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 give an opinion of a person or company your full name needs to be in your post. 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 08-21-2018, 12:43 AM
G1911 G1911 is offline
member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 129
Default 1966 Topps High's - Any uncut sheets or partial sheets known?

I know there are as many opinions about the high series as there are cards in it. I think there is clearly a scarcity division between single prints and double prints, though there seem to be several different tiers of short prints that I'm just not seeing myself. Example, I have no difficulty finding Grant Jackson or Choo Choo Coleman more than any other SP really. It's just that everyone is asking $50 for their beater. Is it the last card people need to finish because it's the rarest, or because a card of a common player goes for a pretty penny that people don't really want to pay until it's the only thing in the way of completion?

The cards considered scarce fluctuate with time. I recall when Perry and McCovey were considered awfully tough, and today they aren't. My 2015 Standard Catalog doesn't even list Snyder as a SP at all, but I recall when he was considered one of the toughest SP's and was frequently one of the last ones folks needed. From my own experiences, the SP's seem to all exist in roughly equal population over time, though some can seem tougher over a certain stretch. There have been good threads on Net54 before on these, but I've never seen any uncut material that might help show whether Coleman, Jackson and others are actually tougher, or if people just think so.

Last edited by G1911; 08-21-2018 at 12:43 AM. Reason: Edited for a typo
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-21-2018, 04:07 AM
Rich Klein Rich Klein is offline
Rich Klein
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Plano Tx
Posts: 3,630
Default

In my opinion, there are definitely 1966 hi #'s which are SP's and the reason we see the tougher ones is,, they are more likely to be asked for.

One aspect that grading brings to the fray is one is more likely to have those tougher cards graded (or a higher percent thereof) so what you see in the graded population does not match what you see in the "raw" population.

And yes, I'd love to see a sheet (s) to see myself. I know there are 1967 hi # sheets and yet the major dealer stocks don't agree with the partial sheet we saw because,,, there are truly more of what we call DP's in 1967 although the sheet Dave Hornish has shown does not verify those DP"s.

Rich
__________________
Look for our show listings in the Net 54 Calendar section
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-21-2018, 07:00 AM
savedfrommyspokes's Avatar
savedfrommyspokes savedfrommyspokes is offline
Member
Larry More.y
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,476
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
Example, I have no difficulty finding Grant Jackson or Choo Choo Coleman more than any other SP really. It's just that everyone is asking $50 for their beater. Is it the last card people need to finish because it's the rarest, or because a card of a common player goes for a pretty penny that people don't really want to pay until it's the only thing in the way of completion?
IMO, the only reason you have no difficulty in finding the Grant Jackson card is because owners of this card are asking $50+ for their beater. Instead, if they were asking $10 for their beater you would have great difficulty finding this card.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-21-2018, 09:17 AM
rats60's Avatar
rats60 rats60 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,663
Default

I had trouble finding Grant Jackson and Gaylord Perry in 1973. No trouble finding Mccovey, but maybe just lucky. If you bought a pack, you would probably get at least 1 SP.

It would be interesting to see an uncut sheet and see if these cards are on the same row or different rows. The 1967 sheets/partial sheets really helped define which cards are truly SPs and which are not.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-21-2018, 05:03 PM
toppcat's Avatar
toppcat toppcat is offline
Dave.Horn.ish
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,987
Default

Topps definitely tweaked the high number sheets in 66 and 67. You would need both 132 card half sheets from each year to tell but the SP's are legit. I've never seen a 66 high # sheet (I don't think), but have seen a 67 sheet and a scrap of another, different sheet. Some cards get legendary status they deserve and some don't. Like Brooks Robinson in 1967, where the scarcity was perceived but not real because of an early hobby find that must have only come from cards printed on one half sheet. And I believe the 66 Jackson is not all that tough compared to some other cards in the highs. There is a lot of disparity too in which cards people think are the SP's in '66 to boot.

