1968 topps series 6
 

In 1968, the only series that has SPs is the 6th series (458 to 533, plus checklist 6 again (454)). I know there are a plethora of these cards available, but I still plan an attempt to reconstruct the two slits so that we know what the short prints are. So, I am looking for images of either miscuts, wrong backs, or uncut material from that series.

So far, all I have are images of 485 showing edge of slit, 475, 519, & 520 showing edge of card above each, a diamond cut 480, and a miscut of 490 showing that 533 is below it. Any help would be appreciated.

Attachment 441377

Didn't know about this sp 6th series.....

The sixth series has short prints because there are 77 cards in the printing. I don't know which cards they are yet. That is why I am trying to locate miscuts, etc. So I can determine the print pattern of the two slits. The mantle combo card is an example of a miscut.

Pretty sure I have a photo of one 132 card side, will find and post

As promised, one half of the 264 card uncut sheet for 1968 6th series, rows 6 and 7 appear to be SP's but really unknown till the other half sheet is found as 77 card series usually have 33 cards printed 4 times and 44 cards printed 3 times

John

I can confirm Lee May (heading row 6) was a tough card to find when I was putting the set together. None of the others in those rows really stand out though.

Because of that sheet configuration, it may be that the pattern was five rows 4x each, and two rows 2x ea. So short prints are probably in lee may and Bryan rows

Not saying its impossible but I've been collecting photos of uncut topps sheets for 25 years and never have run across this pattern for a full 264 card sheet. Have multiple examples where the layout between the two 1/2 sheets for a series are very different.

Lee May has been tougher for 40 years and I saw Tommie Agee in the same row. I think this will end up being similar to the 67 Final series in which the second sheet will end up creating something akin to a 5-4-3 total of the sheets.

Rich

In 65, 66, & 67 the 77 card series had one slit with a pattern of:
slit A: A,B,C, D,E,A,F,G,B, C,D,E while
slit B: two rows, then A, F, G, B, C, D, E, A, F, G. Those two rows varied in ech series. Sometimes the two rows were B, C or D, E which gave rise to the 77 card series having four rows printed 3x each (SPs) and three rows 4x each.

On at least one occasion, those two rows were A, F which produced one row 5x, one row 4x, and five rows 3x each. In 1961, a slightly different arrangement was used, which resulted in only a few SPs.

I have seen some miscuts from this series that suggests the row with Niekro, Alston, Hamilton,& Freehan is at the bottom of the 2nd slit. The ebay listing counts suggest that the Lee May row is a Sp row as counts for those cards are typically much lower than for cards in other rows.

Refresh my memory, is this supposedly the 1967 high numbers layout where only the top 5 rows of slit A (right half of 264 card sheet) have been found?

The complete left slit of the 67 highs is known as are the top 5 rows of the 2nd slit. Counts over time of the ebay listing also support the 1x5, 1x4, and 5x3 layout.

For the 68s, the card counts (ebay listings) of the Tracewski, Stephenson, and F Robby (500) are much higher than the counts for the May, Bryan, Von Hoff, & Robby checklist. So, it may be that a 3x4 & 4x3 arrangement was actually used, but that hasn't yet been fully established.

There are a few miscuts from the Stephenson row that suggest that row may be at the bottom of slit B.

Neither has the 1x5, 1x4, and 5x3 layout IMO

I am a believer that the 1967 Topps highs had a pattern whereby the Pinson row was printed 5x, the Rohr RC row was printed 4x, and the other five rows were printed 3x.

The 5 row sequence of slit B plus ebay counts over many months suggest that the rows headed by Ferrara, NL Rookies, Colavito, Checklist 7, and Belanger RC were all printed at the same frequency while the cards in the other two rows (Pinson, Ferrara) have higher quantities, with the Pinson row being much higher.

Obviously, without the bottom half of the 2nd slit from the 1967 highs available, the pattern can't be known unequivocally, and it is certainly possible that some other pattern may have been used, but there is circumstantial evidence to support that a 1x5, 1x4, and 5x3 print pattern was used. IMO

Thank you that is what I was getting at with my 5-4-3 comment. I'll wager this is somewhat similar. And, of course, the count to do verification helps as well.

Rich

1968 series 6
 

A quick look at the 1968 series 6 counts suggest a 4x3 & 3x4 pattern. Also, these two miscuts suggest that the row with Stephenson & Niekro is at bottom of 2nd slit.

Attachment 442248

Attachment 442249

Re 1967 highs, I think a 5X row, which seems to be supported by pop counts but still unverified of course, could have been the result of an issue in the final sheet layout, printing or it could be a planned 4/3 3/4 situation where one row differed greatly in cutting but not all cards suffered the same. For whatever reason this period of weird XP rows starts the same year of the plant move to Duryea (1966). Not sure why Topps would intentionally add a fifth row but that possibility remains as well.

