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

[Kevvyg1026]

I also suspect that the balance of the cards in row D (headed by Taylor) are: 595, 523, 582, 597, 592, 549 but I have not found a miscut that ties 595 to 542 or one that attaches 523 to 582, which I believe is needed for confirmation.

IFF (that's math lingo for if and only if) the above is true, then the sequence 598, 583, 569 would be placed in row C in columns 6, 7, & 8 respectively.

So the search for additional miscuts continues.

[Kevvyg1026]

I have been keep track of the new ebay listings each day, and keeping a running tabulation. These counts were then organized into the row positions. So starting in mid-July through listings posted 8/19, the counts look like the following for average, standard deviation, median, high, low:


A: 78.4 17.9 76.0 108.0 54.0
B: 45.7 11.0 42.0 70.0 32.0
C: 49.1 8.1 48.0 69.0 40.0
D: 81.2 23.1 81.0 138.0 48.0
E: 82.4 17.5 77.0 107.0 59.0
F: 46.7 14.7 43.0 77.0 33.0
G: 46.3 9.0 47.0 67.0 35.0

So, these counts certainly give the impression that the pattern was four rows (B, C, F, G) the same frequency as each other and three rows (A, D, E) the same; i.e., a pattern of 4x3 and 3x4.

Some of the "rarer" cards that pop up:
517 (W. Sox variation) - 32 cards have come up for sale
563 (Tovar) - 33 cards
566 (Cuellar) - 38 cards
526 (Twins) - 38 cards
527 (Navarro) - 35 cards
528 (Gonder) - 36 cards
524 (Giants rookies) - 39 cards
545 (Green) - 34 cards
555 (Perranowski) - 36 cards
559 (Pena) - 39 cards

Conversely, traditionally listed SP cards 580 (B Williams) and 550 (McCovey) have both had over 70 copies listed.

[stlcardsfan]

Continued great analysis. Of the rarer cards you listed, not counting the checklist, the one that I had the most trouble with was Green. He was one of the last I needed. None of the other really stand out to me, at least in my experience, in completing the set. Some of the other last ones I remember needing were Snyder, Klimchock, McClain. I agree with your assessment of McCovey and Williams. Really a great thread.

[BillP]

Originally Posted by stlcardsfan

Continued great analysis. Of the rarer cards you listed, not counting the checklist, the one that I had the most trouble with was Green. He was one of the last I needed. None of the other really stand out to me, at least in my experience, in completing the set. Some of the other last ones I remember needing were Snyder, Klimchock, McClain. I agree with your assessment of McCovey and Williams. Really a great thread.

2nd that, lets keep this topic going as for years it's been debated. my sleeper tough card was always snyder. even now a centered one. the opposite end was priddy. available any day. kind of like duliba in 67 highs

[Kevvyg1026]

I've completed and then divested multiple complete runs of this set over the years. I typically had trouble obtaining cards of Cuellar (566), Purkey (551), Mahaffey (570), and Queen (556) but I could find cards of 591 (Jackson/Shirley), Perry (598), Cards Rookies (544), and the two team cards (526, 583) as long as I was willing to pay more than I really thought those cards were worth.

Now I suspect that #591 is on a bottom row on one of the half-sheets, but because it is at an edge (i.e., it is a leading card), it might be less susceptible to factory damage. I suspect the other cards (526, 583, 598) are all on rows that are in the middle of the half-sheets, and therefore not too affected by the cutting/sorting processes used by Topps.

Conversely, I suspect that some of the cards like #551 (which is in row G with Shirley), 528 (Gonder), 556 (Queen), or Cuellar (566) may be on a short-print row that is on the edge of the half-sheet (probably in Shirley row). It would be nice to find some miscuts to answer these types of questions.

I also find it interesting that Skowron (590), Pena (569), Oliver (541), Raymond (586), or Nicholson (576) haven't shown up on anyone's "difficult to find" list. To quote a childhood book, "curiouser and curiouser".

