|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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; 08-20-2018 at 11:43 PM. Reason: Edited for a typo |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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.
__________________
Looking for: Unique Steve Garvey items, select Dodgers Postcards & Team Issue photos |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
i have a first series sheet. If I recall Koufax and Catfish Hunter was a DP.
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
That's awesome! Hunter Sounds right, a 66 Catfish seems to be in every lot of random 60's Topps stuff I buy.
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
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...
__________________
Postwar stars & HOF'ers. Prewar, Bowman & Topps Cubs team endeavors. Last edited by jchcollins; 08-24-2018 at 01:02 PM. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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 03:44 PM. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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 05:01 PM. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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 Last edited by jmoran19; 05-27-2019 at 04:46 PM. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Last edited by jmoran19; 05-27-2019 at 05:00 PM. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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
Last edited by jmoran19; 05-27-2019 at 05:09 PM. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
#26
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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 06:56 PM. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
With the red print lines on some copies it seems like it was on a border. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#30
|
||||
|
||||
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 (-1) 1952 Topps - low numbers (-1) 1954 Bowman (-3) 1964 Topps Giants auto'd (-2) |
#31
|
||||
|
||||
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): Last edited by toppcat; 05-29-2019 at 04:32 PM. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
but for an uncut sheet, what luck getting those cards of severe DP's on a sheet |
#34
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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 05:08 AM. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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 Last edited by jmoran19; 05-30-2019 at 01:02 PM. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Most current price guides suggest that there are 43 SPs in the high series for 1966. If correct, this means that Topps probably used a print pattern of four rows printed 3x each and three rows printed 4x each for the full print sheet for the 7th series of 1966.
Based on the images shown in this thread, there appear to be seven unique rows of cards, as expected. The rows are as follows: R1 (headed by Northrup) - 554, 568, 584, 581, 534, 558, 573, 536, 529, 572, 574. R2 (headed by Mantilla) - 557, 588, 545, 526, 589, 593, 563, 578, 548, 524, 539. R3 (headed by Shirley/Jackson) - 591, 540, 527, 577, 596, 551, 543, plus three more, not yet identified R4 (headed by perranowski) - 555, 562, 559, 564 R5(headed by Cards rookies) - 544, 565, 547, 546 R6 (headed by Taylor) - 585, 530, 560, 571 R7 (headed by Salmon) - 594, 535, 575, 580 In addition, there are two other rows that have to be placed in this matrix. These include the McCovey row (550, 538, 579, 537) and the row with Sullivan (597, 592, 549). The McCovey row has to be placed above the 5th card in the Northrup row, so it must be in either R4, R5, R6, or R7 (since we only know 4 cards in those rows). The location of the checklist is almost guaranteed to be in a row of SPs, and the location of the Sullivan row will probably be in a non-SP row. If the row numbers are looked at carefully, it is clear that sometimes rows contain cards that are identified as SPs while other cards in the same row are not. For example, Northrup is listed as a SP (#554), but no other card in that row is identified as such. Another example: the row containing Shirley (#591) has seven identified SPs but also has card # 527 which is not listed as a SP. A 3rd example: the row with Mantilla (#557) contains 8 cards that are commonly identified as SPs, but three cards which are not (588, 563, 539). Other examples also show this pattern of having both SP and non-SP cards in the same row, which really shouldn't be the case. Hopefully, additional uncut or miscut material from this series will surface to help clear up these types of questions as well as identify the location within the printing of the other cards issued (e.g., Perry, Raymond, etc.). |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks Kevvyg1026. Really enjoying your posts on the 63's and 66's. Not sure what to think about some of these cards that look like they should have been SP's, too.Great work to you and to all on this site!!!
|
#39
|
||||
|
||||
I just posted some stuff in the 1961-63 SP thread that is relevant here: https://www.net54baseball.com/showpo...19&postcount=7
Last edited by toppcat; 06-09-2020 at 09:53 PM. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
This about nails it, I think. For the Mantila row, "DP"'s 588, 563 and 539 are the last 3 non-"SP" High Numbers still on my want list (16 cards to finish the set, all highs). Pretty sure now these are actually in one of the rows printed less often. Looks like I was completely wrong on 554 Northrup being an actual SP. I still wonder where the perception of rarity came from originally. Some cards being printed 4 times and others 3 seems to roughly equate to what I've seen collecting the set; there are noticeable SP's, but they are not THAT much tougher to find. Why does 544 Hoerner carry such a premium? When did people decide Grant Jackson/Shirley was a magic Super SP? I've been collecting 60's Topps since the late 90's and everything periodical and guide I have repeats the accepted claim that some cards are extra SP's, and not in multiple of 11's. |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
1966 topps highs
I grew up in the Phoenix area and I do not recall ever seeing 7th series for either 1966 or 1967 in their release years. Now, as I've just got back into collecting, I do find some cards harder to find (e.g., on eBay) than others.
