1967 Topps High Numbers

[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.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by 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.

I was actually gonna futz around with a standard deviation calculation this evening, you have saved me a step. A is just bizarre, any way you look at it.

[Kevvyg1026]

If a miscut from row E could be found that was above row F, then the pattern on the 2nd slit would probably be A, F, A, F, G, A, B, C, D, E, F, G.

However, in the absence of such a miscut, I still think the most likely pattern is A, F, A, F, G, B, C, D, E, A, F, G.

Either way, row A shows up 5x, row F 4x, and all others 3x across the two slits.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

If a miscut from row E could be found that was above row F, then the pattern on the 2nd slit would probably be A, F, A, F, G, A, B, C, D, E, F, G.

However, in the absence of such a miscut, I still think the most likely pattern is A, F, A, F, G, B, C, D, E, A, F, G.

Either way, row A shows up 5x, row F 4x, and all others 3x across the two slits.

Yeah, the distribution seems solved, now just the array remains on Slit A. I guess they could have just replicated the array at the bottom of Slit B as well:

A
F
G
B
C
D
E

I'd wager cards that have issues in some iterations (Seaver Rookie tilt) and not in others could eventually be traced back to specific sheet locations but that is totally Mission Impossible.

[cardsagain74]

Do you guys know if the Seaver card was somehow cut a little short? It seems smaller than the Carew and pretty much everything else from the set (even when I look at graded ones).

Though my eyes could be playing tricks on me

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

Do you guys know if the Seaver card was somehow cut a little short? It seems smaller than the Carew and pretty much everything else from the set (even when I look at graded ones).

Though my eyes could be playing tricks on me

Seaver has many issues, and just spitballing here, if he was in a bottom row, a short or odd cut could be possible. Have you observed any other cards in his row that are cut short or just his (sounds like just his)?

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by toppcat

Seaver has many issues, and just spitballing here, if he was in a bottom row, a short or odd cut could be possible. Have you observed any other cards in his row that are cut short or just his (sounds like just his)?

I eyeballed some more of my raw set (especially that bottom row), and there are minor differences. The Athletics rookies may be a shade smaller than the rest, the Seaver may be a smaller shade short of the Athletics rookies, and Belanger is a shade shorter than Seaver. And those three also measure a little short compared to the typical low number common.

Naturally my main concern is whether or not the Seaver could have been trimmed, but then why would the Belanger measure even smaller? You wouldn't think someone would trim that card just to stick it in a raw grade 4ish set!

So I'm hoping it's just an inconsistent factory cut.

Speaking of, as far as my initial comparison to the Carew, it measures a bit long in that slightly miscut kind of vintage card way (where you see such a big border on one edge and one of these sheet print lines). A little bit of everything in this particular '67 set