1961 Topps SP Research

[JollyElm]

I have always had questions and theories regarding the 1961 Topps cards that have traditionally been accepted as 'short prints' and labeled as such.
So I located an uncut 132 card 1961 Topps sheet through a Google search that contains each of the well-known nine SP cards (others may list it as 10 or more SP's, but the 9 seem to be universally accepted). It's a low resolution image, but it's pretty easy to see some detail. (The weirdness at the very top is a couple of enlarged cards superimposed over the image of the sheet, so pay them no mind.)

The 'official' SP's are:
371 Bill Skowron
402 Larsen Pitches Perfect Game
408 Mathewson K's 267
417 Juan Marichal
421 Ty Cline
423 Charlie Neal
428 Ray Barker
430 Bill Mazeroski
436 Jim Maloney

But here is said sheet and something curious comes to mind:

Image.jpg

The 22 cards outlined in green appear only once on the sheet and they include the 9 cards listed above. Cards appearing outside of that group are printed twice on the sheet.

So why don't SP lists include all 22 of these single-printed cards? All the cards that are generally agreed to be SP's are right there intermingled with the rest of them, but you never see any of these guys referred to as SP's. And the group includes Hank Aaron and Lou Gehrig!

Here's the full list. Checklists are always a crapshoot, because they sometimes printed them on previous sheets, so it's possible that card isn't an SP. But, of course, I could be wrong.
361 Checklist 5
371 Bill Skowron
372 Bob Hendley
389 Ralph Terry
399 Cliff Cook
400 Vern Law
402 Don Larsen Perfect
405 Lou Gehrig Streak
407 Jack Chesbro Wins 41
408 Christy Mathewson Ks
412 Larry Sherry
413 Eddie Yost
415 Hank Aaron
417 Juan Marichal
421 Ty Cline SP
423 Charlie Neal
463 Milwaukee Braves TC (misnumbered #426)
428 Ray Barker
430 Bill Mazeroski
436 Jim Maloney
441 Dick Bertell
446 Bob Taylor

Are there other sheets that reconfigure the layout of these cards to print more of the cards I'm talking about? If not, and this uncut sheet is the only way they printed that group of cards, then all 22 of them should be recognized as SP's.

And yes, there are obviously other SP's elsewhere in this set (Berra MVP, etc.), but my focus is only on this sheet of cards.

Perhaps someone here has some knowledge in this area that could help shed light on the mystery??

[savedfrommyspokes]

I have always found the 389, 405, 415, 426/463, and 446 cards to be almost as tough as the established SPs to find centered in nice shape. Some of the cards in the row beneath the SP row have also been tougher to find nice examples of over the years(even though on this sheet they have been repeated twice).... they include the 375, 383, 396, 401, 409, and 425 cards. Some of the cards in the rows above and below the SP row (noted above)seem to command a higher pct of "book" value than the other cards on the row because they seem to be in a lesser supply(quality wise). For example, the 389 and 446 cards have had recent sales on ebay in the $12-15 range for mainly centered, NM copies.

What would be interesting to see is another sheet from this series/printing to see if it is laid out the same and matches the sheet you have found.

[hangman62]

Jolly,
thats quite interesting..and well done

might you have similar info/ uncut sheets on the 66T set ?

[toppcat]

Any SP's in a Topps set from 1960 thru at least the 1990's should be divisible by 11 in overall number. In fact, other than 1958 when they mucked around with the Mantle and Musial AS cards, that divisor should stretch back to 1957.

[goheels]

Thanks Darren for the picture of the half sheet of the 5th series. Beautiful work as always.

I'd love to see the other half sheet--anyone out there--and a close up in particular of the checklist cards.

This series numbers 371 to 446 which is 76 cards. Add in the previous check list for this series--Checklist 5th series card is 361--and you get 77 distinct cards. The 6th check list is card 437.

This half sheet therefore holds all the 77 unique cards in 7 rows plus 5 extra rows at the bottom.

I would think the other half sheet would have all 77 cards as well, plus 5 extra rows.

If those 5 rows on the second sheet included the 2 that were only seen once in the other half, then we should have 3 extra rows of cards for the two half sheets, and 4 rows that are only printed three times.

Sheet A: 77 cards once, 55 cards printed twice
Sheet B: (assumption): 77 cards done once, 5 rows duplicated that would include the 2 only printed once on A and then 3 extra rows.

Final count: 4 rows x 11 cards x 3 times each=132 cards
3 rows x 11 cards x 4 times each=132 cards
That makes up 264 for the full sheet.

If that is correct, then would be looking at 33 cards that are 33% more common, with a 4:3 ratio? A different way of looking at it.

Without seeing the other half sheet I don't think we have enough data here. If the other half sheet shorted the same 2 rows, then we would be looking at 22 short cards. That would be 5 rows x 11 cards x 4 times= 220 cards and 2 rows x 11 cards x 2 times=44 cards for the 264 total.

