NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
T206s on Ebay
Pre-WWII Cards
Post WWII Cards
Vintage Memorabilia
Babe Ruth Cards
Ty Cobb Cards
Lou Gehrig Cards
Mickey Mantle Cards
Goudey Cards
Bowman Cards
T205s on Ebay
Tobacco "T" Cards
Caramel "E" Cards
Vintage Baseball Postcards
Football Cards on Ebay
Exhibit Cards
Strip Cards
Baking Cards
Sporting News
Playball Cards on Ebay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Postwar Sportscard Forums > Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-02-2020, 02:04 PM
toppcat's Avatar
toppcat toppcat is offline
Dave.Horn.ish
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,356
Default 1967 Topps High Numbers

Given all the fun sussing out the 1963 and 1966 highs, I'd love to finish off the 67's. The B Slit is known as 132 card half sheets of it exist. The top five rows of the A slit are also known. I'll show those first but want to patch through and lightly edit some verbiage from my blog to show what I know and what I don't. The five row partial was found after my last post in 2012.

from www.toppsarchives.com

Now for the (B SLIT) uncut high number sheet. While the above scan is truncated at top and bottom, if you count the descending rows and use DP for double print and SP for single print, you can label them as: DP1, DP2, DP3, DP4, DP5, DP1, SP1, SP2, DP2, DP3, DP4, DP5. The odd placement of the two SP rows has always caught my eye and led me to think something was afoot but eventually I forgot about this happenstance.

Well we have to jump ahead a few years, to when I found a list of 1967 high number DP's in The SCD/Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards. They had DP's where I had SP's. I then checked one of the Beckett books and found their list did not mesh with mine either. I e-mailed Beckett and got a response that their DP listings had been created by direct observation of a (possibly partial) uncut sheet. The source of SCD's listing was never revealed to me but it seems now it was based upon tabulation data and not an uncut sheet. It was clear though that Beckett had access to a sheet that was different than the one I had sketched out. So I created a spreadsheet to show all the possibilities and came up with something quite interesting:


SUBJECT B SHEET SCD BECKETT
531 7TH SERIES CHECKLIST DP
534 BAUER SP DP DP
535 CLENDENON
536 CUBS ROOKIES (J. NIEKRO)
537 ESTRADA DP DP
538 MARTIN
539 EGAN SP DP DP
540 CASH
541 GIBBON
542 A'S ROOKIES (MONDAY) SP DP DP
543 SCHNEIDER
544 INDIANS TEAM
545 GRANT
546 WOODWARD
547 RED SOX ROOKIES SP DP DP
548 GONZALEZ DP DP
549 SANFORD
550 PINSON DP DP
551 CAMILLI DP DP
552 SAVAGE SP
553 YANKEES ROOKIES SP
554 RODGERS SP DP DP
555 CARDWELL
556 WEIS SP DP DP
557 FERRARA
558 ORIOLES ROOKIES (BELANGER) SP
559 TRACEWSKI DP DP
560 BUNNING
561 ALOMAR
562 BLASS SP DP DP
563 ADCOCK SP
564 ASTROS ROOKIES SP DP DP
565 KRAUSSE
566 GEIGER DP DP
567 HAMILTON (YANKEES)
568 SULLIVAN SP
569 A.L. ROOKIES (CAREW) DP DP
570 WILLS
571 SHERRY
572 DEMETER
573 WHITE SOX TEAM
574 BUCHEK
575 BOSWELL
576 N.L. ROOKIES
577 SHORT
578 BOCCABELLA
579 HENRY
580 COLAVITO
581 METS ROOKIES (SEAVER) SP
582 OWENS DP DP
583 BARKER (YANKEES)
584 PIERSALL
585 BUNKER
586 JIMINEZ SP
587 N.L. ROOKIES
588 KLIPPSTEIN SP DP DP
589 RICKETTS DP DP
590 RICHERT
591 CLINE SP
592 N.L. ROOKIES
593 WESTRUM
594 OSINSKI
595 ROJAS
596 CISCO SP DP DP
597 ABERNATHY SP
598 WHITE SOX ROOKIES
599 DULIBA DP DP
600 B. ROBINSON SP
601 BRYAN SP DP
602 PIZARRO
603 A'S ROOKIES SP
604 RED SOX TEAM
605 SHANNON
606 TAYLOR
607 STANLEY SP
608 CUBS ROOKIES DP DP
609 JOHN





The 7th series checklist also appeared on the 6th series press sheet, so is more abundant in theory than any other 7th series card but we'll treat it as a true high for our exercise here today. If you look at the data you will see that 11 cards identified as short prints have no corresponding DP designator from either SCD or Beckett. Logically, these 11 cards are the true 1967 high number short prints and they are all from the row I call SP2:

552 Savage
553 Yankees Rookies
558 Orioles Rookies (Belanger)
563 Adcock
568 Sullivan
581 Mets Rookies (Seaver)
586 Jiminez
591 Cline
597 Abernathy
603 A's Rookies
607 Stanley

Conversely, 11 cards that are in my SP1 row are Double Prints on both the SCD and Beckett lists (I suspect #601 Bryan, a Yankee, was left off the SCD list inadvertently):

534 Bauer
539 Egan
542 A's Rookies (Monday)
547 Red Sox Rookies
554 Rodgers
556 Weis
562 Blass
564 Astros Rookies
588 Klippstein
596 Cisco
601 Bryan

Then there is the curious case of the 11 cards shown as DP's in the other two lists and also on my sheet:

537 Estrada
548 Gonzalez
550 Pinson
551 Camilli
559 Tracewski
566 Geiger
589 AL Rookies (Carew)
582 Owens
589 Ricketts
599 Duliba
608 Cubs Rookies

A nice, neat 11 cards and all appearing in the row I have dubbed DP1. The next three rows (DP2, DP3, DP4) are not designated by either price guide but I have them as DP's. Beckett, if using a partial sheet, may not have caught these and SCD just doesn't mention them. I have them all as DP rows in order to make the Beckett sheet work,

Did you notice all three of these "odd" rows (DP1, SP1, DP2) appear as a single grouping on my sheet? Let's replicate them at the top of a theoretical second sheet:

DP1
SP1
SP2


Last edited by toppcat; 07-02-2020 at 02:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-02-2020, 02:49 PM
Rich Klein Rich Klein is offline
Rich Klein
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Plano Tx
Posts: 3,902
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by toppcat View Post
Given all the fun sussing out the 1963 and 1966 highs, I'd love to finish off the 67's. The B Slit is known as 132 card half sheets of it exist. The top five rows of the A slit are also known. I'll show those first but want to patch through and lightly edit some verbiage from my blog to show what I know and what I don't. The five row partial was found after my last post in 2012.

from www.toppsarchives.com

Now for the (B SLIT) uncut high number sheet. While the above scan is truncated at top and bottom, if you count the descending rows and use DP for double print and SP for single print, you can label them as: DP1, DP2, DP3, DP4, DP5, DP1, SP1, SP2, DP2, DP3, DP4, DP5. The odd placement of the two SP rows has always caught my eye and led me to think something was afoot but eventually I forgot about this happenstance.

