1967 Topps High Numbers

rats60 · #1 07-02-2020, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

Dave:

We've had this discussion before but from my dealing days (long before I even went to Beckett) I am perfectly comfortable with the 22 cards noted as DP's being DP's. That is covered not only from my personal experience but remembering all the ads in the 70's and 80's where those 22 cards were in far larger supply.

It is possible that for vend boxes for whatever reason the magic 22 were even more available than they were out of packs. If so, that would work on such a level that the magic 22 are sure out there and available. And while I only have a few 67 Hi's in my inventory right now, every one of them is from those 22

Regards
Rich

What is your theory on how the sheets look? We know there are 24 rows of 11 on the sheet(s) with 7 unique rows. 3 rows 4 times and 4 rows 3 times works. It has been believed that the Seaver row may be 2 times. Could those 2 DP rows appear 5 times? Or are there more DPs?

I was one of Beckett�s sources for SP information. I owned a partial sheet that contained cards that were believed to be SPs, so as we know if one card on the row was a SP, they all are.

Kevvyg1026 · #2 07-03-2020, 05:05 AM

Another pattern that works is two rows 5x each, four rows 3x each, and one row 2x each. There are other patterns which also work, but this one would yield 22 cards printed a lot more than the others and 11 cards printed much less than most in the series.

rats60 · #3 07-03-2020, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

Another pattern that works is two rows 5x each, four rows 3x each, and one row 2x each. There are other patterns which also work, but this one would yield 22 cards printed a lot more than the others and 11 cards printed much less than most in the series.

This is what I believe happened. It fits what I have seen over the years in card populations. Without seeing the other half (2nd 132 card sheet), we will never know.

Just based on my personal experience, the 7th series 1967 Topps never came into our area. I believe it was one of if not the least distributed Series of Topps in 1954-1973. I think that Card Collectors Company got a larger than normal supply and were a main source for the hobby. Collectors who never saw the cards would have bought complete series creating an excess of double printed cards in one source. Just my theory.

ALBB · #4 07-03-2020, 06:38 AM

very interesting research !

Kevvyg1026 · #5 07-03-2020, 06:41 AM

The only miscut I have shows Demeter with Carew underneath. Doesn't tell anything new since that is the same as what is shown on the half-sheet

jmoran19 · #6 07-06-2020, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

Another pattern that works is two rows 5x each, four rows 3x each, and one row 2x each. There are other patterns which also work, but this one would yield 22 cards printed a lot more than the others and 11 cards printed much less than most in the series.

Topps used a LOT of different layouts but I Personally Have never seen evidence of any other year use a layout where a row of cards was printed 5 times across the 264 card sheet and another row only twice.

Kevvyg1026 · #7 07-06-2020, 11:34 AM

I understand that and I have not either. I was simply stating that it was possible and would lead to two rows being printed at a significantly higher rate than the others, while one row would be short printed.

The one half sheet I've seen for the 67 high numbers has five rows printed twice and two rows printed once.

I have only seen three rows of the second half-sheet and it has one of the double printed rows from the first half sheet printed twice, and one of the single printed rows printed once.

Thus, in the fifteen rows I've seen, one row was printed four times, five rows printed twice, and one row printed once. It will be interesting to see if the frequency of the remaining nine rows can be determined.

toppcat · #8 07-06-2020, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

I understand that and I have not either. I was simply stating that it was possible and would lead to two rows being printed at a significantly higher rate than the others, while one row would be short printed.

The one half sheet I've seen for the 67 high numbers has five rows printed twice and two rows printed once.

I have only seen three rows of the second half-sheet and it has one of the double printed rows from the first half sheet printed twice, and one of the single printed rows printed once.

Thus, in the fifteen rows I've seen, one row was printed four times, five rows printed twice, and one row printed once. It will be interesting to see if the frequency of the remaining nine rows can be determined.

You may have missed my scans above, which showed two more rows of the other sheet. It doesn't solve all but shows how weird the layout was for the 67 highs, gives us a second "Seaver row" a third "Bauer row", a confirmation at at least one row appears 4 times and gets us down to 7 unknown rows. So the Bauer Row (really fronted by Red Sox Rookies) is now known as appearing 3X while the Seaver row (fronted by Orioles Rookies) now shows up twice and the Pinson fronted row is 4X. The repeating pattern of the top four rows is interesting on the partial and the Bauer and Seaver rows are together on both half sheets. Flimsy evidence only two Seaver rows exit but to my mind this makes it at least possible.

Plenty of questions remain though. Did a production issue scotch a row and cause a weird pattern? Are the differing layouts related to how the cards were packed? DO certain rows suffer production issues causing them to sometimes be pulled and discarded?

Kevvyg1026 · #9 07-06-2020, 01:08 PM

This is obviously pure speculation on my part but if Topps used a similar printing pattern to what they did in several other years, I expect the last seven rows on the second half-sheet to be headed by (in order): 557, 576, 580, 531, 550, 547, 558.

From what I have seen from 77 card print runs from 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, and 1969, Topps used a pattern (with seven unique rows labeled A thru G) like:

1. One half-sheet: A, B, C, D, E, A, F, G, B, C, D, E

2. 2nd half-sheet: variable two rows (in 1967 A, F), followed by A, F, G, B, C, D, E, A, F, G.

