![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Not sure if it helps, but I picked up this non-perforated Colavito awhile back, and simply assumed it (and the other cards on its sheet?) bypassed the perforation phase at the Topps factory...
1964colavitostandupnonperforated.jpg ...but it seems the grass may be more limey (and not as dark and rich) than it 'should' be? Not sure, but don't have a perforated Stand-Up Rocky to compare it to. Mine here is also cropped very much like yours, so maybe those two similarities point to them being the products of the same sheet or group of sheets.
__________________
All the cool kids love my YouTube Channel:
Elm's Adventures in Cardboard Land ![]() https://www.youtube.com/@TheJollyElm Looking to trade? Here's my bucket: https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706 “I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.” Casey Stengel Spelling "Yastrzemski" correctly without needing to look it up since the 1980s. Overpaying yesterday is simply underpaying tomorrow. ![]() |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The final proofs for anything are usually hard to tell unless they're still a sheet.
I would think the ones with no die cut and lighter green are proofs, or at least the first copies when the inking levels were being set. I lean towards proofs, as the darker shade should still look darker even if it's not inked all that heavily. There "should" be proofs of each individual color too, and a blank with just the die cut. And harder to tell still, a really final stage including all colors and the die cuts. They still have to check that the die cuts are all in the right place. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The final proofs for anything are usually hard to tell unless they're still a sheet.
I would think the ones with no die cut and lighter green are proofs, or at least the first copies when the inking levels were being set. I lean towards proofs, as the darker shade should still look darker even if it's not inked all that heavily. There "should" be proofs of each individual color too, and a blank with just the die cut. And harder to tell still, a really final stage including all colors and the die cuts. They still have to check that the die cuts are all in the right place. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Agree that it is almost impossible to distinguish between most blank back proof cards and blank back mistakes in production, unless it comes from Topps Vault or the front differs in some way from the issued cards, as is the case with the 84 Encased cards, the 3 1960 proofs of Cimoli, Throneberry and Hadley, the 67 Maris Yankee ( which may have been a "produced" proof) and the dozen or so 77 proofs listed by SCD, which includes the R Jackson Oriole.
But in some cases a blank back proof may show a different colored stock than an issued card Last edited by ALR-bishop; 01-21-2021 at 01:31 PM. |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
BST - 1964 Topps stand ups | ALBB | 1960-1979 Baseball Cards B/S/T | 5 | 07-28-2020 07:18 PM |
B/S/T 1964 Topps stand ups | ALBB | 1960-1979 Baseball Cards B/S/T | 2 | 11-01-2019 05:38 PM |
F/S: 1964 Topps Stand Up Proofs | Mystery Card Shopper | 1960-1979 Baseball Cards B/S/T | 3 | 11-05-2018 01:12 PM |
F/S 1964 Topps STAND-UPS Lot of 10 | Mystery Card Shopper | 1960-1979 Baseball Cards B/S/T | 0 | 03-27-2017 02:23 PM |
1964 Topps Stand-Ups **2 To Go** | Edwolf1963 | 1960-1979 Baseball Cards B/S/T | 2 | 01-16-2017 04:59 AM |