1972 Topps High Number Printing Question...

[JollyElm]

I'm slowly piecing together a 1972 Topps high number run in PSA 9* and want to make sure the #604 Checklist (for such a groovy set, the checklists were really a drag, man) that was printed along with them on the sheets is included. There are two versions of said checklist, where basically the copyright on back is either on the left-hand side or towards the center/right side. My notes indicate that it is most likely the left side version, but can anyone specifically verify that??

• Perhaps it's also possible that the print sheet layouts contained both versions?? And/or maybe the previous series' sheets also contained each version?? (See how deep this rabbit hole goes???)

• In looking quickly at the POP reports, there are slightly less left-side cards than right-side in high grade, which would logically point to them being a part of the 'rarer' high series, but that doesn't really answer the question.

• A quick search on ebay for "1972 Topps 604 PSA" comes back with basically 8 hits, and 7 of them are left side copyrights, which is odd. For sold auctions, four of the five cards were left siders.

• My image searches were fruitless. Is there a high numbers full sheet picture out there somewhere that shows the backs?

Anybody know for certain what the answer (if there actually is a certain answer) is to this riddle??


*If you have any to trade or possibly sell, hit me up and I'll send you my need list. Have quite a few PSA 8 and 9's to trade.

[Kevvyg1026]

These are the only partials I've seen.

1972-topps-baseball-uncut-sheet-21_1_a8e31e794f188ff85cd9d91918a065f5.jpg

1972-1.jpg

134450309_1972-topps-high-number-uncut-baseball-sheet-w-754-frank-.jpg

72carew.jpg

1437-1972-topps-sixth-series-uncut-sheet.jpg

[Kevvyg1026]

Found this back scan of the 1972 6th series printing.

1972_series_6_checklist_back.jpg

[JollyElm]

(Said in Charles Montgomery Burns' voice) Excellent!!
Thanks for that! If nothing else, it verifies that at least some of the checklists in the run had the copyright on the left. Wish there were more pieces around to see if the other checklists on the sheets had the same layout.

[Kevvyg1026]

Here's a miscut checklist

1972_604_782.jpg

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

Here's a miscut checklist

Attachment 428361

You and your 1966 High Number brethren are the Lords of the Miscuts!! Ha ha!!
That one (like the uncut sheet section) also has #782 Larry Stahl next to it. Now we just need to find other high numbers abutting a checklist **or actually semi-high cards abutting #604 to see where the copyright is** to drive this quest forward.

[JollyElm]

I believe logic dictates that we have at least a partial answer to the problem. The high number series is from #657-787, which encompasses 131 cards. Add in the #604 checklist (because, unlike the earlier series, the high numbers only included one checklist) and that makes it the standard number of 132 different cards that Topps usually printed in a series at the time (two of each for a total of 264).

When I look at all of the images of uncut full and partial 1972 sheets I've collected over the years, one thing is perfectly clear. Like other years, each individual card is always located next to the same card on the print sheets. Therefore, each series checklist is next to the same cards in the two places it occupies on those sheets. So, if #604 (left side copyright) in next to #782, it will always be found next to #782. The (probable) conclusion is only the #604 (left side copyright) was printed with the high numbers. Of course, we can't actually verify that the backs of the cards had no differences, but it seems likely they did not. We still don't know whether or not the semi-high series had both checklist copyright versions.

Here are some of the images I've accumulated...

1972 Topps Uncut series1 Full Sheet.jpg

1972 Topps Uncut series2 Half Sheet.jpg

1972-Topps-Uncut-series5-Half-Sheet01.jpg1972-Topps-Uncut-series5-Half-Sheet02.jpg

[toppcat]

What's on the semi-high sheets for the high # checklist?

[ALBB]

wow, way back in the day that 1972 T Carew was such a hot card !...everybody needed it..price was crazy....and the Garvey a little bit too

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by toppcat

What's on the semi-high sheets for the high # checklist?

If you look at the last two images I posted, those are the semi-high sheets, going up to #656 Rudy May.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

If you look at the last two images I posted, those are the semi-high sheets, going up to #656 Rudy May.

I was thinking of the reverses but I missed your images the first time. Checklists are never consistent with Topps, I suspect they got glossed over a little in proofreading.

[Kevvyg1026]

It is still possible that the 6th checklist, printed in the 5th printing run, had the copyright placed differently than the one printed in the 6th print run. Can't tell unless we see the back of that sheet which was posted.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

It is still possible that the 6th checklist, printed in the 5th printing run, had the copyright placed differently than the one printed in the 6th print run. Can't tell unless we see the back of that sheet which was posted.

