seeking knowledge re: 1955 Topps baseball sheets

[G1911]

A 191 Stanky (one of the DP's) showing a sliver of a blue name box to left (above card image)

[Cliff Bowman]

Awesome! I'm pretty sure that's Jim Delsing beside Bolger and Billy Consolo beside Delsing. Keep them coming!

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by G1911

A 191 Stanky (one of the DP's) showing a sliver of a blue name box to left (above card image)

I have a better example of the Stanky but I still can't tell who it is next to him. Throneberry, Zauchin, Sain, Jensen, Lollar, and Daley are still available. I am curious why you described Stanky as a DP, though. He isn't one of the four well known DP's, Baumholtz, Pearce, Perkowski, or Silvera. Is it thought that he is on a row that was printed more than the other rows? I have miscuts showing Stanky above Snider AND under Snider so it would make sense for the row Stanky is on to be a DP row. I also have a scan of a miscut 55 Clemente beside Stanky so that would also make Clemente a DP.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

I have a better example of the Stanky but I still can't tell who it is next to him. Throneberry, Zauchin, Silvera, Sain, Jensen, Lollar, and Daley are still available. I am curious why you described Stanky as a DP, though. He isn't one of the four well known DP's, Baumholtz, Pearce, Perkowski, or Silvera. Is it thought that he is on a row that was printed more than the other rows? I have miscuts showing Stanky above Snider AND under Snider so it would make sense for the row Stanky is on to be a DP row. I also have a scan of a miscut 55 Clemente beside Stanky so that would also make Clemente a DP.

I should have said it differently or left out. I think Stanky is one of the extra prints - I don't think, based on population samples I've had in the past, that all 50 cards (counting the 4 replacement cards twice as they clearly are true DP's) were produced in an equal number of slots. The third series does not seem to exist in equal or close to equal quantity. Rows may have changed and cycled like Bowman did, or some rows were produced more than others as a constant on the two slits, inconsistent rows, or something else, but I will be surprised if it is found to be a straightforward 46 single print + the 4 extra slots for the double prints to replace the missing numbers.

I would not be surprised if Clemente is an extra print of some kind at all, just really hard to compare populations for a superstar rookie that gets all the attention.

[Cliff Bowman]

You are correct about there having to be “DP” rows in the 1955 Topps 3rd Series, each slit has 11 rows which would come out to 22 rows over two slits. There are five unique rows in the 1955 3rd Series so if each row is printed 4 times that comes out to 20 rows, that means there would be two more rows printed again for a total of 5x for each of those rows. The 1955 Topps 2nd Series was the opposite, there were six unique rows in that series so that meant that two of the six rows had to be printed 3x rather than 4x in order to fill out the 22 rows over the two slits. There ended up being two “SP” rows in the 1955 2nd Series.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

You are correct about there having to be “DP” rows in the 1955 Topps 3rd Series, each slit has 11 rows which would come out to 22 rows over two slits. There are five unique rows in the 1955 3rd Series so if each row is printed 4 times that comes out to 20 rows, that means there would be two more rows printed again for a total of 5x for each of those rows. The 1955 Topps 2nd Series was the opposite, there were six unique rows in that series so that meant that two of the six rows had to be printed 3x rather than 4x in order to fill out the 22 rows over the two slits. There ended up being two “SP” rows in the 1955 2nd Series.

I'm pretty sure Stanky alongside some of the others in seemingly abundant supply will end up being on one of the extra rows, but maybe I should refrain from these guesses when we may be able to actually prove something. I don't know how much data you guys have outside this thread for the high numbers but I will keep looking for other miscuts. Hopefully other folks can add their own miscuts.

Is there a chart of the cards numbers and rows/columns for the second series? I saw the post in the other thread but it appears the columns are reversed or off? My 55 set is long ago complete minus Clemente who I don't want to pay $1,500 for just yet but I am curious. 54 and 55 are two of the better ones to identify as the series have not been positively known outside of series 1.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by G1911

I'm pretty sure Stanky alongside some of the others in seemingly abundant supply will end up being on one of the extra rows, but maybe I should refrain from these guesses when we may be able to actually prove something. I don't know how much data you guys have outside this thread for the high numbers but I will keep looking for other miscuts. Hopefully other folks can add their own miscuts.

Is there a chart of the cards numbers and rows/columns for the second series? I saw the post in the other thread but it appears the columns are reversed or off? My 55 set is long ago complete minus Clemente who I don't want to pay $1,500 for just yet but I am curious. 54 and 55 are two of the better ones to identify as the series have not been positively known outside of series 1.

Yeah, I messed up on the 1955 Topps 2nd Series layout, hopefully Dewey will be able to fix my mistake when he has time. The two rows on the 1955 2nd Series that are short printed are the Amalfitano row and the Carroll row, and what's really interesting is the Carroll row is all ten cards numbered 151-160, including Eddie Mathews. I have noticed that some checklists have cards 151-160 listed separately at a slightly higher price so I believe dealers and collectors noticed years ago that 151-160 were in lesser quantities than most of the other cards in the series. ETA I don't think the 1955 Topps 3rd Series is a dead end like 1965 6th Series and 1957 5th Series have turned out to be but we need all of the miscuts we can get a hold of, plus there are row changes in the 1955 3rd Series which makes it more complicated.

[Cliff Bowman]

Here are the 1955 Topps 2nd Series slits that Dewey fixed after my screw up. 1955 Topps and 1956 Topps slits are actually supposed to be vertical rather than horizontal concerning the rows but they just look better horizontal.