That is described as the "B" sheet, which means it was on the right side of the full 264 card sheet; the "A" sheet would have been to the left, although I think they were actually printed in a horizontal orientation. Pay attention now, there will be a quiz at the end and you will have to use math! After years of relative stability in their printing patterns, Topps started mucking around with things in 1967 (Edit 5/29/19-looks like starting in 1965). Counting from 1961, the first year of expansion in baseball, their set lengths were 587, 598, 576, 587, 598, 598 again (1966), then 609, before dropping back to 598 in 1968, the final year before another MLB expansion would occur and set sizes would grow beyond anything ever seen before.
Topps also had consistently printed additional cards on each press sheet when compared to the checklist cards in this period, thereby giving the purchaser some cards from the next series plus the checklist card for the following series (in what was technically the prior series pack) and ensnaring their young consumers in a ceaseless march to the last series of the year where the extra cards and checklists would elegantly resolve. But in 1967 they changed how they did this and also went over the 600 mark for some reason, which is not entirely clear and was not supported by their being more teams or players. The was also a distribution problem with the 1967 high numbers and many locales did not receive them, especially west of the Mississippi River. Add it all up and you have a recipe for scarcity.
Now, getting back to the uncut high number sheet. While the above scan is truncated at top and bottom, if you count the descending rows and use DP for double print and SP for single print, you can label them as: DP1, DP2, DP3, DP4, DP5, DP1, SP1, SP2, DP2, DP3, DP4, DP5. The odd placement of the two SP rows has always caught my eye and led me to think something was afoot but eventually I forgot about this happenstance.
Well we have to jump ahead a few years, to when I found a list of 1967 high number DP's in The SCD/Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards. They had DP's where I had SP's. I then checked one of the Beckett books and found their list did not mesh with mine either. I e-mailed Beckett and got a response that their DP listings had been created by direct observation of a (possibly partial) uncut sheet. The source of SCD's listing was never revealed to me but it seems now it was based upon tabulation data and not an uncut sheet. It was clear though that Beckett had access to a sheet that was different than the one I had sketched out. So I created a spreadsheet to show all the possibilities and came up with something quite interesting:
|531||7TH SERIES CHECKLIST||DP|
|536||CUBS ROOKIES (J. NIEKRO)|
|542||A'S ROOKIES (MONDAY)||SP||DP||DP|
|547||RED SOX ROOKIES||SP||DP||DP|
|558||ORIOLES ROOKIES (BELANGER)||SP|
|569||A.L. ROOKIES (CAREW)||DP||DP|
|573||WHITE SOX TEAM|
|581||METS ROOKIES (SEAVER)||SP|
|598||WHITE SOX ROOKIES|
|604||RED SOX TEAM|
The 7th series checklist also appeared on the 6th series press sheet, so is more abundant in theory than any other 7th series card but we'll treat it as a true high for our exercise here today. If you look at the data you will see that 11 cards identified as short prints have no corresponding DP designator from either SCD or Beckett. Logically, these 11 cards are the true 1967 high number short prints and they are all from the row I call SP2:
553 Yankees Rookies
558 Orioles Rookies (Belanger)
581 Mets Rookies (Seaver)
603 A's Rookies
Conversely, 11 cards that are in my SP1 row are Double Prints on both the SCD and Beckett lists (I suspect #601 Bryan, a Yankee, was left off the SCD list inadvertently):
542 A's Rookies (Monday)
547 Red Sox Rookies
564 Astros Rookies
Then there is the curious case of the 11 cards shown as DP's in the other two lists and also on my sheet:
589 AL Rookies (Carew)
608 Cubs Rookies
A nice, neat 11 cards and all appearing in the row I have dubbed DP1. The next three rows (DP2, DP3, DP4) are not designated by either price guide but I have them as DP's. Beckett, if using a partial sheet, may not have caught these and SCD just doesn't mention them. I have them all as DP rows in order to make the Beckett sheet work,
Did you notice all three of these "odd" rows (DP1, SP1, DP2) appear as a single grouping on my sheet? Let's replicate them at the top of a theoretical second sheet:
Still, what of Brooks Robinson?
SCD has him as an SP and the old thoughts on Brooks were based upon a vending box hoard's yield many years ago that was shy on Brooksie's. If we presume his row (DP5 on my sheet) was not a DP row on the "Beckett" sheet, we can extrapolate the rest of the sheet:
Maybe not in that exact order and not ironclad until the second sheet turns up but the math works. This gives a final tally that you can check yourselves, of:
Rows DP1, DP2, DP3, DP4 = 4 appearances each over two sheets (16/24ths)
Row DP5 = 3 appearances over two sheets (3/24ths)
Row SP1 = 3 appearances over two sheets (3/24ths)
Row SP2 = 2 appearances over two sheets (2/24ths)
My SP rows would not have been known by Beckett, so there are now 24 rows present and accounted for! It may be disproven someday but right now I'm sticking with it. As for the promised quiz-see if you can rearrange the theoretical second sheet to match what Beckett would have seen on a partial while still maintaining consistency with the list of SP's and DP's in the full 7th series list above and then have it prove out over 24 rows.