIES SP DP DP
548 GONZALEZ DP DP
549 SANFORD
550 PINSON DP DP
551 CAMILLI DP DP
552 SAVAGE SP
553 YANKEES ROOKIES SP
554 RODGERS SP DP DP
555 CARDWELL
556 WEIS SP DP DP
557 FERRARA
558 ORIOLES ROOKIES (BELANGER) SP
559 TRACEWSKI DP DP
560 BUNNING
561 ALOMAR
562 BLASS SP DP DP
563 ADCOCK SP
564 ASTROS ROOKIES SP DP DP
565 KRAUSSE
566 GEIGER DP DP
567 HAMILTON (YANKEES)
568 SULLIVAN SP
569 A.L. ROOKIES (CAREW) DP DP
570 WILLS
571 SHERRY
572 DEMETER
573 WHITE SOX TEAM
574 BUCHEK
575 BOSWELL
576 N.L. ROOKIES
577 SHORT
578 BOCCABELLA
579 HENRY
580 COLAVITO
581 METS ROOKIES (SEAVER) SP
582 OWENS DP DP
583 BARKER (YANKEES)
584 PIERSALL
585 BUNKER
586 JIMINEZ SP
587 N.L. ROOKIES
588 KLIPPSTEIN SP DP DP
589 RICKETTS DP DP
590 RICHERT
591 CLINE SP
592 N.L. ROOKIES
593 WESTRUM
594 OSINSKI
595 ROJAS
596 CISCO SP DP DP
597 ABERNATHY SP
598 WHITE SOX ROOKIES
599 DULIBA DP DP
600 B. ROBINSON SP
601 BRYAN SP DP
602 PIZARRO
603 A'S ROOKIES SP
604 RED SOX TEAM
605 SHANNON
606 TAYLOR
607 STANLEY SP
608 CUBS ROOKIES DP DP
609 JOHN





The 7th series checklist also appeared on the 6th series press sheet, so is more abundant in theory than any other 7th series card but we'll treat it as a true high for our exercise here today. If you look at the data you will see that 11 cards identified as short prints have no corresponding DP designator from either SCD or Beckett. Logically, these 11 cards are the true 1967 high number short prints and they are all from the row I call SP2:

552 Savage
553 Yankees Rookies
558 Orioles Rookies (Belanger)
563 Adcock
568 Sullivan
581 Mets Rookies (Seaver)
586 Jiminez
591 Cline
597 Abernathy
603 A's Rookies
607 Stanley

Conversely, 11 cards that are in my SP1 row are Double Prints on both the SCD and Beckett lists (I suspect #601 Bryan, a Yankee, was left off the SCD list inadvertently):

534 Bauer
539 Egan
542 A's Rookies (Monday)
547 Red Sox Rookies
554 Rodgers
556 Weis
562 Blass
564 Astros Rookies
588 Klippstein
596 Cisco
601 Bryan

Then there is the curious case of the 11 cards shown as DP's in the other two lists and also on my sheet:

537 Estrada
548 Gonzalez
550 Pinson
551 Camilli
559 Tracewski
566 Geiger
589 AL Rookies (Carew)
582 Owens
589 Ricketts
599 Duliba
608 Cubs Rookies

A nice, neat 11 cards and all appearing in the row I have dubbed DP1. The next three rows (DP2, DP3, DP4) are not designated by either price guide but I have them as DP's. Beckett, if using a partial sheet, may not have caught these and SCD just doesn't mention them. I have them all as DP rows in order to make the Beckett sheet work,

Did you notice all three of these "odd" rows (DP1, SP1, DP2) appear as a single grouping on my sheet? Let's replicate them at the top of a theoretical second sheet:

DP1
SP1
SP2

Dave:

We've had this discussion before but from my dealing days (long before I even went to Beckett) I am perfectly comfortable with the 22 cards noted as DP's being DP's. That is covered not only from my personal experience but remembering all the ads in the 70's and 80's where those 22 cards were in far larger supply.

It is possible that for vend boxes for whatever reason the magic 22 were even more available than they were out of packs. If so, that would work on such a level that the magic 22 are sure out there and available. And while I only have a few 67 Hi's in my inventory right now, every one of them is from those 22

Regards
Rich

[G1911]

Checked my set; no miscuts that may be of aid to report.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

Dave:

We've had this discussion before but from my dealing days (long before I even went to Beckett) I am perfectly comfortable with the 22 cards noted as DP's being DP's. That is covered not only from my personal experience but remembering all the ads in the 70's and 80's where those 22 cards were in far larger supply.

It is possible that for vend boxes for whatever reason the magic 22 were even more available than they were out of packs. If so, that would work on such a level that the magic 22 are sure out there and available. And while I only have a few 67 Hi's in my inventory right now, every one of them is from those 22

Regards
Rich

Hi Rich:

Hope you are doing well.

