tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27257197959732447.post8558961386376672559..comments2024-03-24T16:08:17.795-04:00Comments on The Topps Archives: Who Ya Callin' Short?!toppcathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10698182920578539949noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27257197959732447.post-59051353927050336082012-03-25T22:33:23.966-04:002012-03-25T22:33:23.966-04:00I don't remember getting any cards from the ne...I don't remember getting any cards from the next (or previous) series when buying Topps cards in 1967, 68, and 69 (and I bought a LOT of them). <br /><br />You may be referring to the following series' checklist, but each checklist (except the 1st) was actually part of the previous series.Jim from Downingtownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01537007940455183397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27257197959732447.post-43846823645335006452012-01-09T19:59:43.183-05:002012-01-09T19:59:43.183-05:00Rich-thanks for commenting. If you had DP's on...Rich-thanks for commenting. If you had DP's on the "Beckett" sheet and the other sheet (let's call it the "blog" sheet) had corresponding SP's, then that is a minimum of three appearances over the two sheets for the cards in the SP1 row on the blog sheet. The Pinson row (DP1 on the blog sheet) has the 11 cards Beckett and SCD have as DP's without any corresponding SP on the other sheet, so four appearances for that row over both sheets would certainly produce an abundance of cards. Still, there seems to be some other interplay at work. I don't suppose any of the Beckett sheet rows appeared three times? That would help explain this whole SP/DP thing I believe.toppcathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10698182920578539949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27257197959732447.post-50318322564260308132012-01-08T23:25:21.822-05:002012-01-08T23:25:21.822-05:00This is Rich Klein, not only did we have access to...This is Rich Klein, not only did we have access to a sheet at Beckett, but in my dealing days I dealt with a ton of 67 Hi #'s <br /><br />For whatever reason, the cards Beckett listed as a DP were always easily available and I could never sell them unlike most of the rest of the 67's.<br /><br />Cards such as Vada Pinson,,,,, were also 11-22 cards that so many dealers would advertise tons available for sale.<br /><br />I think we can continue learning about these cards but I'd wager that if you asked any dealers with a 67 Hi # stock, the cards Beckett lists as DP is what they have overages of in stock.Rich Kleinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27257197959732447.post-61843051040372103262012-01-06T13:01:16.243-05:002012-01-06T13:01:16.243-05:00Thank you for providing so much information on the...Thank you for providing so much information on these hard-to-find cards. Are you saying rows DP5 and SP1 are actually 1.5 prints? What card numbers are in DP5?Randyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03114476992905439860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27257197959732447.post-13813489624414408422012-01-06T12:04:43.739-05:002012-01-06T12:04:43.739-05:00Hi, Dave from Dave's Vintage Baseball cards, ...Hi, Dave from Dave's Vintage Baseball cards, and we carry hundreds of these hi numbers.<br />So my confusing question would be, if/is there a "a" sheet that we have not seen and it has different rows or number of rows of the high numbers, how could you determine what the short prints are without access to both sheets?<br />This could explain why one company could call something a short print or double print in contrast to your sheet. Certainly some cards seem to be very difficult to obtain, but without seeing the entire 264 card layout how can you officially label anything single or double printed?david levinhttps://www.gfg.com/baseball/astar67.shtmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27257197959732447.post-70450086848003253302012-01-05T13:17:54.898-05:002012-01-05T13:17:54.898-05:00Fascinating research, and I am also greatly intere...Fascinating research, and I am also greatly interested in the sheet layouts. Recall Rich Klein formerly of beckett commented that they did indeed have access to a sheet.<br /><br />What I don't get is why would beckett report DP for only 22 of the cards? Given your proposed layout of the beckett sheet, (and i don't disagree with it) i would expect them to say that there would have been DP on every card on DP1, DP2, DP3, DP4, and SP1, with single prints for SP2 and DP5.<br /><br />At that timeframe (late 70s/80s) did we/they yet realize that A and B sheets were different? I think we can assume they did not know this since they would base their DP monikers based on evidence from a single sheet.<br /><br />The only explanation that makes sense is they only had a partial sheet and that partial sheet must have shown 2 rows for SP1 and DP1, and just some other rows, but not enough of a full sheet to show the dupe rows for DP2,3,4.<br /><br />Their partial may have shown dp5 or sp2, but not enough of a sheet for them to know that they were truly short printed.<br /><br />great work as always!Jim Parkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08258744000497905468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27257197959732447.post-79675543272570468162011-12-30T17:01:22.312-05:002011-12-30T17:01:22.312-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jim from Downingtownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01537007940455183397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27257197959732447.post-12802884182214826982011-12-29T12:30:56.093-05:002011-12-29T12:30:56.093-05:00Great work, as usual! Wish I had time to tackle th...Great work, as usual! Wish I had time to tackle the sheet rearranging. :-)<br /><br />And that Mickey Stanley card...brr. He's a tough gent to track down.Matthew Gliddenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00058637926401334906noreply@blogger.com