1966 Topps high numbers frustration

[parkerj33]

Guys, Dave Hornish (ToppCatt) has a real nice blog explaining some of the sheet layouts that topps used in the 60s. I can't do it justice, but the theory is that topps produced two sheets (132 cards per sheet 12 rows of 11 cards each) for each series, and each row was printed a different number of times on the left vs. right sheet, so in order to know the true short prints, you have to look at how many times a particular card's row showed up in the grand scheme of 24 rows (across the two sheets). He has a nice breakdown for 67.....the seaver is in a row that only shows up 2 times out of 24....the most shortly printed cards are those 11....then there are several rows that show up 3 out of 24, and 4 times out of 24, etc....so there is a complicated determination beyond just short and regular printing. see his website blog at the topps archives.

Here is a link:
http://toppsarchives.blogspot.com/20...lin-short.html

[7nohitter]

thanks parker!

[parkerj33]

By the way, I did finish the 67s last year and hated spending $50 for commons ray barker and mike shannon, for example. Being they are two of the 11 cards (including seaver!) that are only printed twice across the two half sheets, they are super tough.

Looks like I will face the same challenge on those 66s eventually.

[Rich Klein]

Glad to see someone agrees with me that the SP's are really SP's

Rich

[BillP]

I was drawn to this forum by the discussion of 66 & 67 high numbers which, as a longtime collector, I have been following for many years. I should add that I am a first time poster on this website.
Starting with 66, for my experience the Clarke and Coleman have always been mentioned as 2 of the tougher SP's, it's only in the last 5 years that the Jackson card has been included. Go back 30 years when I started to piece this set back together. The first thing a friend told me was that the Clarke was tough only because it was a yankee and his RC. The rare scarcity was Coleman, Queen, Tigers Team and Perry.
Through the years I have seen at least 4 uncut sheets of various sizes when it comes to the high numbers. Some have all the DP cards noted, 1 had only the following cards: Tigers Team, Perry, O. Brown RC, Jackson RC, Coleman, Queen, McCovey and Craig. I believe now as then that these 8 are the true SP's. The others cards that are labeled SP fall in between the DP cards and these. Further, back in the mid 80's I tried to follow this by attending selected east coast national shows looking for sets of complete 66's that supposedly were put together by collectors that year. What I was looking for was the consistent diamond cut of the highs to look for patterns of the 8 vs the others. I won't say it was 100% but pretty close.
So that is my 2 cents on the 66's. Opinions welcome.
67: I think that the discover of a supposed "B" uncut sheet shed some light on the groups of 11 that are on the same row within the sheet. The DP or QP (Quadruple prints as I'll call it) are no surprise. They should be priced below the 6th series commons in my opinion.
However, the real SP sleepers to me are Shaw/Sutherland, Colavito, Wills and Niekro RC. These to me were the together to find, forgetting about centering, that's a whole other matter. 586 Jimenez has been cited as an SP, but I didn't find it so. Same with 572 Demeter and 561 Alomar.
I think there are 4 tiers to the availability of highs. The most common as obvious, the scarcer 2 may be obvious as well, but the difference between them is an opinion. Here's mine: Scarce group: the 4 I mentioned plus Seaver RC, Red Sox Team, Cash, Shannon, BRobinson (who has a different color back and the card number is also a different font), Henry 579 and maybe Jimenez.
On the Robinson, I think there was an issue with this card when printed and it was printed in limited supply on a dedicated sheet late in the process. Just my guess. Take a look at the back and compare the font and color of the stock. It's always a darker moss green as opposed to the others. Anyway, tired of typing, Feedback welcome, BIll

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by BillP

I was drawn to this forum by the discussion of 66 & 67 high numbers which, as a longtime collector, I have been following for many years. I should add that I am a first time poster on this website.
Starting with 66, for my experience the Clarke and Coleman have always been mentioned as 2 of the tougher SP's, it's only in the last 5 years that the Jackson card has been included. Go back 30 years when I started to piece this set back together. The first thing a friend told me was that the Clarke was tough only because it was a yankee and his RC. The rare scarcity was Coleman, Queen, Tigers Team and Perry.
Through the years I have seen at least 4 uncut sheets of various sizes when it comes to the high numbers. Some have all the DP cards noted, 1 had only the following cards: Tigers Team, Perry, O. Brown RC, Jackson RC, Coleman, Queen, McCovey and Craig. I believe now as then that these 8 are the true SP's. The others cards that are labeled SP fall in between the DP cards and these. Further, back in the mid 80's I tried to follow this by attending selected east coast national shows looking for sets of complete 66's that supposedly were put together by collectors that year. What I was looking for was the consistent diamond cut of the highs to look for patterns of the 8 vs the others. I won't say it was 100% but pretty close.
So that is my 2 cents on the 66's. Opinions welcome.
67: I think that the discover of a supposed "B" uncut sheet shed some light on the groups of 11 that are on the same row within the sheet. The DP or QP (Quadruple prints as I'll call it) are no surprise. They should be priced below the 6th series commons in my opinion.
However, the real SP sleepers to me are Shaw/Sutherland, Colavito, Wills and Niekro RC. These to me were the together to find, forgetting about centering, that's a whole other matter. 586 Jimenez has been cited as an SP, but I didn't find it so. Same with 572 Demeter and 561 Alomar.
I think there are 4 tiers to the availability of highs. The most common as obvious, the scarcer 2 may be obvious as well, but the difference between them is an opinion. Here's mine: Scarce group: the 4 I mentioned plus Seaver RC, Red Sox Team, Cash, Shannon, BRobinson (who has a different color back and the card number is also a different font), Henry 579 and maybe Jimenez.
On the Robinson, I think there was an issue with this card when printed and it was printed in limited supply on a dedicated sheet late in the process. Just my guess. Take a look at the back and compare the font and color of the stock. It's always a darker moss green as opposed to the others. Anyway, tired of typing, Feedback welcome, BIll

That's an excellent peek behind the curtain. Cool stuff!
Unfortunately, due to the computer age, dealers at shows these days are very aware of the scarcity of those few high numbers, so you can't get them for a song anymore.

