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

[BillP]

ok, now the tough part. what card on the back has that size salmon color.

[Kevvyg1026]

That checklist card may be from the 6th series printing as it shows White Sox

[Cliff Bowman]

It is undoubtedly an edge card on the right side, either the fourth and twelfth row or just the eighth row. I thought about buying the card to get an exact measurement of the salmon ink area but the seller wants $18.50 for that card. Is it possibly from the 6th series sheet rather than the 7th series sheet? Has it been established which one has White Sox and which one has W. Sox?

[Kevvyg1026]

I am almost positive that White Sox is 6th series and W.Sox is 7th series.

Also, the Piersall card is in column 2 of the sheet, so it must be above either 568, 588, 540, 562, 530, or 535 and not above Dick Green. I lean towards either 568 or 588. And if it's 568, then that means another miscut (Adair above R Sox rookies) can locate Adair in column 6 of the Hoerner row.

[Kevvyg1026]

We do not know the row location of the following cards: 517, 523, 528, 531, 532, 538, 541, 549, 552, 553, 556, 566, 569, 570, 576, 582, 583, 586, 587, 590, 592, 595, 597, or 598.

We do know:
a. 598 is above 595
b. 597, 592, 549 are in same row
c. 517 should be at end of row
d. 532 and 552 are in same row
e. 583 and 569 are in same row, while 583 and 523 are in same column
f. we know every card in columns 1 through 5 for all seven rows.

Very helpful finds would include:
a. cards to right of 561, 533, 542, 537, 543, 598, 595 or
b. above 533, 538, 579, 537
c. left of 517, 598, 595, 583, 597
d. below Northrup row but excluding Mantilla row. In other words, we already know 558 borders 593, 573/563, 536/578, 529/548, 572/524, and 574/539 but other combos would be helpful.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

Also, the Piersall card is in column 2 of the sheet, so it must be above either 568, 588, 540, 562, 530, or 535 and not above Dick Green. I lean towards either 568 or 588. And if it's 568, then that means another miscut (Adair above R Sox rookies) can locate Adair in column 6 of the Hoerner row.

You’re right, the trees from the Green card that my eyes were seeing is actually chipping on the black border line. I kept having the same problem looking at 1963 cards, chipping on the black border lines on the edges of miscut cards. I shouldn’t have posted that one.

[Kevvyg1026]

This is why I think the White Sox variation is the 6th series printing (in addition to the available quantity) and why I believe W. Sox variation is at far right of sheet.517_edge.jpg

517_maked_2.jpg

517_MARKED_1.jpg

[Kevvyg1026]

any guesses? Sorry, but it's the best image I could get556.JPG

[Kevvyg1026]

Any guesses?MC_29.jpg

[Cliff Bowman]

Boy, do I feel like an idiot now. I didn’t join this thread until halfway through, but I should have looked through it carefully from the start. I didn’t realize there were scans of all of those partial sheets in posts 20-22 and 25, it would have made a world of difference in what I have looked for and what I have posted. Oh well.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

Boy, do I feel like an idiot now. I didn’t join this thread until halfway through, but I should have looked through it carefully from the start. I didn’t realize there were scans of all of those partial sheets in posts 20-22 and 25, it would have made a world of difference in what I have looked for and what I have posted. Oh well.

Don’t! Thank you for your work here, you’ve found more than the rest of us have combined in like 3 years sign I started this thread lol.

We are getting close to piecing together a sheet I think, not just what the rows were.


Also:
On eBay there is a 591 Jackson with the back of 406 Joe Jay. 406 is a 5th series card of course, but if a sheet was ran with the series 7 fronts and the series 5 backs (using a half printed 5 sheet as scrap for testing?), and a series 5 sheet is known, it could indicate where on the sheet one of Jackson’s appearances was.

I have a 406 Jay somewhere that is wildly miscut and shows it was a border card at bottom, and I think left corner. I will dig out tomorrow and share here, but thus may be more evidence to support our hypothesis that a Jackson was a bottom row corner card

[Kevvyg1026]

All the miscuts you have posted are helpful; sometime a miscut will appear that has a different card touching (top or bottom) which helps establish the actual row patterns in different sheet locations or can help identify other pieces of info.

Knowing that Perry is above Jackson is useful even though we don't know which of two rows to put them yet as is knowing that Tigers team is next to McFarlane, and it's above Sadowski.

I strongly suspect that we will discover that the SPs listed in the price guides are not completely correct and certainly do not correspond with what the sheet patterns reveal.

Just like what was discovered with the 6th and 7th series 63s, lots of digging, logic, and analysis is required in order to determine what Topps actually did, even though what is discovered may go against what the hobby and/or hobby guides have used for the past 30 years or so.

I hope to do the same for the second half-sheet of 67s and 65s as well in the near future.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

All the miscuts you have posted are helpful; sometime a miscut will appear that has a different card touching (top or bottom) which helps establish the actual row patterns in different sheet locations or can help identify other pieces of info.

Knowing that Perry is above Jackson is useful even though we don't know which of two rows to put them yet as is knowing that Tigers team is next to McFarlane, and it's above Sadowski.

I strongly suspect that we will discover that the SPs listed in the price guides are not completely correct and certainly do not correspond with what the sheet patterns reveal.

Just like what was discovered with the 6th and 7th series 63s, lots of digging, logic, and analysis is required in order to determine what Topps actually did, even though what is discovered may go against what the hobby and/or hobby guides have used for the past 30 years or so.

I hope to do the same for the second half-sheet of 67s and 65s as well in the near future.

You guys are crowdsourcing these high number arrays! I'd like to work on the B slit 1967 hi# sheet myself, will start a thread as first three rows are already known.

[toppcat]

Sorry, moved it, not sure what happened. See new thread!