There's 11 true SP's in 1967 and I studied the hell out of those highs to figure it out but I never really looked at the 66's. 1965 had a 77 card high series as well but it's not yielded any type of true SP's. 66 and 67 were both 77 card runs as well and something intentionally happened when those were printed. We just don't quite have all the pieces yet.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-21-2018, 05:10 PM
mrmopar mrmopar is offline
Curt
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 934
Default

I have no expert opinion on this card, but have casually looked for it a few times as it also includes Dodger Bart Shirley. This card and the McMullen (Rose RC) are two only vintage Topps Dodger base cards, outside of the 52 Topps Hi #'s, I don't have and probably will never own.

At the times I have looked for it, even the beater copies were selling for close to $100, but there seemed to be a fair number of high quality/graded copies sitting unsold at higher than expected asking prices.

I would tend to believe that it is like the Andy Pafko 1952 Topps. The card itself outside of high condition really should not be worth that much. The price for that card I believe was driven by the fact that nice copies were harder to find due to rubber bands and such damaging the first card (or top card) in the set. The crazy prices on the high end copies then seem to filter down to the worse condition copies, as set builders, team collectors and player fans are forced to buy the cheaper copies and fight for them so they don't have to spend the big bucks on a high end copy.

I can't come up with a better answer, as the Jackson/Shirley card doesn't seem to be any less plentiful than the average SP card from other similar era Topps sets that routinely sell for less.

Quote:
Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes View Post
IMO, the only reason you have no difficulty in finding the Grant Jackson card is because owners of this card are asking $50+ for their beater. Instead, if they were asking $10 for their beater you would have great difficulty finding this card.
__________________
Looking for: 1974 TCMA Billy Loes Autograph Card, Unique Steve Garvey items, select Dodgers Postcards & Team Issue photos
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-21-2018, 05:39 PM
G1911 G1911 is offline
member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 129
Default

I don’t doubt the short prints exist at all. Perry, Jackson, Coleman, Piersall, Northrup, Clarke are all, I think, properly labeled short prints. What I question is how certain short prints are labeled extra short prints and said to be much tougher than other short prints. It just doesn’t seem to be that there are several different tiers of short prints from what I have seen over the years. Maybe one day we will find a sheet, the 67 sheets are very helpful for the set. I dread starting the 67 highs after I finish these
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-21-2018, 05:59 PM
quitcrab quitcrab is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 667
Default

i have a first series sheet. If I recall Koufax and Catfish Hunter was a DP.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-21-2018, 07:25 PM
BillP BillP is offline
Bill par.sons
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 97
Default

I have seen over the past 30 years or so, at least 3 8 card sheets of 66 highs and at least 1 12 card sheet. If I recall, Jackson, coleman, #544, perry, twins team, tigers team, mclain, cards that I consider the shorter sp's were not among them. I don't consider mccovey or Clarke very short sp's. Never a full one. Not to shift the conversation but, why has topps never come forward with information? Print qtys by series, uncut sheets? surely there must be some archive records somewhere. Even sales volumes by month by year could help people understand why selected years (1965) appear to have lower production numbers.

I collect 66 highs and think that the #591 is artificially high. #598 last card in 6 or better I get the cost. The all these, they are available if you have means. Any card really.

Also, the 66 highs about a third of the time are diamond cut, I dislike that.

Comments welcome.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-21-2018, 08:59 PM
Rich Klein Rich Klein is offline
Rich Klein
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Plano Tx
Posts: 3,630
Default

Bill:

In all honesty I don't think Topps kept that information nor cared about that information back in those days. Sorry but it's up to us to find the information!
__________________
Look for our show listings in the Net 54 Calendar section
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-22-2018, 12:45 AM
G1911 G1911 is offline
member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by quitcrab View Post
i have a first series sheet. If I recall Koufax and Catfish Hunter was a DP.
That's awesome! Hunter Sounds right, a 66 Catfish seems to be in every lot of random 60's Topps stuff I buy.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-22-2018, 08:48 PM
tschock tschock is offline
T@yl0r $ch0ck
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: NC
Posts: 1,073
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmopar View Post
I have no expert opinion on this card, but have casually looked for it a few times as it also includes Dodger Bart Shirley. This card and the McMullen (Rose RC) are two only vintage Topps Dodger base cards, outside of the 52 Topps Hi #'s, I don't have and probably will never own.

