1952 3rd Series Gray Backs vs. 1960 5th Series White Backs

[toppcat]

Title says it all, curious as to people's take on which is harder to find, realizing that there are two types of 52 grays.

Also, I make it out that the 60 White Backs run from #375-440 and don't exactly follow that 5th Series checklist run of 353-429 as they follow the press run and not the checklists. Can anyone disprove this?

[mckinneyj]

Can't prove it, but sampling my hoard of 60s agrees with your assessment of#375-440 as the white back range - I suspect that the 1960s grays in this range are not particularly scarce as I have 28 of them - and only a single 52 gray back within the (IMO really scarce) #132-190 range white back for comparison.

[mckinneyj]

I may have mistaken your intent... from something I read there are actually 3 variations for each card - gray, cream, and white, correct? I suspect that I have zero white backs and so can't offer an opinion - can you post a pic of a cream and white side by side by any chance?

[Republicaninmass]

Some grays have a grayish front, while others are white on the front

[mckinneyj]

Found an example of the white back / cream back comparison here, about halfway down the page - http://community.ebay.com/t5/Archive...s/td-p/2744817

[SMPEP]

I think the "white backs" in the 1960s are just as elusive as the grey backs in the 1952 series.

With that said ... I think the reason that the 1960 "white backs" don't get the same recognition is that some don't believe they are anything other than "cream backs" that are cleaner.

For me ... my eyes just aren't good enough in many cases to distinguish which is which. For example, I've seen the 1952 greys backs that even when I put them side by side next to a glossy 1952 grey back and a dull 1952 grey back I can't tell which the card is.

So good luck identifying a 1960 "white" versus "cream" based on a photo on Ebay.

My other theory is that the 1952 greys also gain recognition because you can tell a difference on the front (of most of them). The 1954 greys are just as hard (harder?) to find, but you can only find them by seeing the backs of the cards and given how few photos of those backs are taken ... good luck finding them. The same may be true for the 1960 "whites".

Cheers,
Patrick

[ALR-bishop]

Good points Patrick.

I did finish out my 60 set with both gray and "white" = cream backs. I have seen pictures of the white white backs but never pursued them separately from the cream backs.

I think O'Connell had an article with comparison photos in an SCD article some years back

[Zach Wheat]

If I remember correctly, they used 2 printers at 2 different printing companies for this set. In previous Topps issues - they concluded that 1 printing company could not keep up with production once the set came out and consequently engaged another printer with a different type of press to handle some of the overflow. The primary cardboard stock used in printing was initially the more expensive white back stock but the less expensive gray cardboard stock was preferred by some at Topps. Apparently the 2nd printing company (using a different printer) had difficulty printing on white cardboard stock - and some batches - were printed in both types of cardstock, with #441-572 printed on only gray stock. I suspect the "white" backed cards were from their initial print run before one of the printers discontinued printing on this stock.

Therefore the gray backed cards should show printing differences as well - since they came from 2 different printers.

Z

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by mckinneyj

Found an example of the white back / cream back comparison here, about halfway down the page - http://community.ebay.com/t5/Archive...s/td-p/2744817

Here are the images referenced in this post:

[SMPEP]

And see ... the thing is ... with the way cards are photo shopped ... you don't really know that there is a color difference between these two.

One set I collect actively is the 1923 W572s. I'm working on the master set for sepia and Black&white versions for each card. The distinction between the two is pretty noticeable (at least as noticeable as these two cards shown). But I can't count the number of times I bought what the photo showed to be a B&W version, only to get it and found out it is the sepia version. The only way I can even find B&Ws on Ebay is if the seller has multiple cards for sale - and then I can compare his style of picture taking among a few cards. Even then ... my odds are still less than 100%.

I honestly would even doubt the existence of the White backs ... if I had not seen them in person once. And even seeing them in person, the ones I saw were gem mint type cards. Straight from the pack. So was this what the creams looked like originally, and some were exposed to sun and the color changed a bit or was there a real paper difference?

All I know is ... fortunately for me, I'm not a big fan of the 1960 set. I barely wanted to complete it. I certainly don't need either variation!

Cheers,
Patrick

[ALR-bishop]

None of us really need variations/variants...or even the common version of the card....or even a 52 Reiser gray back....but

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by SMPEP

And see ... the thing is ... with the way cards are photo shopped ... you don't really know that there is a color difference between these two.

One set I collect actively is the 1923 W572s. I'm working on the master set for sepia and Black&white versions for each card. The distinction between the two is pretty noticeable (at least as noticeable as these two cards shown). But I can't count the number of times I bought what the photo showed to be a B&W version, only to get it and found out it is the sepia version. The only way I can even find B&Ws on Ebay is if the seller has multiple cards for sale - and then I can compare his style of picture taking among a few cards. Even then ... my odds are still less than 100%.

I honestly would even doubt the existence of the White backs ... if I had not seen them in person once. And even seeing them in person, the ones I saw were gem mint type cards. Straight from the pack. So was this what the creams looked like originally, and some were exposed to sun and the color changed a bit or was there a real paper difference?

All I know is ... fortunately for me, I'm not a big fan of the 1960 set. I barely wanted to complete it. I certainly don't need either variation!

Cheers,
Patrick

Patrick,

These are from my 1960 set. I only have a couple "white backs". The distinction is not easy to see - but I believe they were there from printing.

Here are the 3 different backs for a side-to-side comparison.....harder to see in the scan, but the shading difference is more obvious when you compare a lot of them with their backs facing up. Undoubtedly some of the whitish tan colors have changed with age. I have owned these for 35+ years, stored the same way in the same binder. The shading is easier to see in person than in scans.

Z

[SMPEP]

Thanks for that Zach! Of course from the photo, I personally can't see much difference. But like I said, I saw some high grade ones of these a few years ago - and they did look different. But I think your photos shows exactly why these aren't more popular. They are hard to see unless you are in person. Who's going to find them on Ebay? And if you're trying to complete the set - how many nationals would you need to go to to complete it?

I'll stick to my grey backs Al! (Even if I curse Mr. Reiser on a daily basis!)

Cheers,
Patrick

[droid714]

I'll stick to my grey backs Al! (Even if I curse Mr. Reiser on a daily basis!)

Cheers,
Patrick[/QUOTE]

Why do you curse Mr. Reiser on a daily basis?

John

[ALR-bishop]

John---find him in grey back and ask him