[bb66]

Thanks again to Cliff,Kevvy,BillP,G1911,jmoran,stlcardsfan,toppcat ,and other contributors.Great job.

[G1911]

Oh so very close....

[BillP]

Guys, I'm a bit behind on the half sheet part of the discussion. Supposedly there is a 132 card sheet of which I've been working on the 1st card in the row sequence and come up with 11 of those rows ( I believe), not sure on the 12th. Why again does there have to be another sheet or half sheet?

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by BillP

Guys, I'm a bit behind on the half sheet part of the discussion. Supposedly there is a 132 card sheet of which I've been working on the 1st card in the row sequence and come up with 11 of those rows ( I believe), not sure on the 12th. Why again does there have to be another sheet or half sheet?

Topps printed two half sheets for each sheet in each series from 1952 until god knows when, Slit A and Slit B, even if the half sheets matched. Most standard size cards were done this way, including other sports and some if not all Non-Sports. 100 card slit from 1952-54, 110 from 1955-56 then 132 from 1957 on. After series-by-series distribution ended in 1973-74, the * and ** sheets still indicate there are two half sheets per "setup".

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BillP

Guys, I'm a bit behind on the half sheet part of the discussion. Supposedly there is a 132 card sheet of which I've been working on the 1st card in the row sequence and come up with 11 of those rows ( I believe), not sure on the 12th. Why again does there have to be another sheet or half sheet?

All the Topps sheets of this era were 264 cards. In the middle of a 264 sheet, there was a white gap; the first thing done after printing was to cut the sheet into two halves for easier handling (at least, I presume this was why, and why most uncut sheets surviving are really half sheets). Each of these half sheets would have 12 rows of 11 cards per row, 132 per half. In some years, we know that the two half sheets that made up one fully printed sheet did not have the same rows in the same places; usually done to balance things out and prevent or limit SP cards, presumably. At this point, I don't think we really have the evidence to say whether both halves were the same or different for 1966, just yet. So, there definitely were 2 half sheets, but it's possible they do directly mirror each other and are the same. More top/bottom miscuts should help us eventually solve this part of the puzzle, if we can keep turning them up.

This has become a great thread gentlemen, thank you all for crowdsourcing this and combining everything together


EDIT: Writing while Toppcat was replying too; what he said!

[BillP]

Originally Posted by toppcat

Topps printed two half sheets for each sheet in each series from 1952 until god knows when, Slit A and Slit B, even if the half sheets matched. Most standard size cards were done this way, including other sports and some if not all Non-Sports. 100 card slit from 1952-54, 110 from 1955-56 then 132 from 1957 on. After series-by-series distribution ended in 1973-74, the * and ** sheets still indicate there are two half sheets per "setup".

thx, so each sheet is 6 rows by 11 columns. Interesting. No I have to revisit the miscuts to see who is on top of who for the half sheet sequencing.

[stlcardsfan]

I was looking at that Howser yesterday on EBay. (As an aside, I tried and failed miserably to post it here. I need to watch you guys for 5 minutes to see how you do it so easily. But I digress). Anyway, It is really hard to tell what is going on with that Howser, but it almost looks like it could be the 575 Jackson below it. Which we determined is definitely under the Perry card. Maybe a different half sheet?

[Kevvyg1026]

No. Each half sheet has 12 rows x 11 columns 132 cards on each half sheet. 264 total

[JollyElm]

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]

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

[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.

[rats60]

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]

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

[BillP]

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!

[G1911]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[JollyElm]

And another...

Attachment 409012

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

[Kevvyg1026]

The McCovey 4 card strip shown in layout 6 is adjacent to the B Williams card shown in layout 1. Card 561 (Choo Choo) can be placed next to Bob Chance, also shown in layout 1.

[Kevvyg1026]

Howser is in column 3 and therefore must touch (be above) one of the following:584, 559, 547, 560, 575, or 545

[JollyElm]

Does this work?

Layout4.jpg

I continued the Northrup row, too.

[Kevvyg1026]

Awesome. The two cards between McCovey & Choo Choo are 523 and 542. However, we do not have confirmation yet of which goes where, although I suspect that the proper order is Choo Choo, 523, 542, McCovey.

[Kevvyg1026]

sorry, meant 525, not 523 under choo choo

typing skills directly affected by amount of coffee consumed before-hand

[Kevvyg1026]

any guesses?1966-Topps-Set-Break-553-Rookie-Stars-VG-VGEX.jpg

[BillP]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

any guesses?Attachment 408418

Non SP in my opinion. that my start. Scoured ebay for 2 hrs yesterday and only came up with 532 to the left of 552 which we already had.

[Kevvyg1026]

Here's 597 miscut. I think it is 582 to its left but I am open toAttachment 408753 other possibilities. We now that 597, 592, and 549 are in the same row.

[Kevvyg1026]

Attachment 408754

[BillP]

Great find. I consider all of these as non sp's until proven wrong. Agree on 582 roggenburk to the left. Not to many blue base cards in the 7th series.

[Kevvyg1026]

I suspect that all four are in the row headed by Taylor. It would be great to find a miscut (or 2-3) that identifies the cards above/below these four.

[Cliff Bowman]

.

[Kevvyg1026]

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).

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

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).

I think you nailed it as Perry, matches up perfectly.

[stlcardsfan]

Nice one on Perry call. Do we know who is below Tigers team? That would be next to 595 Jackson.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

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).

That would make sense. Those were always 2 of the toughest cards in the set. Now to figure out what row they were in.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by stlcardsfan

Nice one on Perry call. Do we know who is below Tigers team? That would be next to 595 Jackson.

Bob Sadowski is below the Tiger’s team card, Orlando McFarlane is to the right of the Tigers team card.