Well we have to jump ahead a few years, to when I found a list of 1967 high number DP's in The SCD/Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards. They had DP's where I had SP's. I then checked one of the Beckett books and found their list did not mesh with mine either. I e-mailed Beckett and got a response that their DP listings had been created by direct observation of a (possibly partial) uncut sheet. The source of SCD's listing was never revealed to me but it seems now it was based upon tabulation data and not an uncut sheet. It was clear though that Beckett had access to a sheet that was different than the one I had sketched out. So I created a spreadsheet to show all the possibilities and came up with something quite interesting:


SUBJECT B SHEET SCD BECKETT
531 7TH SERIES CHECKLIST DP
534 BAUER SP DP DP
535 CLENDENON
536 CUBS ROOKIES (J. NIEKRO)
537 ESTRADA DP DP
538 MARTIN
539 EGAN SP DP DP
540 CASH
541 GIBBON
542 A'S ROOKIES (MONDAY) SP DP DP
543 SCHNEIDER
544 INDIANS TEAM
545 GRANT
546 WOODWARD
547 RED SOX ROOKIES SP DP DP
548 GONZALEZ DP DP
549 SANFORD
550 PINSON DP DP
551 CAMILLI DP DP
552 SAVAGE SP
553 YANKEES ROOKIES SP
554 RODGERS SP DP DP
555 CARDWELL
556 WEIS SP DP DP
557 FERRARA
558 ORIOLES ROOKIES (BELANGER) SP
559 TRACEWSKI DP DP
560 BUNNING
561 ALOMAR
562 BLASS SP DP DP
563 ADCOCK SP
564 ASTROS ROOKIES SP DP DP
565 KRAUSSE
566 GEIGER DP DP
567 HAMILTON (YANKEES)
568 SULLIVAN SP
569 A.L. ROOKIES (CAREW) DP DP
570 WILLS
571 SHERRY
572 DEMETER
573 WHITE SOX TEAM
574 BUCHEK
575 BOSWELL
576 N.L. ROOKIES
577 SHORT
578 BOCCABELLA
579 HENRY
580 COLAVITO
581 METS ROOKIES (SEAVER) SP
582 OWENS DP DP
583 BARKER (YANKEES)
584 PIERSALL
585 BUNKER
586 JIMINEZ SP
587 N.L. ROOKIES
588 KLIPPSTEIN SP DP DP
589 RICKETTS DP DP
590 RICHERT
591 CLINE SP
592 N.L. ROOKIES
593 WESTRUM
594 OSINSKI
595 ROJAS
596 CISCO SP DP DP
597 ABERNATHY SP
598 WHITE SOX ROOKIES
599 DULIBA DP DP
600 B. ROBINSON SP
601 BRYAN SP DP
602 PIZARRO
603 A'S ROOKIES SP
604 RED SOX TEAM
605 SHANNON
606 TAYLOR
607 STANLEY SP
608 CUBS ROOKIES DP DP
609 JOHN





The 7th series checklist also appeared on the 6th series press sheet, so is more abundant in theory than any other 7th series card but we'll treat it as a true high for our exercise here today. If you look at the data you will see that 11 cards identified as short prints have no corresponding DP designator from either SCD or Beckett. Logically, these 11 cards are the true 1967 high number short prints and they are all from the row I call SP2:

552 Savage
553 Yankees Rookies
558 Orioles Rookies (Belanger)
563 Adcock
568 Sullivan
581 Mets Rookies (Seaver)
586 Jiminez
591 Cline
597 Abernathy
603 A's Rookies
607 Stanley

Conversely, 11 cards that are in my SP1 row are Double Prints on both the SCD and Beckett lists (I suspect #601 Bryan, a Yankee, was left off the SCD list inadvertently):

534 Bauer
539 Egan
542 A's Rookies (Monday)
547 Red Sox Rookies
554 Rodgers
556 Weis
562 Blass
564 Astros Rookies
588 Klippstein
596 Cisco
601 Bryan

Then there is the curious case of the 11 cards shown as DP's in the other two lists and also on my sheet:

537 Estrada
548 Gonzalez
550 Pinson
551 Camilli
559 Tracewski
566 Geiger
589 AL Rookies (Carew)
582 Owens
589 Ricketts
599 Duliba
608 Cubs Rookies

A nice, neat 11 cards and all appearing in the row I have dubbed DP1. The next three rows (DP2, DP3, DP4) are not designated by either price guide but I have them as DP's. Beckett, if using a partial sheet, may not have caught these and SCD just doesn't mention them. I have them all as DP rows in order to make the Beckett sheet work,

Did you notice all three of these "odd" rows (DP1, SP1, DP2) appear as a single grouping on my sheet? Let's replicate them at the top of a theoretical second sheet:

DP1
SP1
SP2

Dave:

We've had this discussion before but from my dealing days (long before I even went to Beckett) I am perfectly comfortable with the 22 cards noted as DP's being DP's. That is covered not only from my personal experience but remembering all the ads in the 70's and 80's where those 22 cards were in far larger supply.

It is possible that for vend boxes for whatever reason the magic 22 were even more available than they were out of packs. If so, that would work on such a level that the magic 22 are sure out there and available. And while I only have a few 67 Hi's in my inventory right now, every one of them is from those 22

Regards
Rich
__________________
Look for our show listings in the Net 54 Calendar section
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-02-2020, 02:59 PM
G1911 G1911 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 622
Default

Checked my set; no miscuts that may be of aid to report.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-02-2020, 03:54 PM
toppcat's Avatar
toppcat toppcat is offline
Dave.Horn.ish
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,356
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Klein View Post
Dave:

We've had this discussion before but from my dealing days (long before I even went to Beckett) I am perfectly comfortable with the 22 cards noted as DP's being DP's. That is covered not only from my personal experience but remembering all the ads in the 70's and 80's where those 22 cards were in far larger supply.

It is possible that for vend boxes for whatever reason the magic 22 were even more available than they were out of packs. If so, that would work on such a level that the magic 22 are sure out there and available. And while I only have a few 67 Hi's in my inventory right now, every one of them is from those 22

Regards
Rich
Hi Rich:

Hope you are doing well.

