|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
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)?
Last edited by toppcat; 07-15-2020 at 07:07 AM. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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 Last edited by cardsagain74; 07-15-2020 at 02:15 PM. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
You never know as oldtimers did some weird things with trimming (not always for deceit) but I suspect what you describe is just short factory cuts. I still think the overnight Topps work crews back then are responsible for a lot of this type thing and other oddities and something clearly went wrong with the production (IMO) of the highs at some point.
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Appreciate all the info though. About this and the rest of the thread |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Row A with Pinson as leading card and Carew at the end of the row is at top of both half-sheets. Row E with the checklist as leading card is at the bottom of one half-sheet. This row also has B Robby in it as well as Bunning, W Sox team, W Sox Rookies, etc.
Row G, with Belanger, Adcock, Yankees & A's rookies, Ty Cline, and the Seaver RC, is a leading candidate to be the bottom row on the other half-sheet. If there were factory miscuts associated with the equipment used, I would expect the other cards in the row to exhibit similar types of issues. Based on what was said earlier, some of those cards may, so I suspect factory miscuts but I haven't seen enough or measured enough samples of these cards to determine that for certain. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I have found several references in contemporary hobby publications that not only the 7th series but also 5th and 6th series were not distributed properly west of the Mississippi. It was noticeable enough that Buck Barker mentioned it in one of his late 1967 columns. Last edited by toppcat; 07-16-2020 at 08:32 AM. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
At least I'd assume so, as I know nothing about the intricacies of altering! So that seems to make trimming even less likely. Especially given the various cuts of my high numbers in general (and in a situation that shouldn't have any relation to deceitfully trimming to increase value, outside of the Seaver possibility) |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
“interesting to some absolute garbage to others.” —- “Error cards and variations are for morons, IMHO.” |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WTB: 1967 topps high numbers | wacturner | 1960-1979 Baseball Cards B/S/T | 0 | 09-11-2018 04:55 PM |
FS: 1967 Topps High Numbers | rsdill2 | 1960-1979 Baseball Cards B/S/T | 6 | 05-14-2018 07:46 PM |
WTTF: 1967 Topps & 1972 Topps High Numbers - have 1967's and HOFers to trade | GehrigFan | 1960-1979 Baseball Cards B/S/T | 0 | 06-14-2015 02:09 PM |
F/T: (3) 1967 Topps high numbers | SmokyBurgess | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 1 | 11-28-2012 03:40 PM |
Want to buy 1967 Topps high numbers | bh3443 | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 3 | 09-24-2010 07:28 AM |