I say anything is possible based on the other threads, so hopefully we can find enough miscuts to pull this off. The 67 A slit is definitely off kilter, just not sure which way but the 63 and 66 threads show this can finally be sussed out (I think). A strange one for sure, possibly single prints AND extra prints. Only 7 rows to go!

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

Dave:

We've had this discussion before but from my dealing days (long before I even went to Beckett) I am perfectly comfortable with the 22 cards noted as DP's being DP's. That is covered not only from my personal experience but remembering all the ads in the 70's and 80's where those 22 cards were in far larger supply.

It is possible that for vend boxes for whatever reason the magic 22 were even more available than they were out of packs. If so, that would work on such a level that the magic 22 are sure out there and available. And while I only have a few 67 Hi's in my inventory right now, every one of them is from those 22

Regards
Rich

What is your theory on how the sheets look? We know there are 24 rows of 11 on the sheet(s) with 7 unique rows. 3 rows 4 times and 4 rows 3 times works. It has been believed that the Seaver row may be 2 times. Could those 2 DP rows appear 5 times? Or are there more DPs?

I was one of Beckett’s sources for SP information. I owned a partial sheet that contained cards that were believed to be SPs, so as we know if one card on the row was a SP, they all are.

[Kevvyg1026]

Another pattern that works is two rows 5x each, four rows 3x each, and one row 2x each. There are other patterns which also work, but this one would yield 22 cards printed a lot more than the others and 11 cards printed much less than most in the series.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

Another pattern that works is two rows 5x each, four rows 3x each, and one row 2x each. There are other patterns which also work, but this one would yield 22 cards printed a lot more than the others and 11 cards printed much less than most in the series.

This is what I believe happened. It fits what I have seen over the years in card populations. Without seeing the other half (2nd 132 card sheet), we will never know.

Just based on my personal experience, the 7th series 1967 Topps never came into our area. I believe it was one of if not the least distributed Series of Topps in 1954-1973. I think that Card Collectors Company got a larger than normal supply and were a main source for the hobby. Collectors who never saw the cards would have bought complete series creating an excess of double printed cards in one source. Just my theory.

[ALBB]

very interesting research !

[Kevvyg1026]

The only miscut I have shows Demeter with Carew underneath. Doesn't tell anything new since that is the same as what is shown on the half-sheet

[jmoran19]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

Another pattern that works is two rows 5x each, four rows 3x each, and one row 2x each. There are other patterns which also work, but this one would yield 22 cards printed a lot more than the others and 11 cards printed much less than most in the series.

Topps used a LOT of different layouts but I Personally Have never seen evidence of any other year use a layout where a row of cards was printed 5 times across the 264 card sheet and another row only twice.

[Kevvyg1026]

I understand that and I have not either. I was simply stating that it was possible and would lead to two rows being printed at a significantly higher rate than the others, while one row would be short printed.

The one half sheet I've seen for the 67 high numbers has five rows printed twice and two rows printed once.

I have only seen three rows of the second half-sheet and it has one of the double printed rows from the first half sheet printed twice, and one of the single printed rows printed once.

Thus, in the fifteen rows I've seen, one row was printed four times, five rows printed twice, and one row printed once. It will be interesting to see if the frequency of the remaining nine rows can be determined.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by rats60

What is your theory on how the sheets look? We know there are 24 rows of 11 on the sheet(s) with 7 unique rows. 3 rows 4 times and 4 rows 3 times works. It has been believed that the Seaver row may be 2 times. Could those 2 DP rows appear 5 times? Or are there more DPs?

I was one of Beckett’s sources for SP information. I owned a partial sheet that contained cards that were believed to be SPs, so as we know if one card on the row was a SP, they all are.

Very interesting as my thought is the Beckett SP and DP info came from the missing A slit. Do you have a record of the array?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by toppcat

Very interesting as my thought is the Beckett SP and DP info came from the missing A slit. Do you have a record of the array?

My partial sheet was the bottom 4 rows of the full sheet that you posted. Those are the cards that I believe were printed 3 times and are SPs, with 22 cards being printed 5 times being DPs and 11 SSPs being printed twice.l

[Cliff Bowman]

A few scans that I found. ETA, I guess you are looking for different tops and bottoms and not sides, if I understand it correctly now.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by rats60

What is your theory on how the sheets look? We know there are 24 rows of 11 on the sheet(s) with 7 unique rows. 3 rows 4 times and 4 rows 3 times works. It has been believed that the Seaver row may be 2 times. Could those 2 DP rows appear 5 times? Or are there more DPs?

I was one of Beckett’s sources for SP information. I owned a partial sheet that contained cards that were believed to be SPs, so as we know if one card on the row was a SP, they all are.

I don't have a theory on the sheets but I'd wager those 22 cards in the 2 rows are more common on the missing sheet for our situation. This is a case where the non-sheet evidence is pretty darned good. Look at the old ads and you'll see what I mean.

Rich