1967 Topps High Numbers

[Bigdaddy]

Dave, so looking at your ebay search listed by row, I find it interesting that the first card in each row (corresponding to the first column) has the least number of cards for any given row. This could be explained by Topps frequently discarding the first column as it may have been 'dinged' or otherwise damaged by the product cutting/handling machinery.

If that were the case, then those 'column one' cards could also be considered 'short print' since fewer of them made it out of the factory than cards in the other columns.

Rich, excuse me for not following your thread, but can you explain further the difference between 'triple, double, normal and single'? I understand 'triple, double and single', but can't fit 'normal' in there.

Tom

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

Dave, so looking at your ebay search listed by row, I find it interesting that the first card in each row (corresponding to the first column) has the least number of cards for any given row. This could be explained by Topps frequently discarding the first column as it may have been 'dinged' or otherwise damaged by the product cutting/handling machinery.

If that were the case, then those 'column one' cards could also be considered 'short print' since fewer of them made it out of the factory than cards in the other columns.

Rich, excuse me for not following your thread, but can you explain further the difference between 'triple, double, normal and single'? I understand 'triple, double and single', but can't fit 'normal' in there.

Tom

Sorry I may not have been clear. Each row is sorted independently, I haven't mapped each column location yet. So Row A lowest to highest, same for row B, etc. Average per row:

A 73
B 22
C 25
D 22
E 29
F 34
G 26

Curiouser and curiouser..... If three F rows are known now, does that mean there are 6 A rows?! B row has Shannon, D row the Alomar while the G row has vexed many collectors. If you take 6 A rows and 3 F's, every other row could appear twice to get 24 rows. WTF? I can't see that being the case. I think there could have been a production problem, which might explain the distribution issues as well as there is no denying that A row count. Hmmmm...just realized Kevvyg1026 notes the A row 5 times, F row 4 times and all others 3 times also works. The E row has the checklist, so that row's count is affected by that card also being printed with the semi-highs.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

Dave, so looking at your ebay search listed by row, I find it interesting that the first card in each row (corresponding to the first column) has the least number of cards for any given row. This could be explained by Topps frequently discarding the first column as it may have been 'dinged' or otherwise damaged by the product cutting/handling machinery.

If that were the case, then those 'column one' cards could also be considered 'short print' since fewer of them made it out of the factory than cards in the other columns.

Rich, excuse me for not following your thread, but can you explain further the difference between 'triple, double, normal and single'? I understand 'triple, double and single', but can't fit 'normal' in there.

Tom

Way back in the day there were 22 cards which appeared more than others.

Now that we doing empirical research I think the real answer is

There is one group of 11 cards which is obviously triple printed as their numbers all skew much higher.

There is another group of 11 which by the empirical evidence of back in the day were available in quantity but as we see today not as much as the group of the big 11

Most of the other rows have normal distribution

One row (The one with Sandy Alomar Sr. #561) has consistently shorter availability. That makes sense in terms of historical evidence of this series.

Rich

[999Tony]

Just got a 1967 548 tony Gonzalez. The card below tony is ray barker—most of the name is showing on back. Different from card shown below tony above. Dunno if this helps.

Can send a pic if needed.

[999Tony]

Never mind I see that is shown on the second sheet hard to see on my phone

[toppcat]

I ran the rows again less the highest pop card in each (and took out #531 checklist from Row E in addition as it's also printed with the semi-highs) and got this:

-HIGHEST
A 70
B 21
C 24
D 21
E 24 ALSO LESS #531 CHECKLIST
F 32
G 23

The Row A 5x, Row F 4x and the rest 3x looks like it works for sure, it's just not confirmable really. The bottom seven rows may just be in alphabetical order starting with A and putting G on the bottom. Why certain rows have tougher cards in some areas may be a quirk of the distribution. I suspect one of the A rows (likely the top one as Topps often used edges of sheets to make subs that don' "fit") on the partial sheet was meant to be something else. That would have left us with a 4x * 3 + 3x * 4=24 rows setup likely as planned if all my math is correct. Why the B (Shannon) and D (Alomar) rows remain slightly less available is beyond me though but they seem to be tougher based on comments here, so I think a production issue still could have been in play.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by toppcat

I ran the rows again less the highest pop card in each (and took out #531 checklist from Row E in addition as it's also printed with the semi-highs) and got this:

-HIGHEST
A 70
B 21
C 24
D 21
E 24 ALSO LESS #531 CHECKLIST
F 32
G 23

The Row A 5x, Row F 4x and the rest 3x looks like it works for sure, it's just not confirmable really. The bottom seven rows may just be in alphabetical order starting with A and putting G on the bottom. Why certain rows have tougher cards in some areas may be a quirk of the distribution. I suspect one of the A rows (likely the top one as Topps often used edges of sheets to make subs that don' "fit") on the partial sheet was meant to be something else. That would have left us with a 4x * 3 + 3x * 4=24 rows setup likely as planned if all my math is correct. Why the B (Shannon) and D (Alomar) rows remain slightly less available is beyond me though but they seem to be tougher based on comments here, so I think a production issue still could have been in play.

I think your final hypotheses makes sense. We'll also never know for sure if sheets are different from vend unless we find another vend case running around. IMHO the 11 magical triple print cards is a lock

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

I think your final hypotheses makes sense. We'll also never know for sure if sheets are different from vend unless we find another vend case running around. IMHO the 11 magical triple print cards is a lock

A mortal lock I'd say!

It would be interesting if only one slit was used for vending and another for retail in '67. I'm not sure that's how it went down at all (and it likely didn't) but it would be interesting.

[Kevvyg1026]

If you perform a statistical analysis on the POP numbers for rows B, C, D, E, & G (using the averages and standard deviation values), you will find that they are the same with a 98% confidence interval whereas A & F are definitely different. I did that analysis a month ago as well, and found the same thing.

Although the POP numbers can vary from week to week, if enough sampling is done over a long period of time, the correct pattern should emerge, so I plan to continue that analysis in order to ascertain the pattern.