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

[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!