Reconstructing the 1963 Topps 6th and 7th Series Sheets

[Kevvyg1026]

Found this miscut on ebay. Shows that Monboquette is either above or below a team card. The only possibilities are: 473 Mets team (red banner, green inset) or 503 Braves team (yellow banner, blue inset). The other team card in the series, Indians team (451), has already been established as being in the same row as Monboquette.

I believe that may alter some of the potential layouts that were discussed earlier.

1963_480.jpg

[bb66]

Kudos to Cliff and Kevvyg for more great detective work. Very impressive--thanks. Following this closely!

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

Found this miscut on ebay. Shows that Monboquette is either above or below a team card. The only possibilities are: 473 Mets team (red banner, green inset) or 503 Braves team (yellow banner, blue inset). The other team card in the series, Indians team (451), has already been established as being in the same row as Monboquette.

I believe that may alter some of the potential layouts that were discussed earlier.

Attachment 429397

I don't know how you find these scans, I can't find that Monbouquette anywhere. If you have a scenario where the blue based/red circle row abuts into the red based/green circle row then it would work out with the Monbouquette and the Mets team card each being the second card in each respective row or the tenth card in each respective row if the two rows are flipped over.

[Kevvyg1026]

Unfortunately, for me at least, I was furloughed for Covid-related reasons, so I spend most of my available time searching for such things. Lol

[Kevvyg1026]

I noticed in an earlier post that you had placed the Tigers team (552) as well as the Murtaugh card (559) in the Reg banner-green inset row. I believe that forces the Gary Peters RC (522) to be a Red banner yellow inset card in order for there to be 11 of each flavor. This would also put the Peters card above a red-green card.

[Kevvyg1026]

In an earlier post, you referred to a recurring print defect which affects multiple cards in the yellow banner blue inset row. Can you describe what that is ?

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

In an earlier post, you referred to a recurring print defect which affects multiple cards in the yellow banner blue inset row. Can you describe what that is ?

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=213736

[Kevvyg1026]

Thank you, I found it just a little bit ago.

I also found a reference to a wrong back Crandal/Regan in that messageboard. That allows me to place both in C6, which then allows me to put tartabull in C2 and daniels in C7. So, I believe the R/Y, R/G, and Y/R strings are now complete.

The Y/B line is missing the placement of two cards (C7 & C10) with the two cards being 450 & 454.

Finally, the WB of Tartabull (449) and Worthington (556) probably allows you to place 556 in C10 of the R/G line for Series 7.

[Kevvyg1026]

Using a pattern of R/Y, R/G UD, B/R, B/O UD, Y/B, and Y/R UD then a repeat of that pattern to fill out the slit, we can have Monbo (480) below the Mets team (473) and above Neal (511) in C10 of the slit, which matches what we know about miscuts on both top & bottom of Monbo, as well as the left (490) and right (451) of the Monbo card.

So
C1 has 431, 469, 502, 485, 456, 466 (then repeats),
C2 has 460, 487, 462, 483, 448, 486,:
C10 has 479, 473, 480, 511, xx, 494 and
C11 has 496, 501, 451, 455, 505, and 509.

This accounts for all the wrong backs correctly.

The xx in C10 has to be either 454 or 450 since all the other Y/B cards have their wrong backs accounted for (i.e., we know all R/G & Y/B wrong backs except for the R/G 487 & 471, and Y/B 450 & 454). If 487 is in C2, then either 450 or 454 must be in C10.

[Cliff Bowman]

While searching for miscut 1963 cards for this thread, Kevvyg1026 found this interesting sheet edge card of the Marcelino Lopez four player rookie card with printed words on the edge. I'm guessing it has something to do with cutting the sheet, at first I thought it said SIDE DOWN and GUTTER but looking at it again I think it is something else.