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

[bb66]

Great work G1911. One more card always helps.If we can ever figure out the 7th Series sheet alignments!

[G1911]

Up to 51 of the 77 cards placed into their row. Taking the partial sheets above + Coleman and typing out ('SP''s are the generally stated ones in catalogues). The 550 McCovey row would seem it must be a continuation of one of the rows at bottom, and not a separate row as there should be 7 total rows.


550 McCovey SP, 533 Adair SP, 579 Orioles Rookies, 537 Franks

554 Northrup SP, 568 A’s Rookies, 584 Yankees Rookies, 581 Tony Martinez, 534 Mets Rookies, 558 Red Sox Rookies, 573 Griffith, 536 Egan, 529 White Sox Rookies, 572 Priddy, 574 Mets Rookies (COMPLETE ROW OF 11)

557 Mantilla, 588 A’s Rookies, 545 Dick Green SP, 526 Twins Team SP, 589 Klimchock, 593 Camilli, 563 Twins Rookies, 578 Olivio SP, 548 Kroll SP, 524 Giants Rookies, 539 Astro’s Rookies (COMPLETE ROW OF 11)

591 Rookies (Grant Jackson) SP (START OF ROW CONFIRMED), 540 McClain SP, 567 Howser SP, 527 Navarro, 577 Lamabe SP, 596 Astro’s Rookies SP, 551 Purkey SP, 543 Craig SP

555 Perranoski SP, 562 Snyder, 559 Pena SP, 564 Chance SP, 561 Coleman SP

544 Cards Rookies SP, 565 Piersall SP, 547 Clarke SP, 546 Siebler

585 Taylor, 530 Robin Roberts, 560 Horlen, 571 Dave Roberts SP

594 Salmon, 535 Willie Davis SP, 575 Wilson, 580 Williams SP

[Kevvyg1026]

Thanks for the Coleman addition. Hopefully, some other miscuts will surface to allow the placement of the remaining 26 cards.

The Perranowski, Cards rookie stars, Taylor, and Salmon must be the start of rows since they are under Northrup and we know all the cards in Northrup's row.

And yes, the McCovey four card panel (McCovey, Adair, Johnson rookie, and Franks) must be cards 5, 6, 7, & 8 in one of the other rows. Therefore, these four cards must be in one of the three rows headed by either Cards Rookies, Taylor, or Salmon since at least five cards are known in the either four rows. I lean towards the Salmon row, but only because that would put several SPs together (Davis, Williams, McCovey), even though it should be clear that current price guide listings of SPs is not completely consistent with the card patterns observed,

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

Thanks for the Coleman addition. Hopefully, some other miscuts will surface to allow the placement of the remaining 26 cards.

The Perranowski, Cards rookie stars, Taylor, and Salmon must be the start of rows since they are under Northrup and we know all the cards in Northrup's row.

And yes, the McCovey four card panel (McCovey, Adair, Johnson rookie, and Franks) must be cards 5, 6, 7, & 8 in one of the other rows. Therefore, these four cards must be in one of the three rows headed by either Cards Rookies, Taylor, or Salmon since at least five cards are known in the either four rows. I lean towards the Salmon row, but only because that would put several SPs together (Davis, Williams, McCovey), even though it should be clear that current price guide listings of SPs is not completely consistent with the card patterns observed,

Those guide SP patterns are often off because only one half sheet was observed or a box or case was open that had the typical Topps collation of the time (i.e. terrible). This information, right or wrong, ended up in guides for decades (still does sometimes) and the origins often predate the modern guides of the late 70's. Other patterns were often due to to dealer ad hyperbole I'd say.

1966 SP patterns were not known until after the 67's were semi-sussed out but from what I've been seeing in the many 70's hobby pubs I've been scanning is that the 66 highs in general were more expensive in the late 70's than the 67 highs were. One of the innovators in cracking all the series and SP breakdowns was Lew Lipset around 1976-77, who I believe was a Wall St analyst for decade after college (or something quite similar) before turning to stamps, then cards. He seems to have applied his data and analytical expertise to card pricing and figured out a lot of the "good" information. I'm still not to the point where the 66 SP info began appearing in the guides so it would have been in the late 80's. I randomly took out my S-A/Beckett Guide #6 from 1984 and the only '66 SP info was that the #598 Perry card was in short supply even for a set-ender.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by toppcat

Those guide SP patterns are often off because only one half sheet was observed or a box or case was open that had the typical Topps collation of the time (i.e. terrible). This information, right or wrong, ended up in guides for decades (still does sometimes) and the origins often predate the modern guides of the late 70's. Other patterns were often due to to dealer ad hyperbole I'd say.