At the times I have looked for it, even the beater copies were selling for close to $100, but there seemed to be a fair number of high quality/graded copies sitting unsold at higher than expected asking prices.

I would tend to believe that it is like the Andy Pafko 1952 Topps. The card itself outside of high condition really should not be worth that much. The price for that card I believe was driven by the fact that nice copies were harder to find due to rubber bands and such damaging the first card (or top card) in the set. The crazy prices on the high end copies then seem to filter down to the worse condition copies, as set builders, team collectors and player fans are forced to buy the cheaper copies and fight for them so they don't have to spend the big bucks on a high end copy.

I can't come up with a better answer, as the Jackson/Shirley card doesn't seem to be any less plentiful than the average SP card from other similar era Topps sets that routinely sell for less.
True on the Pafko. It shouldn't have the same grade level curve than others of the first series do. The off condition cards are plentiful.

Keep in mind that for the high number cards, they came out later in the season. For a number of reasons such as waning interest, less handling time, etc, they were 'played with' less by kids than the first series. I would offer that for these high numbers, the population percentage of nice condition is probably much higher than there earlier series counterparts (though I'm not sure things like PSA pop reports would accurately reflect this). It's easy to imagine some kid opening late series packs, flipping through the cards, then putting them in a box somewhere and maybe not looking at them again.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-24-2018, 01:52 PM
jchcollins's Avatar
jchcollins jchcollins is offline
John
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: NC
Posts: 1,222
Default

What are the current thoughts on the difficulty of #580 Billy Williams as a SP? I recently picked one up - but more because I'm a Cubs fan; I'm not going after the '66 set. '67 unfortunately is a different story...
__________________
T206, T212. HOF postwar singles. All types of vintage Cubs...

Last edited by jchcollins; 08-24-2018 at 02:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-25-2018, 01:35 AM
G1911 G1911 is offline
member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jchcollins View Post
What are the current thoughts on the difficulty of #580 Billy Williams as a SP? I recently picked one up - but more because I'm a Cubs fan; I'm not going after the '66 set. '67 unfortunately is a different story...
I’ve never found him to be one of the ‘tougher’ short prints, but he seems a little undervalued to me relative to a lot of other highs. Williams, McCovey and Perry are about the only star players among the SP’s, but Williams doesn’t go for much more than a common in mid grade raw
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-25-2018, 09:35 AM
toppcat's Avatar
toppcat toppcat is offline
Dave.Horn.ish
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,987
Default

Any true SP''s should be found in multiples of 11 in 1966 or 67, or just about any year from 1959 through 71. From 1968 the print quantities seem to have stabilized and the effect is far less pronounced.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-25-2018, 11:36 AM
BillP BillP is offline
Bill par.sons
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 97
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tschock View Post
True on the Pafko. It shouldn't have the same grade level curve than others of the first series do. The off condition cards are plentiful.

Keep in mind that for the high number cards, they came out later in the season. For a number of reasons such as waning interest, less handling time, etc, they were 'played with' less by kids than the first series. I would offer that for these high numbers, the population percentage of nice condition is probably much higher than there earlier series counterparts (though I'm not sure things like PSA pop reports would accurately reflect this). It's easy to imagine some kid opening late series packs, flipping through the cards, then putting them in a box somewhere and maybe not looking at them again.
Never thought about that, but completely agree.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-26-2018, 04:44 PM
G1911 G1911 is offline
member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by toppcat View Post
Any true SP''s should be found in multiples of 11 in 1966 or 67, or just about any year from 1959 through 71. From 1968 the print quantities seem to have stabilized and the effect is far less pronounced.
43 of the 76 cards are credited as Single Prints in the Standard Catalog (5th Vintage Edition). Snyder is not, but he used to be considered one, at least.