Bored on a Friday morning, looking at the miscuts and doing the math same as the 132 card sheet shown above the missing 132 card sheet could be laid out as:

Rows 1 thru 5 = rows 5 (Frank R ) thru row 9 (Stephenson) on known 132 card sheet

Rows 6 thru 12 = rows 3 thru 9 on known sheet.

Rows 3 (row with player combo cards), 4 (Frank R CL) 6 (May) and 7 would be the cards printed 3 times (SP) on the 264 card sheet. Note the Frank R checklist was printed in series 5 too.

John

Do you have other miscuts from this series? If so, can you post?

The Stephenson row (2nd row on slit shown) is at the bottom of the other slit (miscuts of Niekro & Stephenson support that). Cards in that row also sometimes have a white line near the bottom, most likely a cutting support line.

The Von Hoff row (3rd row on known slit) appears to be at the top of the other slit based on numerous cards in that row having a white line at their top.

Do you have any uncut material for 1965 Topps 6th series (447 to 522)?

I also always sold/still sell the Tommie Agee card whenever I get one.

I will also wager there is a second sheet because are the 68 Tigers shorter printed or where they all scooped up. They have always been tougher to buy as a collector; easier to sell as a dealer.

Rich

1968 Tigers are difficult to gauge. They are a heavily collected team and 1968 was a special year. Every Tigers fan wants that card. When demand greatly exceeds supply, it doesn't matter much if a card was 3x or 4x on a sheet.

nope

This is a timely conversation for me, as I am in the process of putting together a 1968 set.

Some unscientific observations from my experience thus far (I now have 501 of the 598 total):
1) the two brick and mortar stores I frequent have albums with older vintage cards by year for sale. In each location, supplies of the 6th series generally were close to non-existent.
2) the major e-bay and Beckett stores I use normally use (Burbank, Mantlerulz, Batters box) show a similar lack of 6th series cards as well.
3) Where I can find them elsewhere, some patterns emerge:
- A number of the cards in rows 6 and 7 on the pictured slit do seem to command premiums - the May, Denehy, Cline, Wagner in particular. Others don't seem to, but of course it's always possible some sellers don't realize they may be in shorter supply.
4) A few cards that aren't on these "SP" rows also command premiums well above and beyond, most notably John Tsitouris which is a real hard one.

An image of the other slit would be great to come by.

Here's a current listing for Tsitouris that Greg Morris has and which ends tonight....

https://www.ebay.com/itm/13390129990...0AAOSw~7BhZIzd

Its a beautiful, near perfect card, but still....

This is correct. I looked and looked for miscut cards from the 6th Series showing white at the top and finally found these from the Frank Robinson Row, two Frank Robinson cards, Nixon, Sims, and Davenport. I am also showing two cards from the Tracewski Row, Schaffer and the Cards Team card, that are at the top of the other Slit to show that they were made similarly. The other Slit goes:
Row 1 Frank Robinson
Row 2 Lee May
Row 3 Bill Bryan
Row 4 Dick Tracewski
Row 5 Jerry Stephenson
Row 6 Bruce Von Hoff
Row 7 Checklist 6
Row 8 Frank Robinson
Row 9 Lee May
Row 10 Bill Bryan
Row 11 Dick Tracewski
Row 12 Jerry Stephenson

So I’m not as crazy as u all thought LOL

So, if this is correct, and this is the arrangement of cards on the other 6th series slit, then we have this scenario:

For every 4 specimens printed of the cards in the Robinson, Tracewski, and Stephensen rows, only 3 were printed of the cards in the May, Bryan, Von Hoff and 6th series checklist rows.

If this is so, having just finished my '68 set, it would account for all the scarcities I came across/paid through the nose for (particularly McNally, Agee, Tsitouris, May, Odom, Al Jackson, Dillman and Sparma).

But, a lot of those in the slightly scarcer rows, under this scenario, seem to have no premium attached, at least from what I recently observed.

I wonder whether there were production or distribution issues with the 6th series generally because overall, they seemed harder to find than the 7th.

I look at it more as 33 cards are “double printed” rather than 44 cards are “short printed” in a 77 card Series. In a 88 card Series every card is printed three times over both Slits, in a 77 card Series 33 of the cards are printed four times rather than three to make up for the missing eleven cards over the two Slits.

This is how I note them in my checklists too, 4x print and 3x print notations. Fantastic research, thanks for sharing it. I can update this series’ list now

I ran across a pic of the B Slit of the 1968 Topps 6th Series, it confirms that it goes:

Frank Robinson
Lee May
Bill Bryan
Dick Tracewski
Jerry Stephenson
Bruce Von Hoff
Checklist 6
Frank Robinson
Lee May
Bill Bryan
Dick Tracewski
Jerry Stephenson

68 series 6
 

That is great. It confirms what we had pieced together based on miscuts.