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

JollyElm · #1 07-03-2020, 05:21 PM

Does anyone happen to have individual scans (with uniform size/dpi/etc.) of every card from the high series??

If so, I can create an editable document which emulates the set-up of the two 132 card sheets, and each card can be plugged into its proper spot(s) to recreate what the actual sheets looked like. This will make it easy to switch cards around as further knowledge of the layout (or theories regarding it) develops. Think of it as a highly effective visual tool which cuts through all the number juggling.

Edited to add: I'm just downloading the card scans one by one from COMC, so that solves that. So, what I need to move forward is a specific list of what cards to put where across the two separate sheets. If someone can provide me with a row by row breakdown (if a card is unknown, put a capital X in that spot), I can get on this as I await the fireworks.

JollyElm · #2 07-04-2020, 04:12 AM

Here's my first run at it. I took jmoran19's images from post #21 and put this pic (of a section of an uncut sheet) together as a quick example of what this new resource can do...

Layout01.jpg

BillP · #3 07-04-2020, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Here's my first run at it. I took jmoran19's images from post #21 and put this pic (of a section of an uncut sheet) together as a quick example of what this new resource can do...

Attachment 408077

Great work on this txn!

Kevvyg1026 · #4 08-06-2020, 05:29 AM

Can you put 561 next to Chance (564), and then 525 under 561 (i.e., next to 546), and 542 next to 571 (and above 550)?

JollyElm · #5 08-06-2020, 07:13 PM

Okay, I'm ready to update, but am a bit confused. These two graphics seem to be the most up-to-date (accurate?) layouts I have so far, with some notable differences in row placements (check out who lies beneath Northrup)...

Layout2.jpg

Layout4.jpg

So, what should definitely be added and where? And more importantly, is it 'proven' by the miscuts?

If Smith (#542) should appear above McCovey, do we have a connection to the Dave Roberts (#571) card that would abut it...or could it possibly be a different row appearing above Willie, that is NOT the Tony Taylor row?

Kevvyg1026 · #6 08-07-2020, 06:03 AM

There are seven distinct rows for this series.

The most likely two slit patterns (slit = half-sheet) are as follows:
Slit A: A, B, C, D, E, A, F, G, B. C, D, E
Slit B: D, E, A, F, G, B, C, D, E, A, F, G

Row A = headed by Northrup
Row B = headed by Perranowski
Row C = headed by Hoerner RC
Row D = headed by Taylor
Row E = headed by Salmon
Row F = headed by Mantilla
Row G = headed by Shirley RC

There is a miscut that identifies Bell as being below Choo Choo and there is a miscut which identifies Smith as being above McCovey. Thus both cards must be in Column 5.

The first partial (with McCovey row above Northrup and Mantilla below) is part of the slit where we see row E above row A, then row F & G below Northrup. It could be from the middle of slit A or near the top of slit B.

The second partial (with Perranowski below Northrup) is from the top of slit A.

The issue you noted about the Northrup row occurs because both the Perranowski row and the Mantilla row appear beneath Northrup, depending on the sheet location.

Hopefully, that clears up any confusion regarding the two graphics you have put together.

Kevvyg1026 · #7 08-07-2020, 06:16 AM

I also suspect that the balance of the cards in row D (headed by Taylor) are: 595, 523, 582, 597, 592, 549 but I have not found a miscut that ties 595 to 542 or one that attaches 523 to 582, which I believe is needed for confirmation.

IFF (that's math lingo for if and only if) the above is true, then the sequence 598, 583, 569 would be placed in row C in columns 6, 7, & 8 respectively.

So the search for additional miscuts continues.

Kevvyg1026 · #8 08-20-2020, 06:28 AM

I have been keep track of the new ebay listings each day, and keeping a running tabulation. These counts were then organized into the row positions. So starting in mid-July through listings posted 8/19, the counts look like the following for average, standard deviation, median, high, low:

A: 78.4 17.9 76.0 108.0 54.0
B: 45.7 11.0 42.0 70.0 32.0
C: 49.1 8.1 48.0 69.0 40.0
D: 81.2 23.1 81.0 138.0 48.0
E: 82.4 17.5 77.0 107.0 59.0
F: 46.7 14.7 43.0 77.0 33.0
G: 46.3 9.0 47.0 67.0 35.0

So, these counts certainly give the impression that the pattern was four rows (B, C, F, G) the same frequency as each other and three rows (A, D, E) the same; i.e., a pattern of 4x3 and 3x4.