The credited SP's, for what its worth, are

524 Giants Rookies
525 Bell
526 Twins Team
528 Gonder
532 Monteaguado
533 Adair
535 Willie Davis
538 Bob Allen
540 McClain
541 Oliver
543 Craig
544 Cards Rookies
545 Green
547 Clarke
548 Kroll
550 McCovey
551 Purkey
552 Tebbetts
554 Northrup
555 Perranoski
556 Queen
557 Mantilla
559 Pena
561 Coleman
564 Chance
565 Piersall
566 Cuellar
567 Howser
569 McFarlane
570 Mahaffey
571 Dave Roberts
576 Nicholson
577 Lamabe
578 Olivio
580 Billy Williams
583 Tigers Team
586 Raymond
589 Klimchock
590 Nicholson
591 N.L. Rookies (Jackson/Shirley)
593 Camilli
596 Astros Rookies (Colbert)
598 Perry


I'm not sure all of these actually are less common than credited Double Prints, but the experiences of any 1 person are not too helpful, I think, when none of these cards are rare (just rare in comparison to others, there are still thousands of each). I'm sure uncut sheets will be discovered the week after I pay up for the "extra short" SP's

Last edited by G1911; 08-26-2018 at 04:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-27-2019, 05:00 PM
BillP BillP is offline
Bill par.sons
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 97
Default

I'm going to take my shot at the 11 truly sp's of the 66 highs:

526 twins team
538 allen
540 mclain
544 cards rookies
555 peranoski
556 queen
561 coleman
583 tigers team
586 Raymond
591 Jackson/shirley
598 perry

that's my list with allen and Raymond my last 2 in.

comments welcome, billp
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-27-2019, 05:32 PM
jmoran19 jmoran19 is offline
member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 132
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by quitcrab View Post
i have a first series sheet. If I recall Koufax and Catfish Hunter was a DP.
As well as Pete Rose and Mickey Mantle on the opposite 132 card series 1 sheet.

In total 4 rows were printed 3 times (132 cards) and 6 rows were printed twice (132 cards) on the 264 card sheet. Equates to 110 unique cards

John

Last edited by jmoran19; 05-27-2019 at 06:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-27-2019, 05:36 PM
jmoran19 jmoran19 is offline
member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 132
Default

will post all i got. These two partials go together, too lazy to cut and paste them together LOL. The 3 pic. extends the Dick Egan and CHI CHI rows to the right

66high.jpg


66high2.jpg
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 66higher5.jpg (76.7 KB, 198 views)

Last edited by jmoran19; 05-27-2019 at 05:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-27-2019, 05:38 PM
jmoran19 jmoran19 is offline
member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 132
Default

These two go together as well

66higher.jpg

66higher2b.jpg

Last edited by jmoran19; 05-27-2019 at 06:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-27-2019, 05:54 PM
jmoran19 jmoran19 is offline
member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 132
Default

Tony Martinez continuation to the right with alt. configuration of two cards below him. In total the partials show 44 different cards i think. JOhn
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 66higher4.jpg (76.6 KB, 197 views)

Last edited by jmoran19; 05-27-2019 at 06:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-27-2019, 06:00 PM
BillP BillP is offline
Bill par.sons
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 97
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmoran19 View Post
will post all i got. These two partials go together, too lazy to cut and paste them together LOL. The 3 pic. extends the Dick Egan and CHI CHI rows to the right


Attachment 354645


Attachment 354646
So the Egan row is definitely DP's
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-27-2019, 06:05 PM
BillP BillP is offline
Bill par.sons
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 97
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillP View Post
So the Egan row is definitely DP's
this is great stuff. It throws 3 of my 11 off the list.

Maybe 570 mahaffey, 543 craig and 590 skowron are in the 11.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-27-2019, 08:42 PM
mikemb mikemb is offline
Mike Lenart
member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Garwood, NJ
Posts: 137
Default

Sorry about the old bad picture but hope it helps.

Mike


[IMG][/IMG]
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-28-2019, 05:35 PM
toppcat's Avatar
toppcat toppcat is offline
Dave.Horn.ish
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,987
Default

I wonder if at the end of the day the 66 and 67 full high number sheets (two half sheets) have the same configurations. I wonder why this was done as well, it would seem to be easier to run off three consecutive 77 card runs across both half sheets and then overprint the remaining 33 cards. Packaging considerations? Seems unlikely but who knows.