[glynparson]

about Jackson/Shirley only being considered tough in the last 5 years. I have considereded it the toughest card in the set since at least 1993 as have many other vintage card dealers. It is almost always one of the last cards on peoples lists. I have also bought many collections of 1966 high numbers and Coleman is and always has been far easier in my mind than Jackson/Shirley. I worked for probably the leading vintage Topps card dealer for about 5 years from the late nineties to early 2000s and he always considered Jackson the toughest card as well. I agree 100% about those 1967s being tougher that you mentioned.

[stlcardsfan]

Welcome Bill, nice first post. I have not done any analysis of uncut sheets, my experience is only from putting the set together. I was surprised how affordable the 66 McCovey was. If that is a true SP like the others I would think it would be going for 3-4x what is seems to sell for.

Originally Posted by BillP

I was drawn to this forum by the discussion of 66 & 67 high numbers which, as a longtime collector, I have been following for many years. I should add that I am a first time poster on this website.
Starting with 66, for my experience the Clarke and Coleman have always been mentioned as 2 of the tougher SP's, it's only in the last 5 years that the Jackson card has been included. Go back 30 years when I started to piece this set back together. The first thing a friend told me was that the Clarke was tough only because it was a yankee and his RC. The rare scarcity was Coleman, Queen, Tigers Team and Perry.
Through the years I have seen at least 4 uncut sheets of various sizes when it comes to the high numbers. Some have all the DP cards noted, 1 had only the following cards: Tigers Team, Perry, O. Brown RC, Jackson RC, Coleman, Queen, McCovey and Craig. I believe now as then that these 8 are the true SP's. The others cards that are labeled SP fall in between the DP cards and these. Further, back in the mid 80's I tried to follow this by attending selected east coast national shows looking for sets of complete 66's that supposedly were put together by collectors that year. What I was looking for was the consistent diamond cut of the highs to look for patterns of the 8 vs the others. I won't say it was 100% but pretty close.
So that is my 2 cents on the 66's. Opinions welcome.
67: I think that the discover of a supposed "B" uncut sheet shed some light on the groups of 11 that are on the same row within the sheet. The DP or QP (Quadruple prints as I'll call it) are no surprise. They should be priced below the 6th series commons in my opinion.
However, the real SP sleepers to me are Shaw/Sutherland, Colavito, Wills and Niekro RC. These to me were the together to find, forgetting about centering, that's a whole other matter. 586 Jimenez has been cited as an SP, but I didn't find it so. Same with 572 Demeter and 561 Alomar.
I think there are 4 tiers to the availability of highs. The most common as obvious, the scarcer 2 may be obvious as well, but the difference between them is an opinion. Here's mine: Scarce group: the 4 I mentioned plus Seaver RC, Red Sox Team, Cash, Shannon, BRobinson (who has a different color back and the card number is also a different font), Henry 579 and maybe Jimenez.
On the Robinson, I think there was an issue with this card when printed and it was printed in limited supply on a dedicated sheet late in the process. Just my guess. Take a look at the back and compare the font and color of the stock. It's always a darker moss green as opposed to the others. Anyway, tired of typing, Feedback welcome, BIll

[Kevvyg1026]

In an earlier post, you mentioned "Through the years I have seen at least 4 uncut sheets of various sizes when it comes to the high numbers. Some have all the DP cards noted, 1 had only the following cards: Tigers Team, Perry, O. Brown RC, Jackson RC, Coleman, Queen, McCovey and Craig."

I wish you had an image of that uncut partial sheet mentioned. I haven't see that one.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by parkerj33

Guys, Dave Hornish (ToppCatt) has a real nice blog explaining some of the sheet layouts that topps used in the 60s. I can't do it justice, but the theory is that topps produced two sheets (132 cards per sheet 12 rows of 11 cards each) for each series, and each row was printed a different number of times on the left vs. right sheet, so in order to know the true short prints, you have to look at how many times a particular card's row showed up in the grand scheme of 24 rows (across the two sheets). He has a nice breakdown for 67.....the seaver is in a row that only shows up 2 times out of 24....the most shortly printed cards are those 11....then there are several rows that show up 3 out of 24, and 4 times out of 24, etc....so there is a complicated determination beyond just short and regular printing. see his website blog at the topps archives.

Here is a link:
http://toppsarchives.blogspot.com/20...lin-short.html

There is an update post to this one that covers new details of the second sheet, which is still just known as a partial: http://toppsarchives.blogspot.com/20...e-reality.html

[BillP]

If the 2nd sheet was made up only of the accepted 11 DP cards times 12. Possible?

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by BillP

If the 2nd sheet was made up only of the accepted 11 DP cards times 12. Possible?

Nope-never seen it and the partial of the second sheet confirms this.