Some of the "rarer" cards that pop up:
517 (W. Sox variation) - 32 cards have come up for sale
563 (Tovar) - 33 cards
566 (Cuellar) - 38 cards
526 (Twins) - 38 cards
527 (Navarro) - 35 cards
528 (Gonder) - 36 cards
524 (Giants rookies) - 39 cards
545 (Green) - 34 cards
555 (Perranowski) - 36 cards
559 (Pena) - 39 cards

Conversely, traditionally listed SP cards 580 (B Williams) and 550 (McCovey) have both had over 70 copies listed.

Kevvyg1026 · #9 07-04-2020, 04:15 AM

Although we do know which rows many cards are in, we do not know the specific row pattern used for the 1966 high number series. For ease of discussion, let me use the following notation: there are seven unique rows which I will label A through G.

Row A, headed by Northrup, is completely known and has cards (in order from L to R) 554, 568, 584, 581, 534, 558, 573, 536, 529, 572, 574

Row B, headed by Perranowski, has cards (L to R) 555, 562, 559, 564, 561 plus six more, as yet unknown.

Row C, headed by Hoerner rookie, has cards (L to R) 544, 565, 547, 546, 525, plus 6 more as yet unknown.

Row D, headed by Taylor, has cards (L to R) 585, 530, 560, 571, 542 plus 6 more as yet unknown.

Row E, headed by Salmon, has cards (L to R) 594, 535, 575, 580, 550, 538, 579, 537, plus 3 more as yet unknown.

Row F, headed by Mantilla, is completely known, and has cards (L to R) 557, 588, 545, 526, 589, 593, 563, 578, 548, 524, 539

Row G, headed by Shirley/Jackson rookie, has cards (L to R) 591, 540, 567, 527, 577, 596, 551, 543, plus 3 more as yet unknown.

We know that at some point within the two half sheets:
1. rows A, B, C, D, and E are in that order.
2. rows A, F, and G are in that order
3. row E is above row A at some point
4. cards 597, 592, and 549 are in the same row
5. card 533 is in column 6 and must be in either row B, C, or D and whichever row that card is located, must be above A at some point
6. card 583 is in same row (to the left of) 569, and is above the row containing card 523.
7. card 598 appears to be above card 595 and 552 is in same row as 532 (532 is left of 552)
8. card 517 is most likely at the end of a row.
9. row G is above either row B or D at some point (based on miscut 591. can't tell if color is grayish or faded red).

My guess, and it is only a guess, is that one half-sheet contains the pattern: A, B, C, D, E, A, F, G, B, C, D, E. This pattern handles items 1-3 above, plus 9 (if G is above B as I suspect). It is also the same pattern Topps used for one half-sheet in 1965 (both series 5 & 7), as well as 1967 (series 7) and 1969 (series 6).

The second half-sheet pattern must somehow incorporate 533 (meaning that row has to touch row A somewhere). Hope this helps.

rats60 · #10 07-04-2020, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

Although we do know which rows many cards are in, we do not know the specific row pattern used for the 1966 high number series. For ease of discussion, let me use the following notation: there are seven unique rows which I will label A through G.

Row A, headed by Northrup, is completely known and has cards (in order from L to R) 554, 568, 584, 581, 534, 558, 573, 536, 529, 572, 574

Row B, headed by Perranowski, has cards (L to R) 555, 562, 559, 564, 561 plus six more, as yet unknown.

Row C, headed by Hoerner rookie, has cards (L to R) 544, 565, 547, 546, 525, plus 6 more as yet unknown.

Row D, headed by Taylor, has cards (L to R) 585, 530, 560, 571, 542 plus 6 more as yet unknown.

Row E, headed by Salmon, has cards (L to R) 594, 535, 575, 580, 550, 538, 579, 537, plus 3 more as yet unknown.

Row F, headed by Mantilla, is completely known, and has cards (L to R) 557, 588, 545, 526, 589, 593, 563, 578, 548, 524, 539

Row G, headed by Shirley/Jackson rookie, has cards (L to R) 591, 540, 567, 527, 577, 596, 551, 543, plus 3 more as yet unknown.

We know that at some point within the two half sheets:
1. rows A, B, C, D, and E are in that order.
2. rows A, F, and G are in that order
3. row E is above row A at some point
4. cards 597, 592, and 549 are in the same row
5. card 533 is in column 6 and must be in either row B, C, or D and whichever row that card is located, must be above A at some point
6. card 583 is in same row (to the left of) 569, and is above the row containing card 523.
7. card 598 appears to be above card 595 and 552 is in same row as 532 (532 is left of 552)
8. card 517 is most likely at the end of a row.
9. row G is above either row B or D at some point (based on miscut 591. can't tell if color is grayish or faded red).