I say anything is possible based on the other threads, so hopefully we can find enough miscuts to pull this off. The 67 A slit is definitely off kilter, just not sure which way but the 63 and 66 threads show this can finally be sussed out (I think). A strange one for sure, possibly single prints AND extra prints. Only 7 rows to go!

Last edited by toppcat; 07-02-2020 at 04:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-02-2020, 05:34 PM
rats60's Avatar
rats60 rats60 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,132
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Klein View Post
Dave:

We've had this discussion before but from my dealing days (long before I even went to Beckett) I am perfectly comfortable with the 22 cards noted as DP's being DP's. That is covered not only from my personal experience but remembering all the ads in the 70's and 80's where those 22 cards were in far larger supply.

It is possible that for vend boxes for whatever reason the magic 22 were even more available than they were out of packs. If so, that would work on such a level that the magic 22 are sure out there and available. And while I only have a few 67 Hi's in my inventory right now, every one of them is from those 22

Regards
Rich
What is your theory on how the sheets look? We know there are 24 rows of 11 on the sheet(s) with 7 unique rows. 3 rows 4 times and 4 rows 3 times works. It has been believed that the Seaver row may be 2 times. Could those 2 DP rows appear 5 times? Or are there more DPs?

I was one of Beckett’s sources for SP information. I owned a partial sheet that contained cards that were believed to be SPs, so as we know if one card on the row was a SP, they all are.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-03-2020, 04:05 AM
Kevvyg1026 Kevvyg1026 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 166
Default 1967 topps highs

Another pattern that works is two rows 5x each, four rows 3x each, and one row 2x each. There are other patterns which also work, but this one would yield 22 cards printed a lot more than the others and 11 cards printed much less than most in the series.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-03-2020, 05:38 AM
rats60's Avatar
rats60 rats60 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,132
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026 View Post
Another pattern that works is two rows 5x each, four rows 3x each, and one row 2x each. There are other patterns which also work, but this one would yield 22 cards printed a lot more than the others and 11 cards printed much less than most in the series.
This is what I believe happened. It fits what I have seen over the years in card populations. Without seeing the other half (2nd 132 card sheet), we will never know.

Just based on my personal experience, the 7th series 1967 Topps never came into our area. I believe it was one of if not the least distributed Series of Topps in 1954-1973. I think that Card Collectors Company got a larger than normal supply and were a main source for the hobby. Collectors who never saw the cards would have bought complete series creating an excess of double printed cards in one source. Just my theory.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-03-2020, 05:38 AM
ALBB ALBB is offline
Albert Bee
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 405
Default 67

very interesting research !
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-03-2020, 05:41 AM
Kevvyg1026 Kevvyg1026 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 166
Default 1967 topps highs

The only miscut I have shows Demeter with Carew underneath. Doesn't tell anything new since that is the same as what is shown on the half-sheet
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-03-2020, 06:58 AM
toppcat's Avatar
toppcat toppcat is offline
Dave.Horn.ish
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,356
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rats60 View Post
What is your theory on how the sheets look? We know there are 24 rows of 11 on the sheet(s) with 7 unique rows. 3 rows 4 times and 4 rows 3 times works. It has been believed that the Seaver row may be 2 times. Could those 2 DP rows appear 5 times? Or are there more DPs?

I was one of Beckett’s sources for SP information. I owned a partial sheet that contained cards that were believed to be SPs, so as we know if one card on the row was a SP, they all are.
Very interesting as my thought is the Beckett SP and DP info came from the missing A slit. Do you have a record of the array?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-03-2020, 07:57 AM
rats60's Avatar
rats60 rats60 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,132
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by toppcat View Post
Very interesting as my thought is the Beckett SP and DP info came from the missing A slit. Do you have a record of the array?
My partial sheet was the bottom 4 rows of the full sheet that you posted. Those are the cards that I believe were printed 3 times and are SPs, with 22 cards being printed 5 times being DPs and 11 SSPs being printed twice.l
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-03-2020, 08:22 AM
Cliff Bowman's Avatar
Cliff Bowman Cliff Bowman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Near Atlanta
Posts: 1,322
Default

A few scans that I found. ETA, I guess you are looking for different tops and bottoms and not sides, if I understand it correctly now.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 67 brooks.jpg (72.0 KB, 472 views)
File Type: jpg 67 cash.jpg (49.3 KB, 458 views)
File Type: jpg 67 colavito.jpg (50.7 KB, 462 views)
File Type: jpg 67 pinson.jpg (75.0 KB, 464 views)
File Type: jpg 67 shellenback.jpg (77.8 KB, 464 views)
File Type: jpg 67 sutherland.jpg (68.4 KB, 462 views)
File Type: jpg 67 wills.jpg (49.4 KB, 467 views)
File Type: jpg 67 john.jpg (73.8 KB, 470 views)
__________________
“interesting to some absolute garbage to others.” —- “Error cards and variations are for morons, IMHO.”

Last edited by Cliff Bowman; 07-03-2020 at 09:08 AM. Reason: Correction
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-03-2020, 09:05 AM
toppcat's Avatar
toppcat toppcat is offline
Dave.Horn.ish
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,356
Default

I have to check my set later as I don't have any 67 dupes. Don't recall having any miscuts but we'll see. Is it me or does it seem like there are less miscuts in 67 than 66?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-03-2020, 09:15 AM
Rich Klein Rich Klein is offline
Rich Klein
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Plano Tx
Posts: 3,902
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rats60 View Post
What is your theory on how the sheets look? We know there are 24 rows of 11 on the sheet(s) with 7 unique rows. 3 rows 4 times and 4 rows 3 times works. It has been believed that the Seaver row may be 2 times. Could those 2 DP rows appear 5 times? Or are there more DPs?

I was one of Beckett’s sources for SP information. I owned a partial sheet that contained cards that were believed to be SPs, so as we know if one card on the row was a SP, they all are.
I don't have a theory on the sheets but I'd wager those 22 cards in the 2 rows are more common on the missing sheet for our situation. This is a case where the non-sheet evidence is pretty darned good. Look at the old ads and you'll see what I mean.

