1967 Topps High Numbers

[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.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by 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.

What a difference a couple decades makes. 20 years later and you're blithely snapping pix with your cell phone.

[deweyinthehall]

This post could have easily gone under the 6th series thread as well.

I'm working on a master '67 set and am wondering (although I think I saw a mentioned about it here someplace) whether we know or think we know which versions of the 7th checklist were printed on the 6th series sheets and which on the 7th.

There are 4 versions of the checklist - Chin touches line, names and numbers higher than boxes; chin touches line names and numbers even; chin doesn't touch line, names and numbers higher; chin doesn't touch names and numbers even.

Since the checklist appears across 4 different slits, it would stand to reason that one version each was from each of the 4 slits (2 each from the 6th and 7th series), with the ones from the 7th series printing 2x compared to their counterparts from the 6th which had to share their slits with 6th series checklists.

It's not possible to tell from the grainy image of the known 7th slit which one is there.

Any thoughts/opinions on how these were placed and, as a result, how common or rare the versions might be amongst each other?

Here they are for comparison:

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by deweyinthehall

This post could have easily gone under the 6th series thread as well.

I'm working on a master '67 set and am wondering (although I think I saw a mentioned about it here someplace) whether we know or think we know which versions of the 7th checklist were printed on the 6th series sheets and which on the 7th.

There are 4 versions of the checklist - Chin touches line, names and numbers higher than boxes; chin touches line names and numbers even; chin doesn't touch line, names and numbers higher; chin doesn't touch names and numbers even.

Since the checklist appears across 4 different slits, it would stand to reason that one version each was from each of the 4 slits (2 each from the 6th and 7th series), with the ones from the 7th series printing 2x compared to their counterparts from the 6th which had to share their slits with 6th series checklists.

It's not possible to tell from the grainy image of the known 7th slit which one is there.

Any thoughts/opinions on how these were placed and, as a result, how common or rare the versions might be amongst each other?

Here they are for comparison:

I wonder if every checklist from 1961-73 can be found with a variant from each slit/series? Kinda makes sense but some differences could be extremely minute. There's usually at least one checklist variation per series but per slit seems more likely.

[mikemb]

A quick check of my 1965 to 1967 Topps checklists has one with 4 variations, the 1965 #189 3rd series checklist. Has a smooth or uneven (blue bleed) top border and either a dot or no dot over the second i in #211 Ridzik. A couple of checklists have 3 variations. If I star looking for high or low boxes, there probably will be more.

Mike

img008 (2).jpg