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

[G1911]

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.

[Rich Klein]

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

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by G1911

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?

IMO, the only reason you have no difficulty in finding the Grant Jackson card is because owners of this card are asking $50+ for their beater. Instead, if they were asking $10 for their beater you would have great difficulty finding this card.

[rats60]

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.

[toppcat]

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.

[mrmopar]

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.

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

IMO, the only reason you have no difficulty in finding the Grant Jackson card is because owners of this card are asking $50+ for their beater. Instead, if they were asking $10 for their beater you would have great difficulty finding this card.

[G1911]

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

[quitcrab]

i have a first series sheet. If I recall Koufax and Catfish Hunter was a DP.

[BillP]

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.

[Rich Klein]

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!

[G1911]

Originally Posted by quitcrab

i have a first series sheet. If I recall Koufax and Catfish Hunter was a DP.

That's awesome! Hunter Sounds right, a 66 Catfish seems to be in every lot of random 60's Topps stuff I buy.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by mrmopar

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.

True on the Pafko. It shouldn't have the same grade level curve than others of the first series do. The off condition cards are plentiful.

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.

[jchcollins]

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...

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

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...

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

[toppcat]

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.

[BillP]

Originally Posted by tschock

True on the Pafko. It shouldn't have the same grade level curve than others of the first series do. The off condition cards are plentiful.

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.

Never thought about that, but completely agree.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by toppcat

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.

43 of the 76 cards are credited as Single Prints in the Standard Catalog (5th Vintage Edition). Snyder is not, but he used to be considered one, at least.

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

[BillP]

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

[jmoran19]

Originally Posted by quitcrab

i have a first series sheet. If I recall Koufax and Catfish Hunter was a DP.

As well as Pete Rose and Mickey Mantle on the opposite 132 card series 1 sheet.

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

[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

[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 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

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?

[toppcat]

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):

[jmoran19]

Originally Posted by toppcat

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):

Mucking with the placement of the rows was common practice for 109/110 card series

[BillP]

Originally Posted by jmoran19

Mucking with the placement of the rows was common practice for 109/110 card series

from the 65 sheet above, which has the same pattern as the 67 sheet, i.e. the 1st and 6th rows repeat and the 7th and 8th don't, if someone had the other 65 sheet then maybe the total 67 would follow suit. The olbermann sheet let's call a s'alesmans sample.

but for an uncut sheet, what luck getting those cards of severe DP's on a sheet

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by BillP

from the 65 sheet above, which has the same pattern as the 67 sheet, i.e. the 1st and 6th rows repeat and the 7th and 8th don't, if someone had the other 65 sheet then maybe the total 67 would follow suit. The olbermann sheet let's call a s'alesmans sample.

but for an uncut sheet, what luck getting those cards of severe DP's on a sheet

Not sure why it would be a sample, it's from a production sheet.

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?

[jmoran19]

Originally Posted by toppcat

Not sure why it would be a sample, it's from a production sheet.

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?

The only 77 card series where i have copies of both sheets is 1969 series 6, see below. Using the first picture rows 1, 3 and 4 end up being printed 4 times across the 2 half sheets (132 total) and rows 2, 5, 7 and 8 are printed 3 times (132 total). The 3 prints include Nolan Ryan and Jim Palmer.

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

[BillP]

Originally Posted by jmoran19

The only 77 card series where i have copies of both sheets is 1969 series 6, see below. Using the first picture rows 1, 3 and 4 end up being printed 4 times across the 2 half sheets (132 total) and rows 2, 5, 7 and 8 are printed 3 times (132 total). The 3 prints include Nolan Ryan and Jim Palmer.

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

Great read on this subject. Im wondering how uncut sheets in the 50's and 60's every got out? Topps vault purchases?

[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.

[toppcat]

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.

[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.

[JollyElm]

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.

[toppcat]

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

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.

I think this is unlikely, as I don't think there were 2 sheets used to print a Topps series. The 2 half sheets are different, but they were printed together as one large 264 card sheet before being cut into the 2 easier to manage half sheets and then cut into individual cards. I can't imagine why Topps would print out X number of high series sheets, cut up off the left half of it and distribute, and then throw away most of the right half of the sheet, doubling their print costs to accomplish nothing. If anything, Topps was pretty smart about minimizing costs, shrinking card size and lowering quality after knocking out their competition, experimenting with further size reductions (such as in 1975), being late to adjust to the late 80's increase in quality, etc.

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.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

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.

[G1911]

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.

[bb66]

Great work G1911. One more card always helps.If we can ever figure out the 7th Series sheet alignments!