Rich
__________________
Look for our show listings in the Net 54 Calendar section
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-03-2020, 09:33 AM
G1911 G1911 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by toppcat View Post
I have to check my set later as I don't have any 67 dupes. Don't recall having any miscuts but we'll see. Is it me or does it seem like there are less miscuts in 67 than 66?
I don’t think there are many miscuts in either, and these two years were pretty much the best quality control here. I have a lot of miscut 65’s, and then starting in 1968 it really seems Topps gave up completely on not issuing wildly miscut cards. Before 1965 I think they are relatively more common. Have to factor in that overall total year production generally went up each year
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-06-2020, 09:22 AM
toppcat's Avatar
toppcat toppcat is offline
Dave.Horn.ish
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,356
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
I don’t think there are many miscuts in either, and these two years were pretty much the best quality control here. I have a lot of miscut 65’s, and then starting in 1968 it really seems Topps gave up completely on not issuing wildly miscut cards. Before 1965 I think they are relatively more common. Have to factor in that overall total year production generally went up each year
Yeah, I think there was an uptick in 1968 production then 1969, with four new markets,the numbers went even higher. Topps may have overestimated (look at all the 69 wrappers and cards out there still) and then 70-72 pulled back as those years the highs are a bit harder to find now.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-06-2020, 09:41 AM
jmoran19 jmoran19 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 168
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026 View Post
Another pattern that works is two rows 5x each, four rows 3x each, and one row 2x each. There are other patterns which also work, but this one would yield 22 cards printed a lot more than the others and 11 cards printed much less than most in the series.
Topps used a LOT of different layouts but I Personally Have never seen evidence of any other year use a layout where a row of cards was printed 5 times across the 264 card sheet and another row only twice.

Last edited by jmoran19; 07-06-2020 at 09:51 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-06-2020, 10:34 AM
Kevvyg1026 Kevvyg1026 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 166
Default 1967 topps highs

I understand that and I have not either. I was simply stating that it was possible and would lead to two rows being printed at a significantly higher rate than the others, while one row would be short printed.

The one half sheet I've seen for the 67 high numbers has five rows printed twice and two rows printed once.

I have only seen three rows of the second half-sheet and it has one of the double printed rows from the first half sheet printed twice, and one of the single printed rows printed once.

Thus, in the fifteen rows I've seen, one row was printed four times, five rows printed twice, and one row printed once. It will be interesting to see if the frequency of the remaining nine rows can be determined.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-06-2020, 11:27 AM
toppcat's Avatar
toppcat toppcat is offline
Dave.Horn.ish
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,356
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026 View Post
I understand that and I have not either. I was simply stating that it was possible and would lead to two rows being printed at a significantly higher rate than the others, while one row would be short printed.

The one half sheet I've seen for the 67 high numbers has five rows printed twice and two rows printed once.

I have only seen three rows of the second half-sheet and it has one of the double printed rows from the first half sheet printed twice, and one of the single printed rows printed once.

Thus, in the fifteen rows I've seen, one row was printed four times, five rows printed twice, and one row printed once. It will be interesting to see if the frequency of the remaining nine rows can be determined.
You may have missed my scans above, which showed two more rows of the other sheet. It doesn't solve all but shows how weird the layout was for the 67 highs, gives us a second "Seaver row" a third "Bauer row", a confirmation at at least one row appears 4 times and gets us down to 7 unknown rows. So the Bauer Row (really fronted by Red Sox Rookies) is now known as appearing 3X while the Seaver row (fronted by Orioles Rookies) now shows up twice and the Pinson fronted row is 4X. The repeating pattern of the top four rows is interesting on the partial and the Bauer and Seaver rows are together on both half sheets. Flimsy evidence only two Seaver rows exit but to my mind this makes it at least possible.

Plenty of questions remain though. Did a production issue scotch a row and cause a weird pattern? Are the differing layouts related to how the cards were packed? DO certain rows suffer production issues causing them to sometimes be pulled and discarded?

Last edited by toppcat; 07-06-2020 at 11:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-06-2020, 11:58 AM
rats60's Avatar
rats60 rats60 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,132
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by toppcat View Post
Yeah, I think there was an uptick in 1968 production then 1969, with four new markets,the numbers went even higher. Topps may have overestimated (look at all the 69 wrappers and cards out there still) and then 70-72 pulled back as those years the highs are a bit harder to find now.
I remember the 1968 and 1969 last series cards coming out earlier in the summer. By August, we had all series, but in 1970 we had only received the first 4 series and we were still looking for high numbers in September. If that was the case across the country, stores would have ordered more of the 7th series cards in 68-69 since kids were still out of school. I don’t think production was less in 70-72, just in the late series due to late release.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-06-2020, 12:08 PM
Kevvyg1026 Kevvyg1026 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 166
Default 1967 topps highs

This is obviously pure speculation on my part but if Topps used a similar printing pattern to what they did in several other years, I expect the last seven rows on the second half-sheet to be headed by (in order): 557, 576, 580, 531, 550, 547, 558.

From what I have seen from 77 card print runs from 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, and 1969, Topps used a pattern (with seven unique rows labeled A thru G) like:


1. One half-sheet: A, B, C, D, E, A, F, G, B, C, D, E

2. 2nd half-sheet: variable two rows (in 1967 A, F), followed by A, F, G, B, C, D, E, A, F, G.

From what you have shown, this pattern seems to be appearing in 1967 as well. The first half-sheet has the pattern A, B, C, D, E, A, F, G, B, C, D, E while the other has: A, F, A, F, G. Thus, this five row snippet MIGHT be followed by B, C, D, E, A, F, G.

Unfortunately, no miscut information will identify if that is the pattern; only that it isn't. This is because row C is always underneath row B, row D is always under row C, etc. However, if a miscut is found that violates this pattern, that would be very helpful!!

If (and it is IF) this speculation is true, row A, with Pinson, would be printed five times across the two half sheets, row F (with Rohr) 4x, and five rows (Ferrara, Hernandez rookie, Colavito, Checklist, & Belanger rookie) 3x each.

This would make the cards in the Pinson row almost double-printed (5:3 ratio), while the cards in the Rohr row (4:3 ratio) printed at a slightly higher rate than those of the other 54 cards. The checklist, is naturally, printed at a higher frequency since it was also printed in the prior print run.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-06-2020, 02:55 PM
toppcat's Avatar
toppcat toppcat is offline
Dave.Horn.ish
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,356
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026 View Post
Unfortunately, no miscut information will identify if that is the pattern; only that it isn't. This is because row C is always underneath row B, row D is always under row C, etc. However, if a miscut is found that violates this pattern, that would be very helpful!!
Yup, when I first posted this thread I thought it was possible a repeat portion of the array would make it impossible to use miscuts. One interesting idea from the suggested patterns you posted is that the Seaver row (G, or SP2 in my parlance) could be a bottom row on the unknown sheet. That might help explain why the cards in that row are really more of a short print than any other three-peat row. Some kind of production issue could have affected it for a press run or when cutting down into individual cards.

