Agreed, interesting article and had never seen anything 'official', though had noticed they were more than luck of the draw.
I think Fleer used a pretty similar system to the 'new' Topps scheme as well. Not sure exactly how many, but Barry Larkin is #11 in a lot of their sets. I think Topps may have been following this on some of their smaller and/or oddball sets as well. Larkin was #11 on 1989 Mini Leaders, 1990 Sticker Backs, 1993 Topps Gold, 1991 Cracker Jack, etc., far too many for it to just be coincidence.
Supporting the article's premise, Pete Rose base Topps card numbers for 81-87: 180, 780, 100, 300, 600, 1, 200 70-80: 580, 100, 559, 130, 300, 320, 240, 450, 20, 650, 540 (72 had the In Action cards at the preferred multiples) 63-69: 537, 125, 207, 30, 430, 230, 120
me and a bunch of buddies figured this sorta out in the early/mid 80s...look back, the stars were 100, 200, 300, etc thats what you figure out by putting together hand collated sets since the late 70s lol
<< <i>me and a bunch of buddies figured this sorta out in the early/mid 80s...look back, the stars were 100, 200, 300, etc thats what you figure out by putting together hand collated sets since the late 70s lol >>
Yeah this should have been pretty obvious to anyone who collected in the 70's and 80's. I don't have any examples off hand but I remember questioning some of the selections in certain years (why did so and so get x90 and not x00 or x50...).
I always understood that Topps did this in their numbering, but did not know Topps made no "official" claim to this. But since collecting newer stuff, it seemed more irrelevant with all the parallel, numbered, auto, etc; i.e. so many subsets that the base set had no real value, so it did not matter if Jeter was 100 or Cabrera was 200 or number 5.
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
With 40 years hindsight, is 1971 Topps Jim Perry - a fine pitcher - the least "hundred-level" worthy Topps card? Can't recall any Fred Lynn's or Cesar Cedenos ever with a double zero suffix.
<< <i>I thought everyome knew that Topps used to assign the cards ending in 0 and 5 to star players, and 00's to the best of the best. >>
this
I've known this since I first started paying attention to cards in the 70s. To me, it was pretty darn obvious. 100, 50s, 10s, 5s. I never thought about the 25s, though. In hindsight, I'm not sure why I didn't.
I believe there was a story on this subject in the late 80s, early 90s in Beckett. As a longtime Topps collector, I've noticed this for many years. This is the first year that I believe they changed the system. While I do not like the change (and the long standing policy to "retire" the #7 card), I will say there is an interesting phenomenon while sorting 2013 cards. On some of the players, you can guess their card number by looking at the player's jersey number. For example, Mike Trout's jersey number is exposed on the front of his card and he is #27 in the set. It's kind of like a foreshadowing/hidden pictures thing they got going on.
Someone posted an article regarding Topps methodology of the double zero's being related to the top players as a guide towards being elected into the Hall of Fame, which was a fairly grounded, but well thought out article, if nothing less than just entertaining.
EchoCanyon
Posts: 2,284 ✭✭✭
Comments
Learn something new everyday! Thanks for the link!
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>linky >>
Be careful. You can be excommunicated if word gets out that you read the NYTimes. Watching MSNBC is a hanging offense.
I think Fleer used a pretty similar system to the 'new' Topps scheme as well. Not sure exactly how many, but Barry Larkin is #11 in a lot of their sets. I think Topps may have been following this on some of their smaller and/or oddball sets as well. Larkin was #11 on 1989 Mini Leaders, 1990 Sticker Backs, 1993 Topps Gold, 1991 Cracker Jack, etc., far too many for it to just be coincidence.
Supporting the article's premise, Pete Rose base Topps card numbers for 81-87: 180, 780, 100, 300, 600, 1, 200
70-80: 580, 100, 559, 130, 300, 320, 240, 450, 20, 650, 540 (72 had the In Action cards at the preferred multiples)
63-69: 537, 125, 207, 30, 430, 230, 120
<< <i>
<< <i>linky >>
Be careful. You can be excommunicated if word gets out that you read the NYTimes. Watching MSNBC is a hanging offense. >>
Not sure I've ever watched MSNBC.
ALL MY PSA SETS
<< <i>me and a bunch of buddies figured this sorta out in the early/mid 80s...look back, the stars were 100, 200, 300, etc thats what you figure out by putting together hand collated sets since the late 70s lol >>
Yeah this should have been pretty obvious to anyone who collected in the 70's and 80's. I don't have any examples off hand but I remember questioning some of the selections in certain years (why did so and so get x90 and not x00 or x50...).
So I personally am not upset by this fact.
Here are THE MICK'S card numbers:
150 1958 TOPPS MICKEY MANTLE
10 1959 TOPPS MICKEY MANTLE
350 1960 TOPPS MICKEY MANTLE
300 1961 TOPPS MICKEY MANTLE
200 1962 TOPPS MICKEY MANTLE
200 1963 TOPPS MICKEY MANTLE
50 1964 TOPPS MICKEY MANTLE
350 1965 TOPPS MICKEY MANTLE
50 1966 TOPPS MICKEY MANTLE
150 1967 TOPPS MICKEY MANTLE
280 1968 TOPPS MICKEY MANTLE
500 1969 TOPPS MICKEY MANTLE
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
saucywombat@hotmail.com
<< <i>I thought everyome knew that Topps used to assign the cards ending in 0 and 5 to star players, and 00's to the best of the best. >>
this
I've known this since I first started paying attention to cards in the 70s. To me, it was pretty darn obvious. 100, 50s, 10s, 5s. I never thought about the 25s, though. In hindsight, I'm not sure why I didn't.
Dodgers collection scans | Brett Butler registry | 1978 Dodgers - straight 9s, homie
Craig H.
Topps Numbering System