Yeah, that's the very essence of my question. We know that two #604 checklists were printed on the semi-high sheets and two were printed on the high sheets. We know there are two different versions of the checklist (copyright on the left and copyright on the right), and now we are sure some (if not all) of the left-side copyright checklists were printed on the high sheets.

Here's what we still need to know...

• Were only left-side checklists printed on the high number sheets, and only right-side checklists printed on the semi-high number sheets?

• Were both left-side and right-side versions of the checklist printed on the high number sheets?

• Were both left-side and right-side versions of the checklist printed on the semi-high number sheets?

• Were both left-side and right-side versions of the checklist printed on only one of the sheets (semi-high or high) but NOT on the other?

[deweyinthehall]

Not on subject per se, but I'm not able to see the images which are posted in this thread (yes, I'm logged in). It shows a little image of what looks like a torn photo with a alpha-numeric description of the image, but no image. Images are coming through clearly on other threads. Help? Would really love to be able to see these pics.

[jchcollins]

Very interesting. I'm slowly doing the '72 set. Don't have a ton of high numbers yet, though I have one hell of a nice Hoyt Wilhelm.

[Malibu39]

If I might ask about High Numbers in general, were they really produced in smaller quantities or harder to obtain? or is it a myth that gives fodder to people who want to sell them for more than Lower Numbers?

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Malibu39

If I might ask about High Numbers in general, were they really produced in smaller quantities or harder to obtain? or is it a myth that gives fodder to people who want to sell them for more than Lower Numbers?

It's definitely a reality for sure. As the baseball season wound down that year and kids got ready to return to school, the natural evolution was to start craving the new football, basketball and hockey cards as those seasons dawned. Retailers would move the baseball card boxes to the storeroom to make room for the other sports. Combine that with Topps producing less of that final series, and you have many, many fewer highs than their lower number counterparts. When I was younger and looking at my friends collections of really old cards, most of the time their 1972 piles stopped at #656. No high numbers at all.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Malibu39

If I might ask about High Numbers in general, were they really produced in smaller quantities or harder to obtain? or is it a myth that gives fodder to people who want to sell them for more than Lower Numbers?

I don't know about actual production from year to year, that probably varied, but certainly in terms of distribution, yes - the high numbers were generally less available. Some years are worse than others, and in general I think some high numbers are more mythical than expensive. For example, '72 Topps aren't horrible, I don't think. The Carew is expensive, but still highly desirable Traded cards such as Morgan and Carlton aren't, really - even in nicer shape. I've never understood that. Compare that to just two years earlier, where the 1970 #712 Nolan Ryan is a card that can always be counted on to have a hefty price tag, even in midgrade and lower - (as well as the #660 Bench).

Besides the infamous '52 Topps set, I think most collectors would agree that the '66 and '67 sets have the toughest high numbers. Even commons there in nice shape can go for fairly ridiculous prices. But compare those to say, 1961 or 1963 Topps - and the earlier cards aren't really that bad. Even the '61 Topps All Stars for the most part aren't super expensive, and they are all high numbers.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

I don't know about actual production from year to year, that probably varied, but certainly in terms of distribution, yes - the high numbers were generally less available. Some years are worse than others, and in general I think some high numbers are more mythical than expensive. For example, '72 Topps aren't horrible, I don't think. The Carew is expensive, but still highly desirable Traded cards such as Morgan and Carlton aren't, really - even in nicer shape. I've never understood that. Compare that to just two years earlier, where the 1970 #712 Nolan Ryan is a card that can always be counted on to have a hefty price tag, even in midgrade and lower - (as well as the #660 Bench).

Besides the infamous '52 Topps set, I think most collectors would agree that the '66 and '67 sets have the toughest high numbers. Even commons there in nice shape can go for fairly ridiculous prices. But compare those to say, 1961 or 1963 Topps - and the earlier cards aren't really that bad. Even the '61 Topps All Stars for the most part aren't super expensive, and they are all high numbers.

Putting aside condition, of the 70-71-72 high's, 72's are the hardest in my experience.

[Chicosbailbonds]

Originally Posted by toppcat

Putting aside condition, of the 70-71-72 high's, 72's are the hardest in my experience.

72's hardest of the three in general, conditionwise - 71's. Amazing how many miscut cards there were in the 71 set.