1973 - Uncut

[deweyinthehall]

A few threads having to do with uncut sheets of various years prompted me to go an look through the images I have.

I found something which strikes me as odd and I'm wondering whether someone can tell me what I'm missing.

I have these two different images of 1973 series 1, presumably the A and B slits, but notice the 6x11 blocks with the card #1 in the upper left appears 3 times (top and bottom on one slit, top on the other) and a different 6x11 block with the Dodgers team card in the upper left (and all the leader cards) appears just once.

This would seem to set up a 3x1 print ration.

Something must be wrong here as there are no SPs or 3x prints listed anywhere, and I've never noticed or heard of any scarcities.

Does someone here know what I'm looking at (or for)? I know 1973 was the first "all in one" year (at least in some places at some times) - does this explain it in some way? Probably there's a sheet with 2 dodgers team card blocks out there?

[Kevvyg1026]

There were 660 cards in the 1973 issue. That means that there were five different sheets of 132 cards. So each print sheet would have had 264 cards which means each of the 132 cards unique cards two times each. So there should not be any short prints

from what I've seen, each slit had a pattern of six rows by 11 cards followed by another six by 11 so depending upon where your uncut material was from you could see one row printed twice but the other slit would have the other six rows of 11 followed by six by 11.

[Cliff Bowman]

I hate that style of sheet printing, I think Topps did the same thing in 1970 with some sheets.

[whiteymet]

Speaking of 73 Topps, does anyone have the color Topps advertising sheet for the set? As I recall it looked like the cards were standing up on astroturf

I had a bunch of the adverting sheets back in the 70's and my memory tells me I recall seeing a card on it that was not issued.

Either a card not issued or a different photo of a player than was issued on his card.

If anyone has this sheet please post it here and look it over to see if you can see the card I am talking about.

[jmoran19]

Doing from memory, I think the sheet with all 132 cards is an OPC sheet. Will check files

John

[jmoran19]

Originally Posted by jmoran19

Doing from memory, I think the sheet with all 132 cards is an OPC sheet. Will check files

John

Ok if not OPC the sheet with all time HR leaders in rows 1 and 7 is a slit A sheet. Slit b would be the bottom half of the sheet with all 132 cards printed twice in 66 card blocks.

The full 132 card series 1 sheet looks to say silt A1. Topps did issue wax packs with combined series one and series 2 cards so maybe the right half of the 264 card sheet was the series 2 132 card sheet as seen below but note the label says "side B1" not slit b....

[jmoran19]

1973 advertising sheets i have photos of

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by whiteymet

Speaking of 73 Topps, does anyone have the color Topps advertising sheet for the set? As I recall it looked like the cards were standing up on astroturf

I had a bunch of the adverting sheets back in the 70's and my memory tells me I recall seeing a card on it that was not issued.

Either a card not issued or a different photo of a player than was issued on his card.

If anyone has this sheet please post it here and look it over to see if you can see the card I am talking about.

That A’s player in the upper left corner on the advertising sheets of jmoran sure doesn’t look familiar.

[deweyinthehall]

Pretty sure the Indians player to the right of Holtzman isn't in the set either.

[Deertick]

I love how they have miscut cards as part of their advertising! Troof.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by Deertick

I love how they have miscut cards as part of their advertising! Troof.

What blows my mind is the non existent card of the Indians pitcher next to Ken Holtzman that deweyinthehall spotted is badly miscut.

[JollyElm]

Late on a Friday, the Topps art department was all ready to hit happy hour when the manager said, "Aww, screw this ad. Just toss that fake Indian you cut out with the scissors there and take the picture. No one will ever notice."

[nolemmings]

Looks to me like that the Indians pitcher is Phil Hennigan, and the A's outfielder could be Matty Alou. Both were traded the last week in November 1972, and their '73 cards show them with different photos that were perhaps easier to airbrush the new team logos.

EDITED TO ADD that it is indeed Matty Alou-- from google:
https://baseballhall.org/discover/ca...oug-mcwilliams

Scroll down some and you'll see both Alou cards, alongside an interesting interview of the photographer, which included this little nugget:
"Q: BM
Topps photographers regularly used to take photographs of players without their caps, or with their caps turned upward so as hide the logo. This made it easier for Topps to adjust when a player changed teams. Did you do this with all players, or only with players who were more likely to change from team to team?

A: DM (photographer Doug McWilliams)
I was never asked to do that. I think that went out maybe my first year in 1972. I did have an assignment to do Matty Alou and Dal Maxvill late in 1972 with the A’s, and when the cards came out, Matty was wearing a Yankees uniform, badly airbrushed. They had sent me some cards during that winter, to show me some samples of what my cards would look like, as it was my first year shooting for them, with no printing on the back side. One was of Matty Alou, in an A’s uniform. I think it has a good dollar value."