1966 SP patterns were not known until after the 67's were semi-sussed out but from what I've been seeing in the many 70's hobby pubs I've been scanning is that the 66 highs in general were more expensive in the late 70's than the 67 highs were. One of the innovators in cracking all the series and SP breakdowns was Lew Lipset around 1976-77, who I believe was a Wall St analyst for decade after college (or something quite similar) before turning to stamps, then cards. He seems to have applied his data and analytical expertise to card pricing and figured out a lot of the "good" information. I'm still not to the point where the 66 SP info began appearing in the guides so it would have been in the late 80's. I randomly took out my S-A/Beckett Guide #6 from 1984 and the only '66 SP info was that the #598 Perry card was in short supply even for a set-ender.

Thanks for this background; I've assumed the "SP"'s date from the 70's or 80's, but I only started collecting this set around 2000 and don't have many of the old periodicals. As I recall, 20 years ago Gaylord was still the pre-eminent SP, not 591 Jackson/Shirley. Would love to see what some of the other older material says on this matter. None of the 70's Sport Hobbyist issues I have include dealers designating individual highs as extra special/tough.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by G1911

Thanks for this background; I've assumed the "SP"'s date from the 70's or 80's, but I only started collecting this set around 2000 and don't have many of the old periodicals. As I recall, 20 years ago Gaylord was still the pre-eminent SP, not 591 Jackson/Shirley. Would love to see what some of the other older material says on this matter. None of the 70's Sport Hobbyist issues I have include dealers designating individual highs as extra special/tough.

Definitely some kind of 80's deal for the most part. Beckett's first two price surveys were sets only, plus a couple of odd series like 52 highs. I'll track it down eventually in the old guides.

[toppcat]

CCC ad in The Trader Speaks, August 1979. Check it out:

[Kevvyg1026]

Not sure if this is of interest, but here goes. There were several times during the period 1965 to 1969 that Topps had a print run of 77 cards. This print run would have 7 unique rows of 11 cards each. The big question for some of us is to try to determine the specific pattern that these 7 rows were distributed across the full sheet, which consisted of two half-sheets (or slits) of 12 rows each.

For the half-sheets that I have seen, this is the pattern of the rows observed. I labeled the rows A through G, with A being the row which was at the top of the half-sheet. Just the left half-sheets are shown below.

1965 Series 5 - (Bateman as leading row): A, B, C, D, E, A, F, G, B, C, D, E
1965 Series 7 - (Gaines as as leading row): A, B, C, D, E, A, F, G, B, C, D, E
1967 Series 7 - (Pinson as as leading row): A, B, C, D, E, A, F, G, B, C, D, E
1969 Series 6 - (Rookies as leading row): A, B, C, D, E, A, F, G, B, C, D, E

Wow. These sheets all exhibited the same pattern so I thought I was on to something!! But, unfortunately, Topps used a different pattern on the right half-sheets I have seen.

1965 Series 5R (Blanchard as leading row): A, B, C, D, E, A, B, F, G, C, D, E
1969 Series 6R (Green as leading row): A, B, C, D, E, F, A, B, G, C, D, E

[Kevvyg1026]

The Sports Americana Price Guide (1979) does not have price distinctions for most of the common high series cards from 1966, although some cards have premiums applied (e.g., team cards, semi-stars, or stars).

The CCP guide from 1983 also does not appear to have price distinctions, although team cards, star cards (Roberts, McCovey, McLain, Williams, and Perry), and presumably semi-stars (Davis, Scott, Piersall, Howser, Skowron) do have a premium applied.

