Where's #110 Rollins?

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Lemke

I see an eBay auction closed on the 10th that had 25 "sets" of 1963 Topps BB #1-109, all "uncicculated." Sold for $15,100. I wonder what happened to #110 Rich Rollins, who would have been on the same sheet?

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe Jones

That sounds amazing. Do you have a link?

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave Hornish

This is actually correct. Topps first series in the late 50's early 60's would be 109 cards, no matter what the first series checklist said. While 110 cards should be in the series (and technically speaking, I guess they are on the first series sheet)as there are 22 DP's per 132 card sheet, Topps would sneak in a later series checklist as a preview. I can't make it out on this scan, but I believe that in additon to the first and second series checklists which are within the first 110 #'s, the third series checklist is on there as well.

Note the top 2 and bottom 2 rows, these are the DP rows and there is a checklist in the topmost of these rows in each group. Then there are two other (different) checklists in the two rows above the bottom 2. So 109 cards from the first series (or likely 1st and 2nd series since the checklist probably goes to #88 (I don't have one and can't check), the 3rd series checklist and 22 DP's make up the 132 card sheet. Topps would almost always preview a later series via its checklist like this. 72 Topps is a good example. There should be 792 cards over six 132 card sheets but there are only 787 in the set. Each series was previewed this way until you hit the 6th sheet (Since you can't preview a non existent series to come only five "holes" are created). I think this has a lot to do with checklist variations over the years. Hope this makes sense.

[Archive]

Posted By: DD

I saw this auction numerous times. I believe they relisted it 4 or more times. None of the cards in the scans looked like more than a 7, if that, much less the 9's and 10's they spoke of.