Thoughts?

Carlton

[toppcat]

It's not always that linear from one half sheet to the other from what I have seen. The 67 Highs are a 77 card series where there are some odd things going on. 44 66 88 and 110 card series should not really have any SP's but 55, 77 and (maybe) 99 could.

[Kevvyg1026]

Has anyone seen an uncut sheet (either partial or full) for either series 1 or series 6 for the 1961 Topps BB set?

The series 1 sheet should have 6 rows printed twice and four rows printed 3x. I am trying to determine which cards in that series were printed more frequently than the others.

For series 6, covering cards 447 - 522, there should be some SPs since only 77 cards were issued. Topps either printed 4 rows 3x each and 3 rows 4x each or they used a pattern of 4 rows 4x each, 2 rows 3x each, and 1 row 2x. Since there are no SPs listed in current price guides, I assume that the former was done, but would like to see some uncut material to validate.

kevin

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

Has anyone seen an uncut sheet (either partial or full) for either series 1 or series 6 for the 1961 Topps BB set?

The series 1 sheet should have 6 rows printed twice and four rows printed 3x. I am trying to determine which cards in that series were printed more frequently than the others.

For series 6, covering cards 447 - 522, there should be some SPs since only 77 cards were issued. Topps either printed 4 rows 3x each and 3 rows 4x each or they used a pattern of 4 rows 4x each, 2 rows 3x each, and 1 row 2x. Since there are no SPs listed in current price guides, I assume that the former was done, but would like to see some uncut material to validate.

kevin

I only have a 3rd series half sheet 88/44 array, so no help. I will say 77 card series were prone to the most screwing around by Topps.

[toppcat]

Double post, sorry

[jmoran19]

Kevin, I believe I'm the unoffical gatekeeper of pictures for Topps uncut sheets before 1977 LOL.

Your print assumptions are correct for both series, excluding the checklist 77 card series usually had 44 cards printed 3 times (these are the SP’s) and 33 cards printed four times on the 264 card sheet.

This is all i have for 1961 series 1. Based on other years in the 60's the bottom two rows on each half of the 264 card sheet are usually the "3 prints" That would be the Lee Maye and Killebrew rows here. Don't have anything for series 6 but how about series 7 for good measure too.

John

[rats60]

Shouldn’t Bob Taylor be listed as a short print? He is in the same row as the other 9 SPs.

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

I have always had questions and theories regarding the 1961 Topps cards that have traditionally been accepted as 'short prints' and labeled as such.
So I located an uncut 132 card 1961 Topps sheet through a Google search that contains each of the well-known nine SP cards (others may list it as 10 or more SP's, but the 9 seem to be universally accepted). It's a low resolution image, but it's pretty easy to see some detail. (The weirdness at the very top is a couple of enlarged cards superimposed over the image of the sheet, so pay them no mind.)

The 'official' SP's are:
371 Bill Skowron
402 Larsen Pitches Perfect Game
408 Mathewson K's 267
417 Juan Marichal
421 Ty Cline
423 Charlie Neal
428 Ray Barker
430 Bill Mazeroski
436 Jim Maloney

But here is said sheet and something curious comes to mind:

Attachment 137502

The 22 cards outlined in green appear only once on the sheet and they include the 9 cards listed above. Cards appearing outside of that group are printed twice on the sheet.

So why don't SP lists include all 22 of these single-printed cards? All the cards that are generally agreed to be SP's are right there intermingled with the rest of them, but you never see any of these guys referred to as SP's. And the group includes Hank Aaron and Lou Gehrig!

Here's the full list. Checklists are always a crapshoot, because they sometimes printed them on previous sheets, so it's possible that card isn't an SP. But, of course, I could be wrong.
361 Checklist 5
371 Bill Skowron
372 Bob Hendley
389 Ralph Terry
399 Cliff Cook
400 Vern Law
402 Don Larsen Perfect
405 Lou Gehrig Streak
407 Jack Chesbro Wins 41
408 Christy Mathewson Ks
412 Larry Sherry
413 Eddie Yost
415 Hank Aaron
417 Juan Marichal
421 Ty Cline SP
423 Charlie Neal
463 Milwaukee Braves TC (misnumbered #426)
428 Ray Barker
430 Bill Mazeroski
436 Jim Maloney
441 Dick Bertell
446 Bob Taylor

Are there other sheets that reconfigure the layout of these cards to print more of the cards I'm talking about? If not, and this uncut sheet is the only way they printed that group of cards, then all 22 of them should be recognized as SP's.

And yes, there are obviously other SP's elsewhere in this set (Berra MVP, etc.), but my focus is only on this sheet of cards.

Perhaps someone here has some knowledge in this area that could help shed light on the mystery??

Good work Darren.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

Good work Darren.

This thread is from a long time ago, before I gained a helluva lot more knowledge from the insightful 'Slit Talkers' on the board...but thanks.