[toppcat]

They used proofs in some 1974 promo material as well I think. The box set they produced that year certainly has a couple in the graphics for the box.

[deweyinthehall]

Originally Posted by Deertick

I love how they have miscut cards as part of their advertising! Troof.

They wanted to convey that authentic mid-70s Topps look and feel!

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Looks to me like that the Indians pitcher is Phil Hennigan, and the A's outfielder could be Matty Alou. Both were traded the last week in November 1972, and their '73 cards show them with different photos that were perhaps easier to airbrush the new team logos.

EDITED TO ADD that it is indeed Matty Alou-- from google:
https://baseballhall.org/discover/ca...oug-mcwilliams

Scroll down some and you'll see both Alou cards, alongside an interesting interview of the photographer, which included this little nugget:
"Q: BM
Topps photographers regularly used to take photographs of players without their caps, or with their caps turned upward so as hide the logo. This made it easier for Topps to adjust when a player changed teams. Did you do this with all players, or only with players who were more likely to change from team to team?

A: DM (photographer Doug McWilliams)
I was never asked to do that. I think that went out maybe my first year in 1972. I did have an assignment to do Matty Alou and Dal Maxvill late in 1972 with the A’s, and when the cards came out, Matty was wearing a Yankees uniform, badly airbrushed. They had sent me some cards during that winter, to show me some samples of what my cards would look like, as it was my first year shooting for them, with no printing on the back side. One was of Matty Alou, in an A’s uniform. I think it has a good dollar value."

Impressive detective work.

[whiteymet]

Originally Posted by jmoran19

1973 advertising sheets i have photos of

Thanks for posting the Topps ad slicks and all the comments and detective work. Nice to know my memory still works.... sometimes!

[deweyinthehall]

Another observation about the cards used to illustrate the sales sheet - a distinct lack of start power. No Bench, Rose, Yaz, Mays, Aaron, Frank, Brooks, Kaline, Hunter, Blue, Gibson, Carlton...

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by deweyinthehall

Another observation about the cards used to illustrate the sales sheet - a distinct lack of start power. No Bench, Rose, Yaz, Mays, Aaron, Frank, Brooks, Kaline, Hunter, Blue, Gibson, Carlton...

They’re all first series cards but you’re right that they could have had Clemente, B. Robinson, Aaron, Rose, or a League Leader card.

[Gr8Beldini]

Interesting how the action cards are all grouped together on the sheets and the advertising sheets don't show any action cards (you'd think they would want to emphasize those)... I wonder why.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by Gr8Beldini

Interesting how the action cards are all grouped together on the sheets and the advertising sheets don't show any action cards (you'd think they would want to emphasize those)... I wonder why.

A ha, that would explain why no Clemente, B. Robinson, Aaron, or Rose.

[Zach Wheat]

I have two quarter sheets (64-ish cards on each) from 1973, both sheets were of low numbered cards. The assumptions about equal production figures are probably correct, but might be off slightly for cards that were updated. Topps did not always keep cards that were updated on the same sheet.

Topps started labelling their sheets with letters (generally A - F on the reverse) some time around 1977 and placed the * or ** (noting card was updated) adjacent to the letters. One of the sheets I have (not from 1973) is an “updated” half sheet and was miscut. The edge of the sheet was printed with another half sheet from a set that had a continuous black border from a different set or year.

Very odd…..

[nolemmings]

I would love to see a scan/pic of one of those three-pack trays shown in the ad piece. Does anyone here have one to share?

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

I have two quarter sheets (64-ish cards on each) from 1973, both sheets were of low numbered cards. The assumptions about equal production figures are probably correct, but might be off slightly for cards that were updated. Topps did not always keep cards that were updated on the same sheet.

Topps started labelling their sheets with letters (generally A - F on the reverse) some time around 1977 and placed the * or ** (noting card was updated) adjacent to the letters. One of the sheets I have (not from 1973) is an “updated” half sheet and was miscut. The edge of the sheet was printed with another half sheet from a set that had a continuous black border from a different set or year.

Very odd…..

Not unheard of with Topps, this type of set mixing.

From what I know of it, the * or ** notation does not indicate updated though, it merely signifies sheet position of the card. I am curious what kind of asterisk is on the mixed sheet you mention, is it all ** then?

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by toppcat

Not unheard of with Topps, this type of set mixing.

From what I know of it, the * or ** notation does not indicate updated though, it merely signifies sheet position of the card. I am curious what kind of asterisk is on the mixed sheet you mention, is it all ** then?