My guess, and it is only a guess, is that one half-sheet contains the pattern: A, B, C, D, E, A, F, G, B, C, D, E. This pattern handles items 1-3 above, plus 9 (if G is above B as I suspect). It is also the same pattern Topps used for one half-sheet in 1965 (both series 5 & 7), as well as 1967 (series 7) and 1969 (series 6).

The second half-sheet pattern must somehow incorporate 533 (meaning that row has to touch row A somewhere). Hope this helps.

Does your information so far fit with the hobby's belief of 43 (44 counting the checklist) SPs appearing on the same rows and 33 DPs on the same rows? If so, would this lead to a belief that SPs were printed 3 times on the 2 sheets and DPs 4 times?

bb66 · #11 07-04-2020, 09:19 AM

That will look great JollyElm. Great visual impact for sure.Thanks

G1911 · #12 07-04-2020, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rats60

Does your information so far fit with the hobby's belief of 43 (44 counting the checklist) SPs appearing on the same rows and 33 DPs on the same rows? If so, would this lead to a belief that SPs were printed 3 times on the 2 sheets and DPs 4 times?

What we have seen from the partial sheets and misfits does not really indicate 44 SP�a, and some of the specific alleged �SP�s� have been pretty clearly debunked, like McCovey and Williams. I would guess there are two slightly SP�d rows on a full sheet, but we can�t definitively prove any total number yet.

rats60 · #13 07-04-2020, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

What we have seen from the partial sheets and misfits does not really indicate 44 SP�a, and some of the specific alleged �SP�s� have been pretty clearly debunked, like McCovey and Williams. I would guess there are two slightly SP�d rows on a full sheet, but we can�t definitively prove any total number yet.

The math has to work out. 44 x 3 + 33 x 4 = 264. There has to be at least 3 SP rows B with Coleman, C with Hoerner and G with Jackson. If there are only 33 SPs then one of the rows, probably G would only be printed twice. If we can place #583 and #598 it would help a lot. A and D are clearly DP rows meaning that Northrup and 571 Roberts are DPs not SPs. I would tend to agree that E with Williams and McCovey is a DP row. I never felt that they were that tough. That would only leave F as an unknown row. This information shows that there are errors in the hobby's list of SPs for 1966 high numbers.

G1911 · #14 07-04-2020, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rats60

The math has to work out. 44 x 3 + 33 x 4 = 264. There has to be at least 3 SP rows B with Coleman, C with Hoerner and G with Jackson. If there are only 33 SPs then one of the rows, probably G would only be printed twice. If we can place #583 and #598 it would help a lot. A and D are clearly DP rows meaning that Northrup and 571 Roberts are DPs not SPs. I would tend to agree that E with Williams and McCovey is a DP row. I never felt that they were that tough. That would only leave F as an unknown row. This information shows that there are errors in the hobby's list of SPs for 1966 high numbers.

44x3 and 33x4 is not the only way to reach 264. I wouldn't be surprised at all if we have a situation like in 1967 with a possible 2x row. We don't have the evidence to make conclusions on how many times a row appeared at all yet, so it's just conjecture. Will be interesting to see if we can actually recreate a full sheet from this method. We can say the traditional SP list is debunked, but that's about all. We need more top/down miscuts to start working on the columns better while we hunt for the missing row cut clues.

JollyElm · #15 07-04-2020, 04:02 PM

Here's a reimagining of the images from post #20 (with additional information gleaned from other posts)...

Layout6.jpg

If anyone has groups of numbers, columns, rows, etc., you wanna see realized, shoot me the specific numbers and how they're situated.

Technical note: the images are small, because there are size constraints involved when uploading them directly from my computer. As this effort moves forward, I can always upload them to flickr and have them displayed hugely here.

Edited to add: I took some of the info posted by Kevvyg1026 to extend the rows outward.

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 02:22 PM
Topps uncut sheets	mybestbretts	Modern Baseball Cards Forum (1980-Present)	7	11-26-2014 01:30 PM
1972 Topps uncut partial sheets	SAllen2556	Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)	7	07-07-2014 12:50 PM
1955 Topps uncut sheets	chadeast	Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)	20	06-22-2012 09:52 AM
1952-60 Uncut Topps Sheets	Archive	Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)	2	01-07-2008 03:46 PM