1967 High Number Sheets

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave Hornish

OK, the 1971 Hi Number sheets show how Topps would use an A and B sheet for each series. Most series work out with no short prints in the 60's and 70's but onc you get to the high numbers, that can change.

I first got interested in Short Prints researching the 1967 hi's when I worked for Current Card Prices way back in the day. I had found a low-res picture in Baseball Hobby News (or BCN) of a 67 high # sheet and using a price guide and Beckett Team Checklist book (I had no 71's at the time) managed to create a schematic that was close to perfect (some rookie cards could not be id'd properly). Now sometime after that Beckett listed high # Double Prints in one of their annual guides and theirs did not match mine. Light bulb goes off and I realize two sheets exist.

If anyone has these sheets, I would be very interested in scans. The sheet I sketched out has the Seaver Rookie as a single print. After comparing the Becket DP's with my schematic I believe there are 11 true short prints in the 67 high numbers but need visual proof before I can be certain. That DP list also helped me figure out my problematic rookie cards. Rich Klein tried to suss out for me when he worked at Beckett (he probably does not remember as it was years ago) but did not have a copy of the hi # sheet Beckett used. Every picture of the high # sheets (3 total) I have seen since matches the one I had but Rich was certain of Beckett's DP count and Topps m.o. was to print two sheets (on one master 264 card full sheet). Topps Vault sold a sheet a couple years ago ($700 bucks or so, a true bargain) but they never sent me a scan despite repeated requests and I do not know which sheet it was. I have lost my picture of the one sheet but still have my schematic and will post it if I can get it to scan legibly.

It's likely the two different sheets will reveal Double, Triple and Quadruple Prints when the totals from the two sheets are tallied and combined. Any help is appreciated as this is a long standing mystery for me!

Thanks, Dave