The sheet was a Topps Baseball sheet from 1969 and has a black border running the length of the half sheet on the left edge. None of the cards did not have any " * " or " ** " markings on the reverse, just the normal copyright logo.

On the pre-1977 sheets, every card has either a single or double asterisk on the reverse. Can you explain further on what this means? I was told by another sheet collector that it meant the card was from a sheet that was updated after the start of the production run.

Thanks.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

The sheet was a Topps Baseball sheet from 1969 and has a black border running the length of the half sheet on the left edge. None of the cards did not have any " * " or " ** " markings on the reverse, just the normal copyright logo.

On the pre-1977 sheets, every card has either a single or double asterisk on the reverse. Can you explain further on what this means? I was told by another sheet collector that it meant the card was from a sheet that was updated after the start of the production run.

Thanks.

A sheet was 264 cards made up of 132 card half sheets, called slits. There is an A slit and a B slit. One slit has one *, the other two **. They did this so the art dept in Brooklyn would know which slit the cards came from; it may also have indicated which part of a slit a card came from, depending upon the series or set size. It has nothing to do with an update.

[lowpopper]

Need that Matty Alou in Oakland uniform wow!

Any confirmed in existence?

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by toppcat

A sheet was 264 cards made up of 132 card half sheets, called slits. There is an A slit and a B slit. One slit has one *, the other two **. They did this so the art dept in Brooklyn would know which slit the cards came from; it may also have indicated which part of a slit a card came from, depending upon the series or set size. It has nothing to do with an update.

Thanks. That makes sense. When some cards on the 1991 Topps DS sheet were revised, they changed the sheet code and * on the reverse.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

Thanks. That makes sense. When some cards on the 1991 Topps DS sheet were revised, they changed the sheet code and * on the reverse.

That may be an anomaly as DS is a weird one but you raise a good point. The */** practice may also have changed over the years. I think it started in 1971 for baseball.

Are there any other sets out there where it may indicate an updated card?

[steve B]

Not that I can think of.
A couple small sets I collected come both ways, the 74 checklists and the hockey inserts that are similar to the 69 supers. On the hockey ones I'm pretty sure both were available in packs around the same time.

I'll have to check some 70's variations, like the Washington 74s and see if they have different *s.

I'm not sure about 91 either, to me the stuff like A*B* or __B* are cases of Topps not removing the sheet designation that didn't apply then correcting it later. I suppose it's sort of both. They messed up the sheet designation then revised it, but I don't think any had ** for the second version.

[Zach Wheat]

Dave,

I am unsure. The sheets aren't easy to look at. I have even bought sheet toploaders to help protect the sheets while I view them. Funny to think they make jumbo toploaders that fit half sheets. There is no easy way to manipulate the sheets without creating wrinkles.

The progression of naming sheets & cards has changed considerably over the years. I have mainly Topps sheets, but also OPC, Kellogs, Hostess blocks and Fleer sheets. Each company used a different naming system to track location of the sheet/card in the process. Most Topps cards, but not all, have an " * / ** ".

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

Dave,

I am unsure. The sheets aren't easy to look at. I have even bought sheet toploaders to help protect the sheets while I view them. Funny to think they make jumbo toploaders that fit half sheets. There is no easy way to manipulate the sheets without creating wrinkles.

The progression of naming sheets & cards has changed considerably over the years. I have mainly Topps sheets, but also OPC, Kellogs, Hostess blocks and Fleer sheets. Each company used a different naming system to track location of the sheet/card in the process. Most Topps cards, but not all, have an " * / ** ".

The most consistent thing about Topps is their inconsistency! Always and forever...

[UKCardGuy]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

What blows my mind is the non existent card of the Indians pitcher next to Ken Holtzman that deweyinthehall spotted is badly miscut.

Well, at least Topps was consistent from proofs to the production runs... Centering on the 1973 set is horrible. There's a pretty good video on YouTube about the idiosyncrasies of the 73T set here https://youtu.be/kGRRPIVbiUI

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by UKCardGuy

Well, at least Topps was consistent from proofs to the production runs... Centering on the 1973 set is horrible. There's a pretty good video on YouTube about the idiosyncrasies of the 73T set here https://youtu.be/kGRRPIVbiUI

That video (and another 1973 one by him) was tremendously cool!

[deweyinthehall]

Originally Posted by UKCardGuy

Well, at least Topps was consistent from proofs to the production runs... Centering on the 1973 set is horrible. There's a pretty good video on YouTube about the idiosyncrasies of the 73T set here https://youtu.be/kGRRPIVbiUI

OMG this is a GREAT video! Can't wait to see what he does next.