The order of topps cards?

[ALR-bishop]

Have seen SCD articles that are consistent with David's explanation and my own experience with Topps sets.

[Tomman1961]

I have to agree also with David. Take a look at a checklist. The ending number "0" and "5" are almost always a star for it's year. Anything ending in a muliple of is a guy like Koufax, Seaver, Mantle, Clemente, Rose, etc. After that I think Topps would not want consecutive cards of players from the same team. They would not 156 and 157 be players from the same team.I doubt I can recall consecutive numbers of players of the same team.

[mckinneyj]

> I doubt I can recall consecutive numbers of players of the same team.

Most true - however there are several instances in the older set where players on the same team were assigned consecutive numbers - the 53 and 54 sets come to mind - for example from '54 #115, #116, and #117 are all Cardinals, or, from '53 #18 and #19 are bot h Red Sox and #25 and 26 are both Indians.

[David W]

It was great in 81 when Fleer put the cards out numerically by team, by best record.

I have no idea why Topps never did that, as I always sorted my cards by team when I was a kid and it without marking up checklists which was boring, you never knew if you had all the cards of each team.

[HaloFan]

Originally Posted by mckinneyj

> I doubt I can recall consecutive numbers of players of the same team.

Most true - however there are several instances in the older set where players on the same team were assigned consecutive numbers - the 53 and 54 sets come to mind - for example from '54 #115, #116, and #117 are all Cardinals, or, from '53 #18 and #19 are bot h Red Sox and #25 and 26 are both Indians.

I believe there's a couple of 3-card runs of Dodgers players in the high-number series of 1952 as well as consecutive numbers of Pirates and Reds in that series. There are quite a few Dodgers just in that particular series.

Craig H

[toppcat]

I don't think Topps had much of a numbering plan until near the end of the 50's, although there was some sporadic usage of the "00" 10's and 5's strategy before then. The first couple of years (51 and 52) cards may have been numbered in the order the player or image was cleared for printing by Topps but I have never seen anything to substantiate that, just a hunch on my part.

[ALR-bishop]

I would go with Dave's hunches over the knowledge of many...including me

[Gary Dunaier]

I always thought it would be cool if a company numbered their sets either, a) alphabetically, b) chronologically by age with oldest player first, c) chronologically by ML service with longest service first.