Checked my 67 set, no high number miscuts, or even close really.

Last edited by toppcat; 07-06-2020 at 03:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-08-2020, 03:21 PM
Bigdaddy's Avatar
Bigdaddy Bigdaddy is offline
+0m J()rd@N
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: VA
Posts: 1,056
Default

So I went on to ComC and looked at the number of cards for sale for each of the '67s listed below to try to get some hard data for relative population numbers. This accounts for both slabbed and unslabbed cards. Probably the real outliers are the Seaver and Carew RCs, which I would imagine reside in higher numbers in PCs than most of the others. If you could define the relative printing of the card per sheet as 1X, 2X, 3X, 4X etc, then you could generate bins or buckets that each card would fall into based statistical analysis of the relative populations. Not perfect, but it does give more insight on the relative scarcity of the high numbers. And shows, statistically, why I had to pay through the nose for Mike Shannon.

SUBJECT B SHEET SCD BECKETT ComCpop
531 7TH SERIES CHECKLIST DP 23
534 BAUER SP DP DP 32
535 CLENDENON 13
536 CUBS ROOKIES (J. NIEKRO) 6
537 ESTRADA DP DP 22
538 MARTIN 8
539 EGAN SP DP DP 16
540 CASH 8
541 GIBBON 6
542 A'S ROOKIES (MONDAY) SP DP DP 18
543 SCHNEIDER 15
544 INDIANS TEAM 9
545 GRANT 9
546 WOODWARD 6
547 RED SOX ROOKIES SP DP DP 17
548 GONZALEZ DP DP 25
549 SANFORD 13
550 PINSON DP DP 14
551 CAMILLI DP DP 25
552 SAVAGE SP 7
553 YANKEES ROOKIES SP 10
554 RODGERS SP DP DP 21
555 CARDWELL 16
556 WEIS SP DP DP 18
557 FERRARA 13
558 ORIOLES ROOKIES (BELANGER) SP 17
559 TRACEWSKI DP DP 24
560 BUNNING 13
561 ALOMAR 9
562 BLASS SP DP DP 13
563 ADCOCK SP 13
564 ASTROS ROOKIES SP DP DP 12
565 KRAUSSE 4
566 GEIGER DP DP 31
567 HAMILTON (YANKEES) 12
568 SULLIVAN SP 8
569 A.L. ROOKIES (CAREW) DP DP 6
570 WILLS 13
571 SHERRY 10
572 DEMETER 13
573 WHITE SOX TEAM 6
574 BUCHEK 8
575 BOSWELL 4
576 N.L. ROOKIES 12
577 SHORT 8
578 BOCCABELLA 11
579 HENRY 18
580 COLAVITO 11
581 METS ROOKIES (SEAVER) SP 6
582 OWENS DP DP 30
583 BARKER (YANKEES) 12
584 PIERSALL 14
585 BUNKER 13
586 JIMINEZ SP 13
587 N.L. ROOKIES 12
588 KLIPPSTEIN SP DP DP 18
589 RICKETTS DP DP 24
590 RICHERT 12
591 CLINE SP 13
592 N.L. ROOKIES 15
593 WESTRUM 13
594 OSINSKI 19
595 ROJAS 16
596 CISCO SP DP DP 18
597 ABERNATHY SP 14
598 WHITE SOX ROOKIES 10
599 DULIBA DP DP 36
600 B. ROBINSON SP 9
601 BRYAN SP DP 26
602 PIZARRO 13
603 A'S ROOKIES SP 10
604 RED SOX TEAM 9
605 SHANNON 8
606 TAYLOR 19
607 STANLEY SP 17
608 CUBS ROOKIES DP DP 30
609 JOHN 16
__________________
Working Sets:
Baseball-
T206 SLers - Virginia League
1952 Topps - low numbers
1954 Bowman
1964 Topps Giants auto'd
1964 Topps
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-09-2020, 07:52 AM
toppcat's Avatar
toppcat toppcat is offline
Dave.Horn.ish
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,356
Default

Tom:

Thanks for that canvass of COMC it's both interesting and weird. Shannon has always been thought of as tough, at least since the first tabulation data started coming through in the late 70's and early 80's.

Of the single digit pops, only two (552 and 568) correlate to my SP2 row so it does seem something is afoot. If this pop data could be worked out by row it might show an obvious pattern. I did something a little similar with the 52 highs using eBay and figured out two rows (251-260 and 261-270) were DP's and that the highs look to have been printed at half the semi high SP rate. If you know the rows it takes out some of the individual card "noise".

I'll try that here if I have time later today and maybe compare it to eBay too (factoring out COMC). I'll repost my scans too if the don't repopulate on the database rebuild Leon is doing right now.

Last edited by toppcat; 07-09-2020 at 07:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-09-2020, 08:17 AM
Rich Klein Rich Klein is offline
Rich Klein
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Plano Tx
Posts: 3,902
Default

One quick note on why so few Carews and Seavers was for many years it was truly not economically feasible to send those really high dollar cards to COMC because of the fee structure.

My first NSCC working for COMC the most consistent complaint I received was the cash out fees for expensive cards was way too steep. With some changes in the past couple of years, the fee structure is now competitive with just about any other selling source. There are bog posts in the COMC blog explaining all those changes.

Rich
__________________
Look for our show listings in the Net 54 Calendar section
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-09-2020, 02:01 PM
toppcat's Avatar
toppcat toppcat is offline
Dave.Horn.ish
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,356
Default

I just did an eBay canvass. This thread will show the pops in ascending order as follows: Card No. - Row - Count. The next thread will show it by row.

