![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thanks for those miscuts. I can't tell for certain, but the Tiger team miscut may have Perry (598) to its left. The Nicholson miscut has either Franks (537), Tebbetts (552) or a rookie card underneath it. Since we know most of the cards surrounding rookie cards (except for 549 & 553), my suspicion is that it may be Tebbetts. I believe the Mantilla card is showing the top of Shirley/Jackson card (591).
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
“interesting to some absolute garbage to others.” —- “Error cards and variations are for morons, IMHO.” |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Nice one on Perry call. Do we know who is below Tigers team? That would be next to 595 Jackson.
Last edited by stlcardsfan; 07-12-2020 at 11:23 AM. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Bob Sadowski is below the Tiger’s team card, Orlando McFarlane is to the right of the Tigers team card.
__________________
“interesting to some absolute garbage to others.” —- “Error cards and variations are for morons, IMHO.” |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Can #525 Gary Bell be placed next to #546 Siebler under Choo Choo Coleman or is it believed that there may be two separate rows with Coleman? ETA, I get it now, Bell is in the fifth spot on either the Hoerner row or the Taylor row, much more likely the Hoerner row but can't be confirmed yet.
__________________
“interesting to some absolute garbage to others.” —- “Error cards and variations are for morons, IMHO.” Last edited by Cliff Bowman; 07-12-2020 at 09:18 PM. Reason: Addition |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
There must be more than one placement of the row with Coleman on the sheet.
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I speculate that it is likely that Choo Choo (in row B, headed by Perranowski) will always be above 525 (in row C, headed by Hoerner) for all three rows in which the card appears. So, I believe it is safe to place 525 below Choo Choo. We also have a miscut with 542 (Smith) above 550 (McCovey), so it is safe to place 542 in the 5th column in row D (below Bell, 525) since McCovey is in the 5th column in row E.
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Almost positive that Bell (525) is under Choo Choo and next to Siebler while 542 (Smith) is under Bell and next to 571 (Roberts). That would put Bell in the row with Hoerner Rookie Card (what I call row C). I also suspect that Bell is always under Choo Choo in this sheet configuration.
Based on PoP reports, and the various miscut info I've seen, I suspect that the row pattern on one half-sheet was A, B, C, D, E, A, F, G, B, C, D, E while on the other is was D, E, A, F, G, B, C, D, E, A, F, G. There is evidence that suggests row B was under both row A (northrup) and row G, which is why I prefer this configuration to others. A = Northrup row B = Perranowski row C = Hoerner row D = Taylor row E = Salmon row F = Mantilla row G = Shirley (591) row. I am almost positive that the strip 582, 597, 592, 549 is in row D and finishes that row (i.e. Columns 8, 9, 10, & 11) but need to see something to the right of 582 to confirm. The 3 card sequence 598, 583, 569 is pretty much guaranteed to be in either row B (perranowski) or row C (hoerner) as is the sequence 532, 552. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
My guess would be 598 583 and 569 would be in C since the cards below have generally been considered as non SP types. To be proven out though.
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Rich
__________________
Look for our show listings in the Net 54 Calendar section |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I believe that the Perranowski row is always above the Hoerner row on both half-slits, so the Bell card can be placed in row C under Choo Choo and next to Siebler. That puts George Smith (542) next to Roberts in row D. The Smith card should be under Bell in three rows but will be at the top of the 2nd half-slit. In other words, Smith is in row D and the pattern across the two half-slits or sheets is:
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 |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Well I did an eBay canvass of the highs this AM and got some interesting results, not the least of which is that the overall eBay item count never matches the actual number of items, which was a PITA (I had the same issue with the 1967 high # count).
First, this is the count in numerical card order. The average is 35.8 of each card. I have no idea why #571 (Roberts) would be skewed so much but I checked it three times. NO COUNT 517 34 523 28 524 16 525 17 526 11 527 9 528 12 529 54 530 61 531 64 532 19 533 73 534 30 535 39 536 72 537 72 538 48 539 18 540 17 541 30 542 65 543 22 544 27 545 13 546 21 547 25 548 49 549 54 550 38 551 33 552 22 553 27 554 39 555 14 556 18 557 16 558 40 559 15 560 43 561 24 562 25 563 8 564 45 565 19 566 17 567 27 568 58 569 19 570 32 571 117 572 65 573 63 574 32 575 31 576 24 577 45 578 26 579 37 580 42 581 77 582 60 583 15 584 32 585 43 586 16 587 71 588 21 589 19 590 29 591 27 592 63 593 52 594 40 595 53 596 18 597 27 598 35 And here is the count in ascending order of the eBay count: NO COUNT 563 8 527 9 526 11 528 12 545 13 555 14 559 15 583 15 524 16 557 16 586 16 525 17 540 17 566 17 539 18 556 18 596 18 532 19 565 19 569 19 589 19 546 21 588 21 543 22 552 22 561 24 576 24 547 25 562 25 578 26 544 27 553 27 567 27 591 27 597 27 523 28 590 29 534 30 541 30 575 31 570 32 574 32 584 32 551 33 517 34 598 35 579 37 550 38 535 39 554 39 558 40 594 40 580 42 560 43 585 43 564 45 577 45 538 48 548 49 593 52 595 53 529 54 549 54 568 58 582 60 530 61 573 63 592 63 531 64 542 65 572 65 587 71 536 72 537 72 533 73 581 77 571 117 Last edited by toppcat; 07-31-2020 at 11:53 AM. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I think the Sullivan is new, the McCovey-Williams is already known but I found another example.
__________________
“interesting to some absolute garbage to others.” —- “Error cards and variations are for morons, IMHO.” |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Unless I am mistaken, it can only be Siebler, Roggenburk, or Queen to the left of Sullivan.
__________________
“interesting to some absolute garbage to others.” —- “Error cards and variations are for morons, IMHO.” Last edited by Cliff Bowman; 07-12-2020 at 06:16 PM. Reason: Added scans |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I think it has to be Roggenburk.
__________________
“interesting to some absolute garbage to others.” —- “Error cards and variations are for morons, IMHO.” |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thread # 158 and #166 queen and howser. The miscut seems the same, maybe queen is in that G row. It's always been a sleeper tough card along with 586 raymind.
|
#17
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |