1966 Topps high numbers frustration

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by BillP

I was drawn to this forum by the discussion of 66 & 67 high numbers which, as a longtime collector, I have been following for many years. I should add that I am a first time poster on this website.
Starting with 66, for my experience the Clarke and Coleman have always been mentioned as 2 of the tougher SP's, it's only in the last 5 years that the Jackson card has been included. Go back 30 years when I started to piece this set back together. The first thing a friend told me was that the Clarke was tough only because it was a yankee and his RC. The rare scarcity was Coleman, Queen, Tigers Team and Perry.
Through the years I have seen at least 4 uncut sheets of various sizes when it comes to the high numbers. Some have all the DP cards noted, 1 had only the following cards: Tigers Team, Perry, O. Brown RC, Jackson RC, Coleman, Queen, McCovey and Craig. I believe now as then that these 8 are the true SP's. The others cards that are labeled SP fall in between the DP cards and these. Further, back in the mid 80's I tried to follow this by attending selected east coast national shows looking for sets of complete 66's that supposedly were put together by collectors that year. What I was looking for was the consistent diamond cut of the highs to look for patterns of the 8 vs the others. I won't say it was 100% but pretty close.
So that is my 2 cents on the 66's. Opinions welcome.
67: I think that the discover of a supposed "B" uncut sheet shed some light on the groups of 11 that are on the same row within the sheet. The DP or QP (Quadruple prints as I'll call it) are no surprise. They should be priced below the 6th series commons in my opinion.
However, the real SP sleepers to me are Shaw/Sutherland, Colavito, Wills and Niekro RC. These to me were the together to find, forgetting about centering, that's a whole other matter. 586 Jimenez has been cited as an SP, but I didn't find it so. Same with 572 Demeter and 561 Alomar.
I think there are 4 tiers to the availability of highs. The most common as obvious, the scarcer 2 may be obvious as well, but the difference between them is an opinion. Here's mine: Scarce group: the 4 I mentioned plus Seaver RC, Red Sox Team, Cash, Shannon, BRobinson (who has a different color back and the card number is also a different font), Henry 579 and maybe Jimenez.
On the Robinson, I think there was an issue with this card when printed and it was printed in limited supply on a dedicated sheet late in the process. Just my guess. Take a look at the back and compare the font and color of the stock. It's always a darker moss green as opposed to the others. Anyway, tired of typing, Feedback welcome, BIll

That's an excellent peek behind the curtain. Cool stuff!
Unfortunately, due to the computer age, dealers at shows these days are very aware of the scarcity of those few high numbers, so you can't get them for a song anymore.

[glynparson]

about Jackson/Shirley only being considered tough in the last 5 years. I have considereded it the toughest card in the set since at least 1993 as have many other vintage card dealers. It is almost always one of the last cards on peoples lists. I have also bought many collections of 1966 high numbers and Coleman is and always has been far easier in my mind than Jackson/Shirley. I worked for probably the leading vintage Topps card dealer for about 5 years from the late nineties to early 2000s and he always considered Jackson the toughest card as well. I agree 100% about those 1967s being tougher that you mentioned.