Rows Fronted by:

A 550 Pinson
B 557 Ferrara
C 576 NL Rookies
D 580 Colavito
E 531 7th Checklist
F 547 Red Sox Rookies
G 558 Orioles Rookies

Slit B rows (all positions known):
A
B
C
D
E
A
F
G
B
C
D
E

Slit A rows (top 5 positions known):
A
F
A
F
G

605 B 11
561 D 13
544 E 14
573 D 14
574 E 14
536 D 16
552 G 16
576 C 16
540 D 17
541 D 17
545 C 17
568 G 17
577 D 17
565 B 18
603 G 18
586 G 19
592 B 19
543 B 20
546 C 20
590 E 20
538 C 21
542 F 21
595 B 21
557 B 22
587 E 22
593 C 22
571 D 23
575 B 23
583 B 23
607 G 23
535 B 24
553 G 25
555 B 25
562 F 26
563 G 26
578 C 26
580 D 26
591 G 26
560 E 27
579 C 27
597 G 27
602 E 27
585 C 28
550 A 29
556 F 29
567 C 29
600 E 29
547 F 30
549 D 31
554 F 31
564 F 31
584 E 31
570 D 32
534 F 34
606 C 34
601 F 35
604 B 35
609 D 35
558 G 36
572 E 36
588 F 39
594 C 40
531 E 43
589 A 45
596 F 47
539 F 49
569 A 50
581 G 51
598 E 53
548 A 64
559 A 69
582 A 81
537 A 86
608 A 91
599 A 93
566 A 95
551 A 102

Last edited by toppcat; 07-09-2020 at 04:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-09-2020, 02:02 PM
toppcat's Avatar
toppcat toppcat is offline
Dave.Horn.ish
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,356
Default

I just did an eBay canvass. This thread will show the pops by row as follows (rows sequencing is out of order, it's sorted in ascending order per row): Card No. - Row - Count.

Rows Fronted by:

A 550 Pinson
B 557 Ferrara
C 576 NL Rookies
D 580 Colavito
E 531 7th Checklist
F 547 Red Sox Rookies
G 558 Orioles Rookies

Slit B rows (all positions known):
A
B
C
D
E
A
F
G
B
C
D
E

Slit A rows (top 5 positions known):
A
F
A
F
G

550 A 29
589 A 45
569 A 50
548 A 64
559 A 69
582 A 81
537 A 86
608 A 91
599 A 93
566 A 95
551 A 102
605 B 11
565 B 18
592 B 19
543 B 20
595 B 21
557 B 22
575 B 23
583 B 23
535 B 24
555 B 25
604 B 35
576 C 16
545 C 17
546 C 20
538 C 21
593 C 22
578 C 26
579 C 27
585 C 28
567 C 29
606 C 34
594 C 40
561 D 13
573 D 14
536 D 16
540 D 17
541 D 17
577 D 17
571 D 23
580 D 26
549 D 31
570 D 32
609 D 35
544 E 14
574 E 14
590 E 20
587 E 22
560 E 27
602 E 27
600 E 29
584 E 31
572 E 36
531 E 43
598 E 53
542 F 21
562 F 26
556 F 29
547 F 30
554 F 31
564 F 31
534 F 34
601 F 35
588 F 39
596 F 47
539 F 49
552 G 16
568 G 17
603 G 18
586 G 19
607 G 23
553 G 25
563 G 26
591 G 26
597 G 27
558 G 36
581 G 51

Last edited by toppcat; 07-09-2020 at 04:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-10-2020, 06:42 AM
Kevvyg1026 Kevvyg1026 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 166
Default 1967 topps highs

I compiled a similar POP report a few weeks back for the 1967 Topps high numbers. The cards in row A (headed by Pinson) had an average of 71 cards each available, while those in row F headed by Rohr had 36 each. Cards in the other five rows averaged between 23 to 27.

Understanding that this POP report is only a snapshot and that other factors can influence such reports, I still find it interesting that the five rows I suspect were printed 3x each across the entire sheet have lower availability than the other two rows which I suspect were printed at a higher frequency.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-10-2020, 07:29 AM
toppcat's Avatar
toppcat toppcat is offline
Dave.Horn.ish
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,356
Default

That A row is bizarre, like a Super Print row.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-11-2020, 05:42 PM
Rich Klein Rich Klein is offline
Rich Klein
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Plano Tx
Posts: 3,902
Default

Triple Print for Row A?

Double Print for another 11 or so

Then normal print and then one single print row:?

I know from my dealer days way back in the day that 561 Sandy Alomar was always a brutal card to get in NY.

I think the empirical evidence in this case has adjusted my thinking.

1) Triple Print Row
1) Double Print Row

4) Normal Print Rows

1) Single Print Row

Regards
Rich
__________________
Look for our show listings in the Net 54 Calendar section
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-11-2020, 07:05 PM
Bigdaddy's Avatar
Bigdaddy Bigdaddy is offline
+0m J()rd@N
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: VA
Posts: 1,056
Default

Dave, so looking at your ebay search listed by row, I find it interesting that the first card in each row (corresponding to the first column) has the least number of cards for any given row. This could be explained by Topps frequently discarding the first column as it may have been 'dinged' or otherwise damaged by the product cutting/handling machinery.

If that were the case, then those 'column one' cards could also be considered 'short print' since fewer of them made it out of the factory than cards in the other columns.

Rich, excuse me for not following your thread, but can you explain further the difference between 'triple, double, normal and single'? I understand 'triple, double and single', but can't fit 'normal' in there.

Tom
__________________
Working Sets:
Baseball-
T206 SLers - Virginia League
1952 Topps - low numbers
1954 Bowman
1964 Topps Giants auto'd
1964 Topps
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-11-2020, 07:22 PM
toppcat's Avatar
toppcat toppcat is offline
Dave.Horn.ish
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,356
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdaddy View Post
Dave, so looking at your ebay search listed by row, I find it interesting that the first card in each row (corresponding to the first column) has the least number of cards for any given row. This could be explained by Topps frequently discarding the first column as it may have been 'dinged' or otherwise damaged by the product cutting/handling machinery.

If that were the case, then those 'column one' cards could also be considered 'short print' since fewer of them made it out of the factory than cards in the other columns.

Rich, excuse me for not following your thread, but can you explain further the difference between 'triple, double, normal and single'? I understand 'triple, double and single', but can't fit 'normal' in there.

Tom
Sorry I may not have been clear. Each row is sorted independently, I haven't mapped each column location yet. So Row A lowest to highest, same for row B, etc. Average per row:

A 73
B 22
C 25
D 22
E 29
F 34
G 26

Curiouser and curiouser..... If three F rows are known now, does that mean there are 6 A rows?! B row has Shannon, D row the Alomar while the G row has vexed many collectors. If you take 6 A rows and 3 F's, every other row could appear twice to get 24 rows. WTF? I can't see that being the case. I think there could have been a production problem, which might explain the distribution issues as well as there is no denying that A row count. Hmmmm...just realized Kevvyg1026 notes the A row 5 times, F row 4 times and all others 3 times also works. The E row has the checklist, so that row's count is affected by that card also being printed with the semi-highs.

Last edited by toppcat; 07-11-2020 at 11:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-12-2020, 08:16 AM
Rich Klein Rich Klein is offline
Rich Klein
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Plano Tx
Posts: 3,902
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdaddy View Post
Dave, so looking at your ebay search listed by row, I find it interesting that the first card in each row (corresponding to the first column) has the least number of cards for any given row. This could be explained by Topps frequently discarding the first column as it may have been 'dinged' or otherwise damaged by the product cutting/handling machinery.