And has anyone ever seen 1965 high number sheets? 77 card high series from 1965-67 and yet the 65's seem not nearly as wonky.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-28-2019, 07:48 PM
jmoran19 jmoran19 is offline
member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 132
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by toppcat View Post
I wonder if at the end of the day the 66 and 67 full high number sheets (two half sheets) have the same configurations. I wonder why this was done as well, it would seem to be easier to run off three consecutive 77 card runs across both half sheets and then overprint the remaining 33 cards. Packaging considerations? Seems unlikely but who knows.

And has anyone ever seen 1965 high number sheets? 77 card high series from 1965-67 and yet the 65's seem not nearly as wonky.
I only have one half of the 264 card sheet for 1965 and 1967 high #'s (see below).

Although i dont have definitive proof I'm pretty sure 77 card series had 4 rows printed 3 times on the 264 card sheet (132 total) and then 3 rows printed 4 times (132). "IF" both half sheets are identical it would result in 2 rows, #7 and 8 on each sheet below, printed twice (44 total) and 5 rows printed 4 times (220 total)

John

65series7.jpg

67highfull2.jpg

Last edited by jmoran19; 05-28-2019 at 07:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-29-2019, 11:07 AM
BillP BillP is offline
Bill par.sons
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 97
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemb View Post
Sorry about the old bad picture but hope it helps.

Mike


[IMG][/IMG]
So #591, everybody's major SP is on the same row as mcLain, Howser and Navarro interesting. Either it was replaced on a 2nd sheet with the 7th series checklist or it's just as common as those other 3.

With the red print lines on some copies it seems like it was on a border.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-29-2019, 11:16 AM
BillP BillP is offline
Bill par.sons
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 97
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmoran19 View Post
I only have one half of the 264 card sheet for 1965 and 1967 high #'s (see below).

Although i dont have definitive proof I'm pretty sure 77 card series had 4 rows printed 3 times on the 264 card sheet (132 total) and then 3 rows printed 4 times (132). "IF" both half sheets are identical it would result in 2 rows, #7 and 8 on each sheet below, printed twice (44 total) and 5 rows printed 4 times (220 total)

John

Attachment 354777

Attachment 354778
Another great view, whats interesting here is that the row above the accepted true 11 sp's (Belanger rookie row)is a once printed row of 11 accepted highly common DP's printed only once on this sheet. Also the row with Pinson on it is out of order with the normal sequence. It repeats earlier than the row 2-5 above. I think Topps basically screwed up the sheets and therefore we've got this crazy distribution that makes 67 highs so challenging. billp
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-29-2019, 11:19 AM
Bigdaddy's Avatar
Bigdaddy Bigdaddy is offline
+0m J()rd@N
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: VA
Posts: 681
Default

You could do this manually, but a simple search of ebay listings (both current and sold) could give some idea as to the relative population of these cards. And maybe give some insight into the true 'SP' numbers. There may be some skewing of the data as far as between stars and commons, but I think there is some information hidden in those numbers.

I been eBay searching for a 1957 Clemente and Koufax for a while, and the numbers certainly show that Clemente supply is way more than the Koufax supply. This lines up with the fact Koufax is an SP and also in the tough mid-series. Just doing a quick search now turns up 185 Clemente and 88 Koufax cards.

Anybody up for a try?
__________________
Working Sets:
Baseball-
T206 SLers, Virginia League; 1957 Topps; 1964 Topps Giants auto'd; 1965 Topps; 1971 Topps; 1972 Topps
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 05-29-2019, 05:26 PM
toppcat's Avatar
toppcat toppcat is offline
Dave.Horn.ish
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,987
Default

For whatever reason the 67 high # sheet shown above is the one that always pops up. Keith Olbermann has a remnant of a high # sheet with a different configuration though. So for 1967 the half sheets have different configurations. Topps clearly mucked with the '67 arrays for unknown reasons, as my attachment will show.

