1967 Topps High Numbers

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by toppcat

I ran the rows again less the highest pop card in each (and took out #531 checklist from Row E in addition as it's also printed with the semi-highs) and got this:

-HIGHEST
A 70
B 21
C 24
D 21
E 24 ALSO LESS #531 CHECKLIST
F 32
G 23

The Row A 5x, Row F 4x and the rest 3x looks like it works for sure, it's just not confirmable really. The bottom seven rows may just be in alphabetical order starting with A and putting G on the bottom. Why certain rows have tougher cards in some areas may be a quirk of the distribution. I suspect one of the A rows (likely the top one as Topps often used edges of sheets to make subs that don' "fit") on the partial sheet was meant to be something else. That would have left us with a 4x * 3 + 3x * 4=24 rows setup likely as planned if all my math is correct. Why the B (Shannon) and D (Alomar) rows remain slightly less available is beyond me though but they seem to be tougher based on comments here, so I think a production issue still could have been in play.

I think your final hypotheses makes sense. We'll also never know for sure if sheets are different from vend unless we find another vend case running around. IMHO the 11 magical triple print cards is a lock

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

I think your final hypotheses makes sense. We'll also never know for sure if sheets are different from vend unless we find another vend case running around. IMHO the 11 magical triple print cards is a lock

A mortal lock I'd say!

It would be interesting if only one slit was used for vending and another for retail in '67. I'm not sure that's how it went down at all (and it likely didn't) but it would be interesting.

[Kevvyg1026]

If you perform a statistical analysis on the POP numbers for rows B, C, D, E, & G (using the averages and standard deviation values), you will find that they are the same with a 98% confidence interval whereas A & F are definitely different. I did that analysis a month ago as well, and found the same thing.

Although the POP numbers can vary from week to week, if enough sampling is done over a long period of time, the correct pattern should emerge, so I plan to continue that analysis in order to ascertain the pattern.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

If you perform a statistical analysis on the POP numbers for rows B, C, D, E, & G (using the averages and standard deviation values), you will find that they are the same with a 98% confidence interval whereas A & F are definitely different. I did that analysis a month ago as well, and found the same thing.

Although the POP numbers can vary from week to week, if enough sampling is done over a long period of time, the correct pattern should emerge, so I plan to continue that analysis in order to ascertain the pattern.

I was actually gonna futz around with a standard deviation calculation this evening, you have saved me a step. A is just bizarre, any way you look at it.

[Kevvyg1026]

If a miscut from row E could be found that was above row F, then the pattern on the 2nd slit would probably be A, F, A, F, G, A, B, C, D, E, F, G.

However, in the absence of such a miscut, I still think the most likely pattern is A, F, A, F, G, B, C, D, E, A, F, G.

Either way, row A shows up 5x, row F 4x, and all others 3x across the two slits.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

If a miscut from row E could be found that was above row F, then the pattern on the 2nd slit would probably be A, F, A, F, G, A, B, C, D, E, F, G.

However, in the absence of such a miscut, I still think the most likely pattern is A, F, A, F, G, B, C, D, E, A, F, G.

Either way, row A shows up 5x, row F 4x, and all others 3x across the two slits.

Yeah, the distribution seems solved, now just the array remains on Slit A. I guess they could have just replicated the array at the bottom of Slit B as well:

A
F
G
B
C
D
E

I'd wager cards that have issues in some iterations (Seaver Rookie tilt) and not in others could eventually be traced back to specific sheet locations but that is totally Mission Impossible.

[cardsagain74]

Do you guys know if the Seaver card was somehow cut a little short? It seems smaller than the Carew and pretty much everything else from the set (even when I look at graded ones).

Though my eyes could be playing tricks on me

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

Do you guys know if the Seaver card was somehow cut a little short? It seems smaller than the Carew and pretty much everything else from the set (even when I look at graded ones).

Though my eyes could be playing tricks on me

Seaver has many issues, and just spitballing here, if he was in a bottom row, a short or odd cut could be possible. Have you observed any other cards in his row that are cut short or just his (sounds like just his)?