![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
i have a first series sheet. If I recall Koufax and Catfish Hunter was a DP.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bill:
In all honesty I don't think Topps kept that information nor cared about that information back in those days. Sorry but it's up to us to find the information!
__________________
Look for our show listings in the Net 54 Calendar section |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
That's awesome! Hunter Sounds right, a 66 Catfish seems to be in every lot of random 60's Topps stuff I buy.
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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 Last edited by jmoran19; 05-27-2019 at 05:01 PM. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
will post all i got. These two partials go together, too lazy to cut and paste them together LOL. The 3 pic. extends the Dick Egan and CHI CHI rows to the right
66high.jpg 66high2.jpg Last edited by jmoran19; 05-27-2019 at 04:46 PM. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Last edited by jmoran19; 05-27-2019 at 05:00 PM. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
Last edited by jmoran19; 05-27-2019 at 05:09 PM. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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.). |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
So these have to be separate blocks of a sheet. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
this is great stuff. It throws 3 of my 11 off the list.
Maybe 570 mahaffey, 543 craig and 590 skowron are in the 11. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
1985 Topps Baseball Uncut Sheet w/ Puckett RC * 1987 Uncut Sheets in Box | mintacular | 1980 & Newer Sports Cards B/S/T | 2 | 11-20-2017 01:22 PM |
Topps uncut sheets | mybestbretts | Modern Baseball Cards Forum (1980-Present) | 7 | 11-26-2014 12:30 PM |
1972 Topps uncut partial sheets | SAllen2556 | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 7 | 07-07-2014 11:50 AM |
1955 Topps uncut sheets | chadeast | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 20 | 06-22-2012 08:52 AM |
1952-60 Uncut Topps Sheets | Archive | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 2 | 01-07-2008 02:46 PM |