Home› PSA Set Registry Forum

Question for the Football Guys

xbaggypantsxbaggypants Posts: 2,185 ✭✭✭
in PSA Set Registry Forum
Yesterday I got a 1963 Fleer Football #66 Chuck McMurtry PSA 7 in the mail, what is different about this card is that it is missing the Red Stripe on the back of the bottom part of the card. I knew that I had an ungraded one with the red stripe, so I checked and sure enough it did.

I did a little research and found out that any card divisable by "3" can be found with or without the red stripe. My questions is if I want to start a 63' set does PSA recognize this variation? Does PSA even know about this variation? What percentage of 63's are missing the red stripe.

Thanks in advance for your help,
Ryan
My E-Mail Address
Website

Comments

  • AkbarCloneAkbarClone Posts: 2,476 ✭✭✭
    I collect Vintage Cards, Commemorative Sets, and way too many vintage and modern player collections in Baseball (180 players), Football (175 players), and Basketball (87 players). Also have a Dallas Cowboy team collection.
  • bowdowntomebowdowntome Posts: 398
    My standard catalog states that it's the numbers divisble 4 that have the red stripe/no red stripe variety. However seeing is that they are football (and not baseball) cards, I'm sure they didn't exactly go to any lengths to check their accuracy.

    The yalso state that the no stripe varieties are the harder of the 2 to find, but that there is no added value. I'm assuming it's simply because there is no collector interest.

    As far as PSA goes, IMO they should, at least for their "master sets", be listing all known variations, that goes for catalogs as well.

    Collectors depend on the informatino in the catalogs, when information is absent the collector loses out.

    I previously wasn't aware of these varieties in this set, but now that I know, it gives me a reason to persue the set. It's one of the few sets I had no interest in previously, but I'm a sucker for varieties, so....


    Forgot to mention, out of the few 63's I own, I have #40, 68, an 84 without the stripe, but that's it.
    Football collector 1948-1995, Rams oddball cards & memorabilia, Diamond match.
    Cataloging all those pesky, unlisted 1963 Topps football color variations Updated 2/13/05
    image
  • wolfbearwolfbear Posts: 2,759 ✭✭✭

    Just to show an example of what's being discussed here :

    image

    image

    The fronts are the same and only the cards with a number divisable by 4 can be found without the red stripe.

    The sheets had 132 cards on them with 11 cards across and 12 cards down.
    The 4th, 8th, and 12th rows only had cards with numbers divisable by 4 in them,
    so the stripe must have be left off one of those rows which would make it 50 / 50 whether or not the card has the stripe.




    Pix of 'My Kids'

    "How about a little fire Scarecrow ?"
  • xbaggypantsxbaggypants Posts: 2,185 ✭✭✭
    Bow and Wolf,

    Thanks for the input and scan. I have about 200 fleer football cards and only 2 of them don't have the stripe, which makes me believe that they are more scarce.


    Thanks,
    Ryan
    My E-Mail Address
    Website
  • 2dueces2dueces Posts: 6,522 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Good information guys. I have a set registered (twodueces1963) and found I have 5 cards without the strip. The Kemp and Blanda being the highest profile of them. I'm looking to sell or trade the Kemp (PSA 6). WOnder if this variation would bring enough to upgrade to a 7. BTW, I have some dups in 6' and 9OC.s that Iwould also trade + cash to update the set. I also have 2 SGC's in 84 (7) for trades. LMK

    twodueces22@yahoo.com
    W.C.Fields
    "I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
  • 2dueces2dueces Posts: 6,522 ✭✭✭✭✭
    BTW Xbaggypants has a #66 without the stripe...That is not divisable by 4. All my cards are divisable by 3 and 4 so 3 seems to be the #?
    W.C.Fields
    "I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
  • xbaggypantsxbaggypants Posts: 2,185 ✭✭✭


    << <i>Good information guys. I have a set registered (twodueces1963) and found I have 5 cards without the strip. The Kemp and Blanda being the highest profile of them. I'm looking to sell or trade the Kemp (PSA 6). WOnder if this variation would bring enough to upgrade to a 7. BTW, I have some dups in 6' and 9OC.s that Iwould also trade + cash to update the set. I also have 2 SGC's in 84 (7) for trades. LMK

    twodueces22@yahoo.com >>



    Please email with your Oakland Raiders Dupes list when you get a chance. xbaggypants@yahoo.com

    Cheers,
    Ryan
    My E-Mail Address
    Website
  • FuzzFuzz Posts: 903
    Books all say divisible by "4" but not sure deeply they have checked the info.
    I have numerous of these graded and am slowly working on a "Master set" in 8+. I believe that all of mine are divisible by four but will check. Would love to get info on any that are not.
    I wrote to Joe and ask if this is a recognized variety and he checked into it and responded " not at this time". A few more requests could change his answer???? Will finish my set one way or the other.
    Ryan, where did your "by 3" info come from?
    Fuzz
    PS. 88 is not divisible by 3 so the mystery deepens.
    Wanted: Bell Brands FB and BB, Chiefs regionals especially those ugly milk cards, Coke caps, Topps and Fleer inserts and test issues from the 60's. 1981 FB Rack pack w/ Jan Stenerud on top.
  • wolfbearwolfbear Posts: 2,759 ✭✭✭

    Okay, I just went through 211 cards from 1963 Fleer.

    Found 30 cards without the stripe and they were all divisable by 4.
    Of the 54 cards I have with numbers divisable by four, 24 had the stripe and 30 didn't,
    so I'd have to say that neither variation is rarer than the other and therefore not really of much interest.

    The 1963 Topps football issue with variations in color of the picture on the front,
    with one type being much rarer than the other is the kind of variation that collectors can sink their teeth into.



    Pix of 'My Kids'

    "How about a little fire Scarecrow ?"
  • xbaggypantsxbaggypants Posts: 2,185 ✭✭✭


    << <i>Ryan, where did your "by 3" info come from?
    Fuzz
    PS. 88 is not divisible by 3 so the mystery deepens. >>



    Hey Fuzz,

    It came from an old beckett price guide, however I could be a misprint as I how now seen articles saying "4", but still 66 can not be divided by 4.????

    Ryan
    My E-Mail Address
    Website
Sign In or Register to comment.