From what you have shown, this pattern seems to be appearing in 1967 as well. The first half-sheet has the pattern A, B, C, D, E, A, F, G, B, C, D, E while the other has: A, F, A, F, G. Thus, this five row snippet MIGHT be followed by B, C, D, E, A, F, G.

Unfortunately, no miscut information will identify if that is the pattern; only that it isn't. This is because row C is always underneath row B, row D is always under row C, etc. However, if a miscut is found that violates this pattern, that would be very helpful!!

If (and it is IF) this speculation is true, row A, with Pinson, would be printed five times across the two half sheets, row F (with Rohr) 4x, and five rows (Ferrara, Hernandez rookie, Colavito, Checklist, & Belanger rookie) 3x each.

This would make the cards in the Pinson row almost double-printed (5:3 ratio), while the cards in the Rohr row (4:3 ratio) printed at a slightly higher rate than those of the other 54 cards. The checklist, is naturally, printed at a higher frequency since it was also printed in the prior print run.

toppcat · #10 07-06-2020, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

Unfortunately, no miscut information will identify if that is the pattern; only that it isn't. This is because row C is always underneath row B, row D is always under row C, etc. However, if a miscut is found that violates this pattern, that would be very helpful!!

Yup, when I first posted this thread I thought it was possible a repeat portion of the array would make it impossible to use miscuts. One interesting idea from the suggested patterns you posted is that the Seaver row (G, or SP2 in my parlance) could be a bottom row on the unknown sheet. That might help explain why the cards in that row are really more of a short print than any other three-peat row. Some kind of production issue could have affected it for a press run or when cutting down into individual cards.

Checked my 67 set, no high number miscuts, or even close really.

toppcat · #11 07-03-2020, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rats60

What is your theory on how the sheets look? We know there are 24 rows of 11 on the sheet(s) with 7 unique rows. 3 rows 4 times and 4 rows 3 times works. It has been believed that the Seaver row may be 2 times. Could those 2 DP rows appear 5 times? Or are there more DPs?

I was one of Beckett�s sources for SP information. I owned a partial sheet that contained cards that were believed to be SPs, so as we know if one card on the row was a SP, they all are.

Very interesting as my thought is the Beckett SP and DP info came from the missing A slit. Do you have a record of the array?

rats60 · #12 07-03-2020, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toppcat

Very interesting as my thought is the Beckett SP and DP info came from the missing A slit. Do you have a record of the array?

My partial sheet was the bottom 4 rows of the full sheet that you posted. Those are the cards that I believe were printed 3 times and are SPs, with 22 cards being printed 5 times being DPs and 11 SSPs being printed twice.l

Cliff Bowman · #13 07-03-2020, 09:22 AM

A few scans that I found. ETA, I guess you are looking for different tops and bottoms and not sides, if I understand it correctly now.

toppcat · #14 07-03-2020, 10:05 AM

I have to check my set later as I don't have any 67 dupes. Don't recall having any miscuts but we'll see. Is it me or does it seem like there are less miscuts in 67 than 66?

G1911 · #15 07-03-2020, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toppcat

I have to check my set later as I don't have any 67 dupes. Don't recall having any miscuts but we'll see. Is it me or does it seem like there are less miscuts in 67 than 66?

I don�t think there are many miscuts in either, and these two years were pretty much the best quality control here. I have a lot of miscut 65�s, and then starting in 1968 it really seems Topps gave up completely on not issuing wildly miscut cards. Before 1965 I think they are relatively more common. Have to factor in that overall total year production generally went up each year

toppcat · #16 07-06-2020, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

I don�t think there are many miscuts in either, and these two years were pretty much the best quality control here. I have a lot of miscut 65�s, and then starting in 1968 it really seems Topps gave up completely on not issuing wildly miscut cards. Before 1965 I think they are relatively more common. Have to factor in that overall total year production generally went up each year

Yeah, I think there was an uptick in 1968 production then 1969, with four new markets,the numbers went even higher. Topps may have overestimated (look at all the 69 wrappers and cards out there still) and then 70-72 pulled back as those years the highs are a bit harder to find now.

Rich Klein · #17 07-03-2020, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rats60

What is your theory on how the sheets look? We know there are 24 rows of 11 on the sheet(s) with 7 unique rows. 3 rows 4 times and 4 rows 3 times works. It has been believed that the Seaver row may be 2 times. Could those 2 DP rows appear 5 times? Or are there more DPs?

I was one of Beckett�s sources for SP information. I owned a partial sheet that contained cards that were believed to be SPs, so as we know if one card on the row was a SP, they all are.

I don't have a theory on the sheets but I'd wager those 22 cards in the 2 rows are more common on the missing sheet for our situation. This is a case where the non-sheet evidence is pretty darned good. Look at the old ads and you'll see what I mean.

Rich

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
WTB: 1967 topps high numbers	wacturner	1960-1979 Baseball Cards B/S/T	0	09-11-2018 05:55 PM
FS: 1967 Topps High Numbers	rsdill2	1960-1979 Baseball Cards B/S/T	6	05-14-2018 08:46 PM
WTTF: 1967 Topps & 1972 Topps High Numbers - have 1967's and HOFers to trade	GehrigFan	1960-1979 Baseball Cards B/S/T	0	06-14-2015 03:09 PM
F/T: (3) 1967 Topps high numbers	SmokyBurgess	1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T	1	11-28-2012 04:40 PM
Want to buy 1967 Topps high numbers	bh3443	1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T	3	09-24-2010 08:28 AM