1967 Topps High Numbers

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by 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.

Richie and I had differing philosophies on what was what, so IIRC that's what he went with as he was in agreement with the extra prints.

[cardsagain74]

Going back to what I was trying to decide about the size of the Seaver/other high numbers cuts....noticed this today (from a listing for a '67 set from a longtime dealer).

The Seaver seems smaller here too, especially horizontally. Similar to mine.

Edit, it's actually easier to notice in the smaller pic in the listing

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1967-Topps-...X/333747691459

[bb66]

Just wanted to pull this up from a year ago. Very interesting read!

[toppcat]

Not to throw a spanner in the works but I ran the PSA pops, and just like the pops for the semi's they are smoother than the eBay data suggests. I accounted for HOF'ers and popular cards like the Wills and B. Robby so some of this is a little subjective but I think it's as a good a count as can be done. 42,165 cards are in the PSA pop.

There's still an anomaly or two though with the average number of impressions of a single card per row:

RECAP
A 450
B 382
C 393
D 412
E 397
F 414
G 390

St. Dev. 22.78784137
Mean 405.4285714

1 Std Dev 427.7878
1 Std Dev 382.2122
2 Std Dev 450.5757

Chucking the HOF, popular subjects, etc, the lowest pop card is Al Ferrara (293 pop) who heads the B Slit. Highest pop is the White Sox Team card (530 pop), in the D row. Data is all over the place, no pattern that I can find. The A Row headed by Pinson is just a hair under two standard deviations away from the mean, none of the other rows are over 1 standard deviation, although the B row is close the other way.

I'm trying to recall my statistics classes but I think two standard deviations means there's only a 5% or so chance it's random. So 4x3 and 3x4 looks possible but that A row is bugging me. It's almost like something happened mid press run and they had to swap in a row.

So D & F look like 4x rows, B, C, E & G like 3x rows and row A still taunts but is "at least" a 4x row.

[Kevvyg1026]

There has been evidence posted for 17 of the 24 rows of the two slits. These known rows exhibit (so far) the following frequencies:

row A (Pinson) - 4x
row B (Ferrara) - 2x
row C (NL RS) - 2x
row D (Colavito) - 2x
row E (check 7) - 2x
row F (Sox RS) - 3x
row G (Orioles RS) - 2x

So, if a 4x3 & 3x4 pattern was used, the Pinson row could not be part of the remaining 7 rows. This means that at least one of the other rows (and most likely 2) have to abut different rows in the remaining 7 than what we already know exists.

Out of the 60+ miscuts already known, not one has shown evidence that this is true. The available evidence (miscuts, uncut material) still supports a 1x5, 1x4, 5x3 row distribution.

I wouldn't rely on POP reports, particularly those of graded cards, to assess row distributions since such reports rely on collectors submitting cards subject to fee structures. These fees may (probably?) support high value cards being graded more frequently relative to their lower value brethren.

For example, in the 1966 highs, we know the pattern of both slits (thanks to a lot of effort from people in this forum). We know that the McCovey (550), Williams (580), and Salmon (594) card are in the same row. Despite this, a recent PSA POP report showed that McCovey had 979 submissions, Williams had 764, and Salmon had 187. Another example shows that Tony Taylor (585), who heads one of the 4x rows, had 222 submissions whereas the Grant/Shirley RS, a card in one of the 3x rows, had 633 submissions.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

There has been evidence posted for 17 of the 24 rows of the two slits. These known rows exhibit (so far) the following frequencies:

row A (Pinson) - 4x
row B (Ferrara) - 2x
row C (NL RS) - 2x
row D (Colavito) - 2x
row E (check 7) - 2x
row F (Sox RS) - 3x
row G (Orioles RS) - 2x

So, if a 4x3 & 3x4 pattern was used, the Pinson row could not be part of the remaining 7 rows. This means that at least one of the other rows (and most likely 2) have to abut different rows in the remaining 7 than what we already know exists.

Out of the 60+ miscuts already known, not one has shown evidence that this is true. The available evidence (miscuts, uncut material) still supports a 1x5, 1x4, 5x3 row distribution.

I wouldn't rely on POP reports, particularly those of graded cards, to assess row distributions since such reports rely on collectors submitting cards subject to fee structures. These fees may (probably?) support high value cards being graded more frequently relative to their lower value brethren.

For example, in the 1966 highs, we know the pattern of both slits (thanks to a lot of effort from people in this forum). We know that the McCovey (550), Williams (580), and Salmon (594) card are in the same row. Despite this, a recent PSA POP report showed that McCovey had 979 submissions, Williams had 764, and Salmon had 187. Another example shows that Tony Taylor (585), who heads one of the 4x rows, had 222 submissions whereas the Grant/Shirley RS, a card in one of the 3x rows, had 633 submissions.

I try to factor out the higher value cards when looking at pops but it's sometimes inconsistent with other results and you can't factor for cards that are often off-center or miscut. I also wonder if Topps had some way to auto-reject really bad cuts.

At one point Topps kept reference copies of all their sheets in Duryea but they were sold off in various ways over several years. Maddening.

[Kevvyg1026]

I wish someone had taken a pic of the uncut 6th series array that sold in 1989 auction. That array appears to have disappeared.