Topps Stocks 1968-1970
 

I have cards from these sets that feel thinner than others. The backs tend to be lighter, but the fronts look the same. Plenty are commons, so I'm skeptical these are counterfeits. Still, I'm not sure these are authentic.

I'll try to get better images of the pictures below, but really my question here is less about my specific cards and more about history. Has anyone ever heard of Topps mixing up the stocks they used in those days? That might explain why these cards look the same but feel different. I've been able to connect with Dave H. and others, and there is some consensus that the cards are real even if they're weird, but no one is really sure so I figure to do some more crowdsourcing here.

Or, if anyone has ever encountered cards that fit this description, have you gotten them graded? What does PSA say in this case?

Thanks very much to anyone who can help solve this mystery!

(In these pictures, the suspect cards are the 68 Brock, the 69 Brock on the left, and all of the 70 cards except for the Cesar Tovar in the top right.)

https://ibb.co/qNf7Bp0
https://ibb.co/svrwJgw
https://ibb.co/cLZsDsx
https://ibb.co/mGN9gWY
https://ibb.co/KjX0m4s
https://ibb.co/kc06yV8

I know this is a lot of questions....

Any pics? Individual front and back and as a stack perhaps.
It would really help if there is a large picture of the front so we can see the dot pattern. If, we find they are printed by the same negatives or plates as the normal sets, these could be from that era. If not, they are remakes.

Also, are they all the same series? How many are there?
Are they different teams, are they all AL or NL?

For 68, not counting the separately produced Milton Bradley cards, there are different colored backs within different series in the set Are any of the cards OPCs ?

Also, see this thread

By the way, welcome. What is your first name and what do you collect ?


https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrE...jXrqrBKz4F.7g-

Thanks, Jay and Al -- good questions! My name is Alan. I added some image links in my original post. I would scan the cards to try and catch the dot pattern, but unfortunately we are having some IT issues at work.

I first noticed this when I got the 68 Brock off eBay a few weeks ago. Then, since I'm going through my HOF stuff, I noticed the Carlton. Then I started digging and noticed the two different Tovars. Aside from some 80s Topps sets, I collect by player, so all of my cards are organized that way rather by set.

I looked into the Milton Bradleys, but my understanding is the Brock is too high number for that. I also wondered about OPC, but I've only ever seen those say printed in Canada.

They should be just fine. Most of the cards from 68-70 come with both stocks. One is a regular light cream colored stock, the other is either a coated stock that looks very white, or they printed a white layer on the regular stock.

I haven't even completed those sets, let alone with both stocks, but I have enough to be fairly sure all cards from each set come both ways.

I haven't measured the thickness, it's interesting if the whiter ones are thinner.

1966 Topps has 2 stocks as well. Maybe the 1967 also, but am at work and don't have cards in front of me. :)

I never got how people who collect white/grey backs as 'variations' for the '56 and '59 sets don't do so for the '66 set. But to each his own.

What bugs me about thinner card stock in the early 1970's is those cards tend to slide around in mag cases pretty easily. I have some nice cards that I would like to protect / display better, but the only way to keep them from moving is the old reliable penny sleeve and toploader.

To ease your mind about counterfeits, I would put a loupe on the photo on the card to see if you see "pixels". If you do, then they are probably real. I have never see a counterfeits that had pixels.

Has anyone ever seen a counterfeit card that had the correct looking pixels under magnification?

I have not. The counterfeiters are getting good with inkjet and laser printers in making cards that look decent from an arm's length - but up close or under magnification you can always tell. The proper term for the pixels is "halftone dots" and it was the process used back then.