I've blogged about it here: https://toppsarchives.blogspot.com/s...High%20Numbers

And here is the KO remnant (from the top left corner):
Attached Images
File Type: jpg olbermann left side.jpg (62.6 KB, 90 views)

Last edited by toppcat; 05-29-2019 at 05:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-29-2019, 05:56 PM
jmoran19 jmoran19 is offline
member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 132
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by toppcat View Post
For whatever reason the 67 high # sheet shown above is the one that always pops up. Keith Olbermann has a remnant of a high # sheet with a different configuration though. So for 1967 the half sheets have different configurations. Topps clearly mucked with the '67 arrays for unknown reasons, as my attachment will show.

I've blogged about it here: https://toppsarchives.blogspot.com/s...High%20Numbers

And here is the KO remnant (from the top left corner):
Mucking with the placement of the rows was common practice for 109/110 card series
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-29-2019, 06:00 PM
BillP BillP is offline
Bill par.sons
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 97
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmoran19 View Post
Mucking with the placement of the rows was common practice for 109/110 card series
from the 65 sheet above, which has the same pattern as the 67 sheet, i.e. the 1st and 6th rows repeat and the 7th and 8th don't, if someone had the other 65 sheet then maybe the total 67 would follow suit. The olbermann sheet let's call a s'alesmans sample.

but for an uncut sheet, what luck getting those cards of severe DP's on a sheet
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-30-2019, 06:03 AM
toppcat's Avatar
toppcat toppcat is offline
Dave.Horn.ish
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,987
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillP View Post
from the 65 sheet above, which has the same pattern as the 67 sheet, i.e. the 1st and 6th rows repeat and the 7th and 8th don't, if someone had the other 65 sheet then maybe the total 67 would follow suit. The olbermann sheet let's call a s'alesmans sample.

but for an uncut sheet, what luck getting those cards of severe DP's on a sheet
Not sure why it would be a sample, it's from a production sheet.

The 65 and 67 mirroring is interesting, hadn't realized that. Maybe something to do with avoiding repeat cards in the wax packs somehow?

Why are the 65's so much easier though in terms of SP's? Maybe just more of them?

I wonder how many high number A and B sheets we can show patterns for from 1961-67?

Last edited by toppcat; 05-30-2019 at 06:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-30-2019, 01:57 PM
jmoran19 jmoran19 is offline
member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 132
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by toppcat View Post
Not sure why it would be a sample, it's from a production sheet.

The 65 and 67 mirroring is interesting, hadn't realized that. Maybe something to do with avoiding repeat cards in the wax packs somehow?

Why are the 65's so much easier though in terms of SP's? Maybe just more of them?

I wonder how many high number A and B sheets we can show patterns for from 1961-67?
The only 77 card series where i have copies of both sheets is 1969 series 6, see below. Using the first picture rows 1, 3 and 4 end up being printed 4 times across the 2 half sheets (132 total) and rows 2, 5, 7 and 8 are printed 3 times (132 total). The 3 prints include Nolan Ryan and Jim Palmer.

Breaking down the layout of each sheet shows the first one has row 1 repeated in row 6 and rows 2 thru 5 being repeated in rows 9 thru 12. The 2nd/right half sheet is def. configured different. It has rows 1 and 2 repeated in rows 7 and 8 and rows 3 thru 5 repeated in rows 10 thru 12.

John
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 69series6_2.jpg (46.4 KB, 52 views)
File Type: jpg 69series6.jpg (74.7 KB, 51 views)

Last edited by jmoran19; 05-30-2019 at 02:02 PM.
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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Topps uncut sheets mybestbretts Modern Baseball Cards Forum (1980-Present) 7 11-26-2014 01:30 PM
1972 Topps uncut partial sheets SAllen2556 Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) 7 07-07-2014 12:50 PM
1955 Topps uncut sheets chadeast Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) 20 06-22-2012 09:52 AM
1952-60 Uncut Topps Sheets Archive Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) 2 01-07-2008 03:46 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:32 PM.


ebay GSB