If that were the case, then those 'column one' cards could also be considered 'short print' since fewer of them made it out of the factory than cards in the other columns.

Rich, excuse me for not following your thread, but can you explain further the difference between 'triple, double, normal and single'? I understand 'triple, double and single', but can't fit 'normal' in there.

Tom
Way back in the day there were 22 cards which appeared more than others.

Now that we doing empirical research I think the real answer is

There is one group of 11 cards which is obviously triple printed as their numbers all skew much higher.

There is another group of 11 which by the empirical evidence of back in the day were available in quantity but as we see today not as much as the group of the big 11

Most of the other rows have normal distribution

One row (The one with Sandy Alomar Sr. #561) has consistently shorter availability. That makes sense in terms of historical evidence of this series.

Rich
__________________
Look for our show listings in the Net 54 Calendar section
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-14-2020, 08:52 AM
999Tony 999Tony is offline
Brian "Tony" Levinson
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Leavenworth County Kansas
Posts: 252
Default

Just got a 1967 548 tony Gonzalez. The card below tony is ray barker—most of the name is showing on back. Different from card shown below tony above. Dunno if this helps.

Can send a pic if needed.
__________________
Brian "Tony" Levinson

Member of Old Baseball Cards as of 4/22/18 thanks to some very nice people I met on this site.
Thank you very much Net54 community.
New to site, but already successful trades with Mintacular, jschris, avalanche2006, obcbobd jimmysuitcase, and marchillo.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-14-2020, 08:54 AM
999Tony 999Tony is offline
Brian "Tony" Levinson
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Leavenworth County Kansas
Posts: 252
Default

Never mind I see that is shown on the second sheet hard to see on my phone
__________________
Brian "Tony" Levinson

Member of Old Baseball Cards as of 4/22/18 thanks to some very nice people I met on this site.
Thank you very much Net54 community.
New to site, but already successful trades with Mintacular, jschris, avalanche2006, obcbobd jimmysuitcase, and marchillo.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-14-2020, 09:19 AM
toppcat's Avatar
toppcat toppcat is offline
Dave.Horn.ish
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,356
Default

I ran the rows again less the highest pop card in each (and took out #531 checklist from Row E in addition as it's also printed with the semi-highs) and got this:

-HIGHEST
A 70
B 21
C 24
D 21
E 24 ALSO LESS #531 CHECKLIST
F 32
G 23

The Row A 5x, Row F 4x and the rest 3x looks like it works for sure, it's just not confirmable really. The bottom seven rows may just be in alphabetical order starting with A and putting G on the bottom. Why certain rows have tougher cards in some areas may be a quirk of the distribution. I suspect one of the A rows (likely the top one as Topps often used edges of sheets to make subs that don' "fit") on the partial sheet was meant to be something else. That would have left us with a 4x * 3 + 3x * 4=24 rows setup likely as planned if all my math is correct. Why the B (Shannon) and D (Alomar) rows remain slightly less available is beyond me though but they seem to be tougher based on comments here, so I think a production issue still could have been in play.

Last edited by toppcat; 07-14-2020 at 09:23 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-14-2020, 09:41 AM
Rich Klein Rich Klein is offline
Rich Klein
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Plano Tx
Posts: 3,902
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by toppcat View Post
I ran the rows again less the highest pop card in each (and took out #531 checklist from Row E in addition as it's also printed with the semi-highs) and got this:

-HIGHEST
A 70
B 21
C 24
D 21
E 24 ALSO LESS #531 CHECKLIST
F 32
G 23

The Row A 5x, Row F 4x and the rest 3x looks like it works for sure, it's just not confirmable really. The bottom seven rows may just be in alphabetical order starting with A and putting G on the bottom. Why certain rows have tougher cards in some areas may be a quirk of the distribution. I suspect one of the A rows (likely the top one as Topps often used edges of sheets to make subs that don' "fit") on the partial sheet was meant to be something else. That would have left us with a 4x * 3 + 3x * 4=24 rows setup likely as planned if all my math is correct. Why the B (Shannon) and D (Alomar) rows remain slightly less available is beyond me though but they seem to be tougher based on comments here, so I think a production issue still could have been in play.
I think your final hypotheses makes sense. We'll also never know for sure if sheets are different from vend unless we find another vend case running around. IMHO the 11 magical triple print cards is a lock
__________________
Look for our show listings in the Net 54 Calendar section
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-14-2020, 10:49 AM
toppcat's Avatar
toppcat toppcat is offline
Dave.Horn.ish
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,356
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Klein View Post
I think your final hypotheses makes sense. We'll also never know for sure if sheets are different from vend unless we find another vend case running around. IMHO the 11 magical triple print cards is a lock
A mortal lock I'd say!

It would be interesting if only one slit was used for vending and another for retail in '67. I'm not sure that's how it went down at all (and it likely didn't) but it would be interesting.

Last edited by toppcat; 07-14-2020 at 10:49 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-14-2020, 12:28 PM
Kevvyg1026 Kevvyg1026 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 166
Default

If you perform a statistical analysis on the POP numbers for rows B, C, D, E, & G (using the averages and standard deviation values), you will find that they are the same with a 98% confidence interval whereas A & F are definitely different. I did that analysis a month ago as well, and found the same thing.

Although the POP numbers can vary from week to week, if enough sampling is done over a long period of time, the correct pattern should emerge, so I plan to continue that analysis in order to ascertain the pattern.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-14-2020, 12:33 PM
toppcat's Avatar
toppcat toppcat is offline
Dave.Horn.ish
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,356
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026 View Post
If you perform a statistical analysis on the POP numbers for rows B, C, D, E, & G (using the averages and standard deviation values), you will find that they are the same with a 98% confidence interval whereas A & F are definitely different. I did that analysis a month ago as well, and found the same thing.

Although the POP numbers can vary from week to week, if enough sampling is done over a long period of time, the correct pattern should emerge, so I plan to continue that analysis in order to ascertain the pattern.
I was actually gonna futz around with a standard deviation calculation this evening, you have saved me a step. A is just bizarre, any way you look at it.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 07-14-2020, 01:05 PM
Kevvyg1026 Kevvyg1026 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 166
Default 1967 topps highs

If a miscut from row E could be found that was above row F, then the pattern on the 2nd slit would probably be A, F, A, F, G, A, B, C, D, E, F, G.

However, in the absence of such a miscut, I still think the most likely pattern is A, F, A, F, G, B, C, D, E, A, F, G.

