|
1967 Topps High Numbers
6 Attachment(s)
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 <EOM> |
Quote:
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 |
Checked my set; no miscuts that may be of aid to report.
|
Quote:
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! |
Quote:
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. |
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.
|
Quote:
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. |
67
very interesting research !
|
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
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
6 Attachment(s)
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.
|
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?
|
Quote:
Rich |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
Checked my 67 set, no high number miscuts, or even close really. |
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 |
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. |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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. |
That A row is bizarre, like a Super Print row.
|
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 |
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 |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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 |
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. |
Never mind I see that is shown on the second sheet hard to see on my phone
|
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Appreciate all the info though. About this and the rest of the thread :) |
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. |
Quote:
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. |
St Louis didn't get 6th series cards, but received plenty of 7th series.
|
I certainly know I didn't have any 6th or 7th series cards from 1967 in my "kid" collection that year and I lived in the Phoenix area. Mostly, I purchased packs from my local 7-11 store.
|
Quote:
|
We had 6th and 7th Series 1967 cards. I bought packs from a locally owned 7-11 type store. East Tennessee-Knoxville.
|
Quote:
|
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Just a side note, but it's really important not to forget about football/basketball/hockey's role in the downfall of high numbers throughout the Topps years. After collecting baseball cards all summer long and piling up stacks of doubles after stacks of doubles, we used to jump right off the train when the other sports cards suddenly appeared in the stationery store (and squeezed the baseball boxes off of the shelves). Anything NEW!!!! to a kid just takes all the focus away. That was my experience growing up. Plus, in an odd way, it also signified that summer was officially over. You had to go back to school and all of the 'cold' sports were starting up again, so the green grass of baseball was in the rearview mirror...and there was no going back.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
At least I'd assume so, as I know nothing about the intricacies of altering! So that seems to make trimming even less likely. Especially given the various cuts of my high numbers in general (and in a situation that shouldn't have any relation to deceitfully trimming to increase value, outside of the Seaver possibility) |
1 Attachment(s)
I found the original listing from July 1984 issue of Current Card Prices where the high number SP's and DP's were introduced (sort of). This was to be based upon my researching one of the uncut sheet slits at the time. The publisher had his own thoughts based upon his dealer experience also the thought a differently arrayed slit might be out there based upon his (extensive) inventory, which eventually turned out to be right of course.
We never addressed the 66 high number SP's; first I can find that happening is in 1989 issues of Baseball Cards magazine. Enjoy the trip down Memory Lane! |
Seaver miscut
1 Attachment(s)
Here's a miscut of Seaver with Ty Cline next to it. Nothing new, but thought it would be of interest.Attachment 414896
|
1967 topps highs
1 Attachment(s)
Does this conclusively show that the bottom 3 rows of the 2nd slit contain rows A (Pinson), F (Rohr), and G (Belanger)?
Attachment 416588 |
Quote:
Where did that proof come from, Topps Vault? |
1967 carew
1 Attachment(s)
What does this card mean relative to row placement? Saw it listed on ebay last week.
Attachment 420877 |
The CCP July 84 price guide is interesting. 9 of the 11 cards in the Pinson row (all except Pinson & Carew) are shown at a lower price than the other high number cards and Pinson is at only a slight premium ($2 vs. $1.75). However, the other high numbers listed at $1.75 are from several different rows, and none are from the Rohr (#547) row.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Going back to what I was trying to decide about the size of the Seaver/other high numbers cuts....noticed this today (from a listing for a '67 set from a longtime dealer).
The Seaver seems smaller here too, especially horizontally. Similar to mine. Edit, it's actually easier to notice in the smaller pic in the listing https://www.ebay.com/itm/1967-Topps-...X/333747691459 https://i.imgur.com/iWEbQdc.jpg |
Just wanted to pull this up from a year ago. Very interesting read!
|
Not to throw a spanner in the works but I ran the PSA pops, and just like the pops for the semi's they are smoother than the eBay data suggests. I accounted for HOF'ers and popular cards like the Wills and B. Robby so some of this is a little subjective but I think it's as a good a count as can be done. 42,165 cards are in the PSA pop.
