1967 Topps High Numbers

[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

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

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

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.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by toppcat

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.

Hopefully so. Funny thing is that the "just need the card and it's not easy to find a good deal" factor for many '67 highs has gotten to the point where the value difference between a decent-looking grade A and PSA 3 or 4 isn't that much anyway (so even if it's trimmed, it's not the end of the world). Doubt I'll ever get it graded, so it may stay a mystery.

Appreciate all the info though. About this and the rest of the thread

[Kevvyg1026]

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.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

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.

Sure seems likely based on the above. Right now, I think the bottom row of slit A is G and A-F occupy the six rows above it, perhaps not purely in a straightforward consecutive A-G arrangement. Some type of issue occurred making Row A appear five times across the two slits (instead of 4) and a further production problem scotched some of the A slit bottom G row and also affected the B (Shannon) & D (Alomar) rows on one of the sheets. I wonder if Topps machinery automatically rejected cards that were too big or too small?

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.

[rats60]

St Louis didn't get 6th series cards, but received plenty of 7th series.

[Kevvyg1026]

I certainly know I didn't have any 6th or 7th series cards from 1967 in my "kid" collection that year and I lived in the Phoenix area. Mostly, I purchased packs from my local 7-11 store.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

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.

I should also mention that the Seaver from my set has that legit looking fairly minor grade 4ish vintage corner wear (on all four) that's consistent with the rest of the entire set, yet no strange changes or oblong areas on the edges between the corners (which you'd think would be necessary for a card that was trimmed w/o the corners being touched).

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)

[toppcat]

I found the original listing from July 1984 issue of Current Card Prices where the high number SP's and DP's were introduced (sort of). This was to be based upon my researching one of the uncut sheet slits at the time. The publisher had his own thoughts based upon his dealer experience also the thought a differently arrayed slit might be out there based upon his (extensive) inventory, which eventually turned out to be right of course.

We never addressed the 66 high number SP's; first I can find that happening is in 1989 issues of Baseball Cards magazine.

Enjoy the trip down Memory Lane!

[Kevvyg1026]

Here's a miscut of Seaver with Ty Cline next to it. Nothing new, but thought it would be of interest.1967_seaver.JPG

[Kevvyg1026]

The CCP July 84 price guide is interesting. 9 of the 11 cards in the Pinson row (all except Pinson & Carew) are shown at a lower price than the other high number cards and Pinson is at only a slight premium ($2 vs. $1.75). However, the other high numbers listed at $1.75 are from several different rows, and none are from the Rohr (#547) row.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

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.

I don't think it was ever confirmed in this thread but it seems to me this should be proof enough that the Belanger row with Seaver is the bottom row on the A Slit.

[jchcollins]

When Card Collectors Company and other early mail order outfits got the '67 7th series cases, did they get them directly from Topps? Wondering just in general how these suddenly became available in the early, mostly pre-retail hobby days circa 1970-80.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

When Card Collectors Company and other early mail order outfits got the '67 7th series cases, did they get them directly from Topps? Wondering just in general how these suddenly became available in the early, mostly pre-retail hobby days circa 1970-80.

Yes Card Collectors Company especially got their cards direct from Topps as Richard Gelman, who helmed the company for the 70's and 80's was Woody's son.

The other outlets from the 1970's got vending cases from Topps to make their sets. Wholesale Cards (well as Dave H. points out in the next point indirectly), Fritsch, etc.