Either way, row A shows up 5x, row F 4x, and all others 3x across the two slits.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-14-2020, 01:20 PM
toppcat's Avatar
toppcat toppcat is offline
Dave.Horn.ish
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,356
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026 View Post
If a miscut from row E could be found that was above row F, then the pattern on the 2nd slit would probably be A, F, A, F, G, A, B, C, D, E, F, G.

However, in the absence of such a miscut, I still think the most likely pattern is A, F, A, F, G, B, C, D, E, A, F, G.

Either way, row A shows up 5x, row F 4x, and all others 3x across the two slits.
Yeah, the distribution seems solved, now just the array remains on Slit A. I guess they could have just replicated the array at the bottom of Slit B as well:

A
F
G
B
C
D
E

I'd wager cards that have issues in some iterations (Seaver Rookie tilt) and not in others could eventually be traced back to specific sheet locations but that is totally Mission Impossible.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-14-2020, 11:10 PM
cardsagain74 cardsagain74 is offline
J0hn H@rper
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 343
Default

Do you guys know if the Seaver card was somehow cut a little short? It seems smaller than the Carew and pretty much everything else from the set (even when I look at graded ones).

Though my eyes could be playing tricks on me
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-15-2020, 07:07 AM
toppcat's Avatar
toppcat toppcat is offline
Dave.Horn.ish
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,356
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cardsagain74 View Post
Do you guys know if the Seaver card was somehow cut a little short? It seems smaller than the Carew and pretty much everything else from the set (even when I look at graded ones).

Though my eyes could be playing tricks on me
Seaver has many issues, and just spitballing here, if he was in a bottom row, a short or odd cut could be possible. Have you observed any other cards in his row that are cut short or just his (sounds like just his)?

Last edited by toppcat; 07-15-2020 at 07:07 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-15-2020, 02:13 PM
cardsagain74 cardsagain74 is offline
J0hn H@rper
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 343
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by toppcat View Post
Seaver has many issues, and just spitballing here, if he was in a bottom row, a short or odd cut could be possible. Have you observed any other cards in his row that are cut short or just his (sounds like just his)?
I eyeballed some more of my raw set (especially that bottom row), and there are minor differences. The Athletics rookies may be a shade smaller than the rest, the Seaver may be a smaller shade short of the Athletics rookies, and Belanger is a shade shorter than Seaver. And those three also measure a little short compared to the typical low number common.

Naturally my main concern is whether or not the Seaver could have been trimmed, but then why would the Belanger measure even smaller? You wouldn't think someone would trim that card just to stick it in a raw grade 4ish set!

So I'm hoping it's just an inconsistent factory cut.

Speaking of, as far as my initial comparison to the Carew, it measures a bit long in that slightly miscut kind of vintage card way (where you see such a big border on one edge and one of these sheet print lines). A little bit of everything in this particular '67 set

Last edited by cardsagain74; 07-15-2020 at 02:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07-15-2020, 03:12 PM
toppcat's Avatar
toppcat toppcat is offline
Dave.Horn.ish
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,356
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cardsagain74 View Post
So I'm hoping it's just an inconsistent factory cut.
You never know as oldtimers did some weird things with trimming (not always for deceit) but I suspect what you describe is just short factory cuts. I still think the overnight Topps work crews back then are responsible for a lot of this type thing and other oddities and something clearly went wrong with the production (IMO) of the highs at some point.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07-15-2020, 10:48 PM
cardsagain74 cardsagain74 is offline
J0hn H@rper
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 343
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by toppcat View Post
You never know as oldtimers did some weird things with trimming (not always for deceit) but I suspect what you describe is just short factory cuts. I still think the overnight Topps work crews back then are responsible for a lot of this type thing and other oddities and something clearly went wrong with the production (IMO) of the highs at some point.
Hopefully so. Funny thing is that the "just need the card and it's not easy to find a good deal" factor for many '67 highs has gotten to the point where the value difference between a decent-looking grade A and PSA 3 or 4 isn't that much anyway (so even if it's trimmed, it's not the end of the world). Doubt I'll ever get it graded, so it may stay a mystery.

Appreciate all the info though. About this and the rest of the thread
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 07-16-2020, 04:05 AM
Kevvyg1026 Kevvyg1026 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 166
Default

Row A with Pinson as leading card and Carew at the end of the row is at top of both half-sheets. Row E with the checklist as leading card is at the bottom of one half-sheet. This row also has B Robby in it as well as Bunning, W Sox team, W Sox Rookies, etc.

Row G, with Belanger, Adcock, Yankees & A's rookies, Ty Cline, and the Seaver RC, is a leading candidate to be the bottom row on the other half-sheet. If there were factory miscuts associated with the equipment used, I would expect the other cards in the row to exhibit similar types of issues. Based on what was said earlier, some of those cards may, so I suspect factory miscuts but I haven't seen enough or measured enough samples of these cards to determine that for certain.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 07-16-2020, 08:25 AM
toppcat's Avatar
toppcat toppcat is offline
Dave.Horn.ish
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,356
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026 View Post
Row A with Pinson as leading card and Carew at the end of the row is at top of both half-sheets. Row E with the checklist as leading card is at the bottom of one half-sheet. This row also has B Robby in it as well as Bunning, W Sox team, W Sox Rookies, etc.

Row G, with Belanger, Adcock, Yankees & A's rookies, Ty Cline, and the Seaver RC, is a leading candidate to be the bottom row on the other half-sheet. If there were factory miscuts associated with the equipment used, I would expect the other cards in the row to exhibit similar types of issues. Based on what was said earlier, some of those cards may, so I suspect factory miscuts but I haven't seen enough or measured enough samples of these cards to determine that for certain.
Sure seems likely based on the above. Right now, I think the bottom row of slit A is G and A-F occupy the six rows above it, perhaps not purely in a straightforward consecutive A-G arrangement. Some type of issue occurred making Row A appear five times across the two slits (instead of 4) and a further production problem scotched some of the A slit bottom G row and also affected the B (Shannon) & D (Alomar) rows on one of the sheets. I wonder if Topps machinery automatically rejected cards that were too big or too small?

I have found several references in contemporary hobby publications that not only the 7th series but also 5th and 6th series were not distributed properly west of the Mississippi. It was noticeable enough that Buck Barker mentioned it in one of his late 1967 columns.

Last edited by toppcat; 07-16-2020 at 08:32 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 07-16-2020, 11:49 AM
rats60's Avatar
rats60 rats60 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,132
Default

St Louis didn't get 6th series cards, but received plenty of 7th series.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:24 AM.


ebay GSB