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

[toppcat]

Well I did an eBay canvass of the highs this AM and got some interesting results, not the least of which is that the overall eBay item count never matches the actual number of items, which was a PITA (I had the same issue with the 1967 high # count).

First, this is the count in numerical card order. The average is 35.8 of each card. I have no idea why #571 (Roberts) would be skewed so much but I checked it three times.

NO COUNT
517 34
523 28
524 16
525 17
526 11
527 9
528 12
529 54
530 61
531 64
532 19
533 73
534 30
535 39
536 72
537 72
538 48
539 18
540 17
541 30
542 65
543 22
544 27
545 13
546 21
547 25
548 49
549 54
550 38
551 33
552 22
553 27
554 39
555 14
556 18
557 16
558 40
559 15
560 43
561 24
562 25
563 8
564 45
565 19
566 17
567 27
568 58
569 19
570 32
571 117
572 65
573 63
574 32
575 31
576 24
577 45
578 26
579 37
580 42
581 77
582 60
583 15
584 32
585 43
586 16
587 71
588 21
589 19
590 29
591 27
592 63
593 52
594 40
595 53
596 18
597 27
598 35

And here is the count in ascending order of the eBay count:

NO COUNT
563 8
527 9
526 11
528 12
545 13
555 14
559 15
583 15
524 16
557 16
586 16
525 17
540 17
566 17
539 18
556 18
596 18
532 19
565 19
569 19
589 19
546 21
588 21
543 22
552 22
561 24
576 24
547 25
562 25
578 26
544 27
553 27
567 27
591 27
597 27
523 28
590 29
534 30
541 30
575 31
570 32
574 32
584 32
551 33
517 34
598 35
579 37
550 38
535 39
554 39
558 40
594 40
580 42
560 43
585 43
564 45
577 45
538 48
548 49
593 52
595 53
529 54
549 54
568 58
582 60
530 61
573 63
592 63
531 64
542 65
572 65
587 71
536 72
537 72
533 73
581 77
571 117

[Kevvyg1026]

Ok. I added these counts to the ones I've been keeping since May and averaged them. Thus, I have counts performed in early May, late June, early July, mid July, and end July. Please note that the 517 count should only include the W. Sox variation not both.

The results are as follows (note that I put 598, 583, & 569 in row C since I am relatively certain about their positions. I also put 595, 523, 582, 597, 592, & 549 in row D for the same reason):

The results for the various rows for average, stdev, median, high, and low) are as follows:

Row A (all cards known):
Row B (5 cards known)
Row C (8 cards known)
Row D (all known)
Row E (8 cards known)
Row F (all known)
Row G (8 known)

A: 59.6 19.0 66.8 90.0 35.0
B: 28.4 12.9 24.6 52.5 18.3
C: 29.8 5.7 29.9 38.8 20.0
D: 67.1 19.9 67.0 117.3 38.0
E. 54.7 17.9 48.6 86.0 38.8
F: 27.6 15.8 20.8 62.3 12.8
G: 32.2 11.7 34.9 44.8 12.5

The large std dev for row D (Taylor) is driven mostly by the Roberts card (571), which typically has much higher counts than any other card in that row.

The large Std dev for row F (Mantilla) is primarily due to the high counts for both 593 (Camilli) and 548 (Kolb).

And Row B has the Chance card (564), which also typically has almost twice as many cards available as other cards in that row.

[BillP]

Great stuff and I for one am glad you have kept this monthly data. I think this bears out the 3 x 4 and 4 x 3 theory well. 2 variations I'd like to bring up:

559 Pena, blue dot bottom right
582 roggenburk, blue blob in the sky

Both probably on one of the slits v a clean version on the other.
Also looking at 554 Northrup, border frame off center

thx for this data.
bill

[Kevvyg1026]

The Perry card also seems to appear both with and without clouds or white blobs in the sky

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

Ok. I added these counts to the ones I've been keeping since May and averaged them. Thus, I have counts performed in early May, late June, early July, mid July, and end July. Please note that the 517 count should only include the W. Sox variation not both.

You probably figured out my count was for all examples of the checklist. The odd and extreme overprinting of only a handful of cards is bizarre but real. Wonder why?

[Kevvyg1026]

So, yes it is interesting that the POP surveys show these results. However, such counts are not necessarily reflective of what took place 50+ years ago. As we have "discovered" for other years (e.g., 1963), some of the lore surrounding short prints that has been accepted for many years is not always entirely accurate.

In the Northrup row, card 581 (martinez) consistently has higher counts than others in the same row. That card is in column 4.

In the Perranowski row, the same thing is true for Chance (564), which is located in column 4.

Most of the cards in the Hoerner row appear to have comparable POPs.

Roberts (#571) has the highest counts on the Taylor row and it is also in column 4.

For the Salmon row, card 533 (Adair) typically has the higher counts, but Franks (537) is not that far behind. Those cards are in columns 6 & 8 respectively. Williams is in column 4, so perhaps his ebay POP count may be influenced by his star & Cub recognition, meaning perhaps people don't want to part with the card.

The Mantilla row has two cards (593, 548) which appear much more often than others in that row. Those two cards are located in 6 and 9. Card 563 (Tovar), located in column 7, normally has the lowest population available for sale. The Column 4 card is the Twins team card, and that usually has a low POP count.

Most of the cards in the Shirley/Jackson row have comparable POPs, although both McLain (540, in C2) and Navarro (527, C4) are typically on the low side.

And for what it matters, I suspect that the Northrup and Salmon rows occupy the top and bottom rows on one slit while the Taylor and Shirley rows most likely occupy the top/bottom rows on the other slit.

Having said all of the above, I still believe that if examined for a long enough period, this type of data would yield a reasonably accurate representation. So, for example, if one examined Worthpoint and removed duplicate sales from the PoP, a more accurate picture might emerge. I wish I had the time and energy to undertake such a project, but alas, I don't. I will have to be content with simply trying to reconstruct the sheet configuration!

[Rich Klein]

One thing I should have made clearer during all these debates.

When I was at Beckett, we did prefer to see these sheets and then followed that up with actual physical counting cards available. That was the best 1/2 way of doing things.

So that's why I like having card counts to go with the visible sheets.

In the case of the 1961 5th series, I did have the memories of the material Rosen found back in the day which for example had the Skowron (#371) row at 1/2 the availability of the other cards. Then when I saw the sheet in 1993 at a show that was confirmed by the sheet. While we knew from empirical evidence the short prints, the sheet confirmed and finished the row and added to our knowledge. So that could work vice versa as well.

Rich

[Kevvyg1026]

Thank you Rich.

The main point I was trying to make is that PoP reports are simply a snapshot at one particular moment in time, so variations in card counts from just a few such reports may not be an accurate indicator of the sheet configuration.

Certainly, the PoP reports can't tell us how many cards were destroyed, thrown away, still reside in a shoebox, or remain in collections. Moreover, the PoP counts seem to be in the 10s to 100s, and certainly many more cards than that were printed and distributed. However, I find them useful since they provide some relative information. And if this data can be accumulated over an extensive period of time with duplicate cards eliminated (re: don't count the sale of the same card more than once), then a more accurate reconstruction may be possible.

Wouldn't it be so much simpler if Topps had records such as photos, notes, etc. and made such archival material available for research purposes?

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

Wouldn't it be so much simpler if Topps had records such as photos, notes, etc. and made such archival material available for research purposes?

I think Topps took perverse pride in NOT keeping any records like this!