There's still an anomaly or two though with the average number of impressions of a single card per row: RECAP A 450 B 382 C 393 D 412 E 397 F 414 G 390 St. Dev. 22.78784137 Mean 405.4285714 1 Std Dev 427.7878 1 Std Dev 382.2122 2 Std Dev 450.5757 Chucking the HOF, popular subjects, etc, the lowest pop card is Al Ferrara (293 pop) who heads the B Slit. Highest pop is the White Sox Team card (530 pop), in the D row. Data is all over the place, no pattern that I can find. The A Row headed by Pinson is just a hair under two standard deviations away from the mean, none of the other rows are over 1 standard deviation, although the B row is close the other way. I'm trying to recall my statistics classes but I think two standard deviations means there's only a 5% or so chance it's random. So 4x3 and 3x4 looks possible but that A row is bugging me. It's almost like something happened mid press run and they had to swap in a row. So D & F look like 4x rows, B, C, E & G like 3x rows and row A still taunts but is "at least" a 4x row. |
1967 highs
There has been evidence posted for 17 of the 24 rows of the two slits. These known rows exhibit (so far) the following frequencies:
row A (Pinson) - 4x row B (Ferrara) - 2x row C (NL RS) - 2x row D (Colavito) - 2x row E (check 7) - 2x row F (Sox RS) - 3x row G (Orioles RS) - 2x So, if a 4x3 & 3x4 pattern was used, the Pinson row could not be part of the remaining 7 rows. This means that at least one of the other rows (and most likely 2) have to abut different rows in the remaining 7 than what we already know exists. Out of the 60+ miscuts already known, not one has shown evidence that this is true. The available evidence (miscuts, uncut material) still supports a 1x5, 1x4, 5x3 row distribution. I wouldn't rely on POP reports, particularly those of graded cards, to assess row distributions since such reports rely on collectors submitting cards subject to fee structures. These fees may (probably?) support high value cards being graded more frequently relative to their lower value brethren. For example, in the 1966 highs, we know the pattern of both slits (thanks to a lot of effort from people in this forum). We know that the McCovey (550), Williams (580), and Salmon (594) card are in the same row. Despite this, a recent PSA POP report showed that McCovey had 979 submissions, Williams had 764, and Salmon had 187. Another example shows that Tony Taylor (585), who heads one of the 4x rows, had 222 submissions whereas the Grant/Shirley RS, a card in one of the 3x rows, had 633 submissions. |
Quote:
At one point Topps kept reference copies of all their sheets in Duryea but they were sold off in various ways over several years. Maddening. |
67 highs
I wish someone had taken a pic of the uncut 6th series array that sold in 1989 auction. That array appears to have disappeared.
|
Quote:
|
1 Attachment(s)
This post could have easily gone under the 6th series thread as well.
I'm working on a master '67 set and am wondering (although I think I saw a mentioned about it here someplace) whether we know or think we know which versions of the 7th checklist were printed on the 6th series sheets and which on the 7th. There are 4 versions of the checklist - Chin touches line, names and numbers higher than boxes; chin touches line names and numbers even; chin doesn't touch line, names and numbers higher; chin doesn't touch names and numbers even. Since the checklist appears across 4 different slits, it would stand to reason that one version each was from each of the 4 slits (2 each from the 6th and 7th series), with the ones from the 7th series printing 2x compared to their counterparts from the 6th which had to share their slits with 6th series checklists. It's not possible to tell from the grainy image of the known 7th slit which one is there. Any thoughts/opinions on how these were placed and, as a result, how common or rare the versions might be amongst each other? Here they are for comparison: |
Quote:
|
1 Attachment(s)
A quick check of my 1965 to 1967 Topps checklists has one with 4 variations, the 1965 #189 3rd series checklist. Has a smooth or uneven (blue bleed) top border and either a dot or no dot over the second i in #211 Ridzik. A couple of checklists have 3 variations. If I star looking for high or low boxes, there probably will be more.
Mike Attachment 523572 |
2 Attachment(s)
Quote:
|
When Card Collectors Company and other early mail order outfits got the '67 7th series cases, did they get them directly from Topps? Wondering just in general how these suddenly became available in the early, mostly pre-retail hobby days circa 1970-80.
|
Quote:
The other outlets from the 1970's got vending cases from Topps to make their sets. Wholesale Cards (well as Dave H. points out in the next point indirectly), Fritsch, etc. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:01 PM. |