1966 Topps High's - Any uncut sheets or partial sheets known?

[jmoran19]

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

[jmoran19]

These two go together as well

66higher.jpg

66higher2b.jpg

[jmoran19]

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

[Kevvyg1026]

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.).

[bb66]

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!!!

[toppcat]

I just posted some stuff in the 1961-63 SP thread that is relevant here: https://www.net54baseball.com/showpo...19&postcount=7

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

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.).

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.

[Kevvyg1026]

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

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.

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.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

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.

We got the 7th series in 1966 in Orange Co. CA, but never saw the 7th series in 1967.

[BillP]

Originally Posted by jmoran19

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

Same with this 12 card block. If the Northrup row is above the mantilla row then these 2 8 and 12 card sheets fit, but we know that the northrup row is above the Perranoski row,
So these have to be separate blocks of a sheet.

[BillP]

Originally Posted by BillP

Same with this 12 card block. If the Northrup row is above the mantilla row then these 2 8 and 12 card sheets fit, but we know that the northrup row is above the Perranoski row,
So these have to be separate blocks of a sheet.

Ok, last post for the afternoon on this (I promise), very interesting stuff though. I think from all the input I believe this is the row sequence:
A - Northrup
B - Taylor
C - Salmon
A - Northrup
D - Perranoski
E - Hoerner
B - Taylor
C - Salmon
A - Northrup
F - Mantilla
g - Jackson/Shirley on the bottom corner and open to damage etc.

This sequence includes the input of the 8 card and 12 card sheets and what we know from the miscuts that have been researched.

Other tidbits: Tigers Team/McFarlane has to be in the Hoerner row, so does Perry. That puts Sadowski and Jackson in the taylor row s well.

[mikemb]

Originally Posted by BillP

Ok, last post for the afternoon on this (I promise),

No! Keep ostimg. This is a great thread.

I looked at all my 66 high numbers and no miscuts. First time I wish I had some.

Mike

[BillP]

Originally Posted by mikemb

No! Keep ostimg. This is a great thread.

I looked at all my 66 high numbers and no miscuts. First time I wish I had some.

Mike

Thx Mike, others have done more than me I just had some time to go over all the threads. One takeaway is that 550 Mccovery is not an sp. 554 northrup is also not an sp. 563 twins rookies is also 562 snyder and via recent pricing these last 2 make sense. Mccovey pricing may just be star power.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by BillP

Ok, last post for the afternoon on this (I promise), very interesting stuff though. I think from all the input I believe this is the row sequence:

E - Hoerner
B - Taylor

I have a scan of a miscut Jimmy Piersall with what I am positive is a sliver of the top of the Dick Green under it but I was hesitant to post it, but it now makes sense with your sequence so I will post it tonight.

[BillP]

Originally Posted by jmoran19

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


Attachment 354645


Attachment 354646

So the Egan row is definitely DP's

[BillP]

Originally Posted by BillP

So the Egan row is definitely DP's

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.

[mikemb]

Sorry about the old bad picture but hope it helps.

Mike


[IMG][/IMG]

[toppcat]

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.

[jmoran19]

Originally Posted by toppcat

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.

I only have one half of the 264 card sheet for 1965 and 1967 high #'s (see below).

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

[BillP]

Originally Posted by jmoran19

I only have one half of the 264 card sheet for 1965 and 1967 high #'s (see below).

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

Attachment 354777

Attachment 354778

Another great view, whats interesting here is that the row above the accepted true 11 sp's (Belanger rookie row)is a once printed row of 11 accepted highly common DP's printed only once on this sheet. Also the row with Pinson on it is out of order with the normal sequence. It repeats earlier than the row 2-5 above. I think Topps basically screwed up the sheets and therefore we've got this crazy distribution that makes 67 highs so challenging. billp

[Bigdaddy]

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?

[BillP]

Originally Posted by mikemb

Sorry about the old bad picture but hope it helps.

Mike


[IMG][/IMG]

So #591, everybody's major SP is on the same row as mcLain, Howser and Navarro interesting. Either it was replaced on a 2nd sheet with the 7th series checklist or it's just as common as those other 3.

With the red print lines on some copies it seems like it was on a border.

[BillP]

Originally Posted by jmoran19

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

Attachment 354645


Attachment 354646

This 8 card sheet would imply that olivo (in the mantilla row) is below Egan (in the northrup row), but that again doesnt line up with our sequence of the far left card in the 7 rows. So this sheet must be a clue for the other 4 rows on a possible 11 row sheet. Or else, this 8 card cut came from a separate run of 8 card blocks produced separately.