[stlcardsfan]

Back in about 1975 I received a huge lot of Topps 1955-1974 cards from an older cousin. In that lot were about 150 cards from ‘66. Unfortunately only about 8-10 of those were high #s. But at least there were some! Thinking about it years later it was probably one pack from the high series. When I started to build my set about 30 years later I felt very fortunate because of that small group it included the following, some of which are considered valuable and maybe at one time thought to be short printed:
Williams, Clarke, Perry (the miscut one I posted earlier in this thread), 544, Tony Taylor, And a few others I can’t recall. Not sure if any of those cards grouped together means anything but I thought I would share.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

I have been keep track of the new ebay listings each day, and keeping a running tabulation. These counts were then organized into the row positions. So starting in mid-July through listings posted 8/19, the counts look like the following for average, standard deviation, median, high, low:


A: 78.4 17.9 76.0 108.0 54.0
B: 45.7 11.0 42.0 70.0 32.0
C: 49.1 8.1 48.0 69.0 40.0
D: 81.2 23.1 81.0 138.0 48.0
E: 82.4 17.5 77.0 107.0 59.0
F: 46.7 14.7 43.0 77.0 33.0
G: 46.3 9.0 47.0 67.0 35.0

So, these counts certainly give the impression that the pattern was four rows (B, C, F, G) the same frequency as each other and three rows (A, D, E) the same; i.e., a pattern of 4x3 and 3x4.

Some of the "rarer" cards that pop up:
517 (W. Sox variation) - 32 cards have come up for sale
563 (Tovar) - 33 cards
566 (Cuellar) - 38 cards
526 (Twins) - 38 cards
527 (Navarro) - 35 cards
528 (Gonder) - 36 cards
524 (Giants rookies) - 39 cards
545 (Green) - 34 cards
555 (Perranowski) - 36 cards
559 (Pena) - 39 cards

Conversely, traditionally listed SP cards 580 (B Williams) and 550 (McCovey) have both had over 70 copies listed.

Thanks for those numbers. Though doing the math, the ratio of rows A, D and E to rows B, C, F and G is approximately 1.71:1. But since the ratio has to be whole numbers, that is closer to a 5:3 ratio (1.66:1), not a 4:3 (1.33:1) ratio.

[Kevvyg1026]

That is correct regarding the ratio. However, this is only one month of continuous data and such a snapshot is most likely not reflective of what transpired 50+ years ago. I do hope, that over time, enough data will emerge to tell a more complete story.

[Kevvyg1026]

1966_high_uncut.jpg

Found this partial. I believe that this firmly establishes that 582, 597, 592, and 549 are in what I call row D, headed by Taylor. This run of 4 cards would be at the end of that row.

It also shows that row E (headed by Salmon) has 587, 531, and 553 at the end of that row.

[JollyElm]

Okay, here's what I got so far...





LMK if there's anything that should be edited/changed/added/subtracted/whatever.

[Kevvyg1026]

You can put 525 under Choo Choo (561) and 542 under 525. You can also fill in the cards to the left of McCovey in the top frame with the Salmon, through Williams cards, and put the first 5 cards headed by Taylor (through 542) in the row above that (i.e., we know 9 of the 11 cards in the row headed by Taylor, but the cards in columns 6 and 7 are currently not firmly established.

We now know all 11 cards in the row headed by Salmon.

So Taylor row should be: 585 530 560 571 542 X X 582 597 592 549

and Salmon row is: 594 535 575 580 550 533 579 537 587 531 553


I do strongly suspect that the two Xs in Taylor row are 595, 523 but that is, as yet, unconfirmed.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

Thanks for those numbers. Though doing the math, the ratio of rows A, D and E to rows B, C, F and G is approximately 1.71:1. But since the ratio has to be whole numbers, that is closer to a 5:3 ratio (1.66:1), not a 4:3 (1.33:1) ratio.

You would expect that because set collectors are taking one of each card off the market leaving excess of the cards printed four times.