For example, a recent survey I conducted, showed some of the 1966 highs had 20 to 30 copies for sale while others had between 70 to 100 copies. Finding Shirley/Jackson for under BV is an issue but only because of pricing. There are a number of these cards on the market but asking price is typically BV or higher for cards in VG-Ex condition. Same thing for Perry. The Hoerner card (544) is another example. Finding a well-centered card might be somewhat of an issue since it is on the far left of the sheet and one of the three rows containing this card may well have on the bottom of the sheet. Yet, a recent survey of the PSA distribution showed over half of the cards submitted (234/460) were at grade 7 or higher. This card does exist on the market in reasonable quantity (e.g., last week, there were over 50 available on ebay), but the asking price always seems to be more than BV, even for VG examples, so there is a perceived scarcity. Interestingly, the two cards I struggled to obtain to complete my 1966 set were 565 Piersall and 569 McFarlane. Although there are a number of both cards available for sale, I was unwilling to pay $30-$40 for VG (at best) cards. After several months, I eventually was able to acquire the cards, but I probably overpaid a little simply so I could complete the set. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I imagine the 7th series was limited distribution. From the anecdotal side, my 3 uncles who collected in that year in the SF Bay Area have "complete sets" that end at the 5th series. They found out series 6 and 7 only existed last year when I showed my not quite complete set after finding out they still had their childhood card collections. The 1964 and 1967 sets are missing the last series, 1965, 68 and 69 sets are 100% complete. One has a 61-63 set run that is missing the highs in all three years, and the last 2 series in 63. I am in that same boat on finishing, I have all the stars and most of the highs but the remaining ones are a bit hard to justify the price tag on for cards which I don't think are actually nearly as tough as stated. 66 and 67 are odd in how highs are priced, with some cards of commons being quite expensive in low grade even (well, relatively expensive depending on ones wallet), and others on the same row being pretty cheap. I love the 66's best of the 60's sets, so I will end up coughing up at some point. Skowron I found to be expensive too, and Bob Allen I haven't found for a reasonable price yet. Plenty of all cards for sale at all times, but some the prices don't seemed based in actual print runs or scarcity. Off topic from the highs, but series 1 and 6 (especially 6, the difference is night and day), appear to have stock variations that are never mentioned. 6 has the very bright white stock or cream that is clearly not toning or aging. |
#43
|
||||
|
||||
I may have old SCD article about the distribution of the 1967 highs but the gist was there were issues, especially outside of the Northeast. Will try to dig it out later.
|
#44
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#45
|
||||
|
||||
Are there any specific facts known about the actual distribution of cards within the packs from the high series? Here's why. There are always great discussions about whether or not the print sheets had SP's involved, and/or how many cards were actually short printed, but there really could be much more to the issue. For instance, like multiple people here indicated, their neck of the woods either didn't get the late series cards, or they only received a limited number of them. The logical conclusion would lead you to believe that Topps didn't print as many cards for the late series and sent a lot of cardboard to the furnaces as they began to concentrate on football, basketball and hockey cards instead.
But which cards got destroyed (or were never distributed)? Was it an equal amount of each card across the series? Or was there something else to it? Were there more cards on the second print sheet that got eliminated? Or maybe the cards appearing on the low end of the sheets, for some reason? In other words, where were the cuts made to decrease the amount of cards printed? If you can see what I'm getting at here, it may help to determine why some cards may NOT appear to be SP's (when looking at uncut sheets), but in reality there were far fewer of them sent out to the stores. Food for thought.
__________________
All the cool kids love my YouTube Channel:
Elm's Adventures in Cardboard Land https://www.youtube.com/@TheJollyElm Looking to trade? Here's my bucket: https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706 “I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.” Casey Stengel Spelling "Yastrzemski" correctly without needing to look it up since the 1980s. Overpaying yesterday is simply underpaying tomorrow. |
#46
|
||||
|
||||
No luck on the 67 high number article from SCD. I did find a reference in a message I was exchanging with a St Louis collector years ago who said they never got the 6th series there but did get the 7th.
I did find a 9/18/92 Brigandi Coin Co. ad showing the following semi-highs as purported SP's: #460 Killebrew #475 Palmer #476 Perez The problem with the old ads like these is they never listed the SP commons, only stars. Anyway, Brigandi's take on the high # SP's was off so who knows what their source was. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Further, it doesn't seem there actually are cards that are actually that much rarer than the others today. Just cards commanding a lot more money due to a reputation that does not appear to be grounded in fact. It's easy to find 591 or 544 or 598, they aren't that much tougher than any of the others. A 3:4 ratio makes sense with what appears to be available both online and in collections. It may well be that the way distribution worked made certain cards greater rarities in a specific geographic location; that a high pack may have only had cards from one half sheet (they probably did), and that if one row was on the right side more than the left side, and a pack in Y city/region only had left side cards, it would make certain cards tougher. I would think this would be sequenced (Topps STILL uses sequences today that make it easy to predict the next card in the pack if one has opened enough of them) and would balance out in the next box, but who knows. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
They are definitely a card stock variation. All you need to do is find 1 of each and split the card to see it is the stock and not toning. Unlike some other white/grey, white/cream sets, the '66 set gets no 'variation' love for this.
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Post #21 by Jmoran19 showing a partial sheet can be extended. I have a miscut Choo-Choo Coleman that shows a very thin sliver of the upper right corner of the next card. Comparing the coloring and pattern carefully to every other high number, it can only possibly be Bob Chance that was on his left. Chance is the last card show in the second row of this partial sheet in post 21. So that's one more clue filled in.
This site won't let me attach higher quality images than 78kb that won't show much here; PM for an email if anyone wants a better confirmation. Below is Coleman next to Chance plus some of my favorites in the high series, because we can always do with more cards. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Great work G1911. One more card always helps.If we can ever figure out the 7th Series sheet alignments!
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
1985 Topps Baseball Uncut Sheet w/ Puckett RC * 1987 Uncut Sheets in Box | mintacular | 1980 & Newer Sports Cards B/S/T | 2 | 11-20-2017 01:22 PM |
Topps uncut sheets | mybestbretts | Modern Baseball Cards Forum (1980-Present) | 7 | 11-26-2014 12:30 PM |
1972 Topps uncut partial sheets | SAllen2556 | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 7 | 07-07-2014 11:50 AM |
1955 Topps uncut sheets | chadeast | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 20 | 06-22-2012 08:52 AM |
1952-60 Uncut Topps Sheets | Archive | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 2 | 01-07-2008 02:46 PM |