The Baseball Card Price Guide, April 88 issue shows a 2x multiplier for #524, 528, 544, 545, 547, 548, 551, 556, 561, 570, 576, 579, 591, and 593 in addition to premiums for stars and teams. Cards such as 535, 543, 554, 555, 558, 563, 566, 567, 574, 584, 589, 596, and 597 have a minor premium applied to the standard common card pricing, presumably because, they have Dodger, Yankee, Met, Red Sox, or Tiger players.

So, it appears that the SP idea may have germinated sometime between 1983-1988, but as mentioned in an earlier post by Toppcat, the cards apparently designated as SPs probably achieved that distinction because of poor collation or distribution issues rather than actual print quantity variations.

[bb66]

Thanks Kevvy for the new insight. I had never thought about the 7th Series checklist and it's two variations like that. Also, very interesting on the relative price-values from the decade of the '80's.The evolution-change is amazing. Sadly when I got back into the hobby it was the late 80's and prices for the high number 1966 cards were already sky-high(with my budget).Great detective work that is very appreciated by 66 lovers like myself!

[BillP]

Originally Posted by bb66

Thanks Kevvy for the new insight. I had never thought about the 7th Series checklist and it's two variations like that. Also, very interesting on the relative price-values from the decade of the '80's.The evolution-change is amazing. Sadly when I got back into the hobby it was the late 80's and prices for the high number 1966 cards were already sky-high(with my budget).Great detective work that is very appreciated by 66 lovers like myself!

I'll second that. As a 1966 fan and a collector of the high series, I enjoy the insights. One thing I saw in a previous thread, somewhere it says in an ad that cards 591 and 598 were no longer available. That's real interesting as back then 591 would have been just another high number. So I'm still feeling that 591 was replaced on one on the sheets by a checklist or it's position on the outside of a row caused it to be damaged and thrown away,

billp

[Kevvyg1026]

As many know, the 7th series checklist has two varieties: Version A has White Sox (529) and Cardinals (544) spelled out while Version B has 529 as W. Sox and 544 as Cards. Although not very scientific, a quick survey of ebay this morning revealed that the Version A is more prevalent by approximately a 2:1 ratio. Furthermore, five version A cards were found marked up to only # 522 and none of version B were found marked in that fashion. This leads me to suspect that version A was the checklist that was in the 6th series printing and version B was the checklist printed in the last printing.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

As many know, the 7th series checklist has two varieties: Version A has White Sox (529) and Cardinals (544) spelled out while Version B has 529 as W. Sox and 544 as Cards. Although not very scientific, a quick survey of ebay this morning revealed that the Version A is more prevalent by approximately a 2:1 ratio. Furthermore, five version A cards were found marked up to only # 522 and none of version B were found marked in that fashion. This leads me to suspect that version A was the checklist that was in the 6th series printing and version B was the checklist printed in the last printing.

This matches my own slight research on the scarcity; I have them checklisted in my master set the same way



I still think 591 is actually no rarer than 10 or 21 other cards; just hoarded and a manufactured pain point. 598 Perry definitely seems to have 'fallen off' a bit comparatively over the years

[Kevvyg1026]

I analyzed approximately 30 marked series 7 checklists over the past month to see which numbers were checked off. Interestingly both 591 and 598 were marked off as frequently, if not more so, than most of the other cards. Similarly, cards #544, 580, and 550 were not uncommon. As a result, I suspect that the print pattern utilized was 4 rows three times each and three rows four times each, so the relative scarcity is probably not significantly different for any card from this series, it's just that the overall quantity is low and demand is high.

[BillP]

Back 30 years ago when I first put this set together my toughest get was 598 perry. It was priced as a tough get. 2nd was the Clarke card #547. 3rd was coleman #561. #591 was not in the conversation. Last week an unopened cello for the 7th series was advertised. The top had Larry Jackson, but the bottom had card #512. So that nixed the bidding for me. Wonder what was inside? How could #512 be in a 7th series cello? A 1st series was also offered. Klaus on the top and Ranew on the bottom.

[Kevvyg1026]

I have been attempting to determine the rows in which various cards were located for the 1966 high numbers and came across this oddity for Larry Jackson, # 595 and this one for Gaylord Perry # 598. [ATTACH]1966_598_scratch_1.jpg[/ATTACH]