Question About Card Stock 1955 Topps/Johnny Podres

[jgannon]

Hey guys -

I have this 1955 Topps Johnny Podres, that I'm wondering if it's a reprint.

The card stock seems smoother than my other 55 Topps, especially the back of the card.

Did the back of the 55 Topps sometimes feel a little sheen compared to other cards from the set?

[swarmee]

Should be easy to check with a loupe on the red nameplate section. Card looks real. Did Topps make presentation sets in 1955? That could be the reason.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Should be easy to check with a loupe on the red nameplate section. Card looks real. Did Topps make presentation sets in 1955? That could be the reason.

I'm thinking it's probably real. I can see the black dots which all my other 1955's have. I may just get another Podres and make a comparison. I should really invest in a loupe and I guess a blacklight.

[G1911]

Cards 1-110 have a brighter white stock that feels smoother to the touch, or a cream stock that is a little rougher. This never seems to be notated, but the first series clearly had 2 different stocks.

[ALR-bishop]

http://https://forums.collectors.com...vs-white-backs

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by G1911

Cards 1-110 have a brighter white stock that feels smoother to the touch, or a cream stock that is a little rougher. This never seems to be notated, but the first series clearly had 2 different stocks.

Ok, that's good to know. I don't have a lot of 1955 Topps, but I also have a Gene Conley, card #81, with a white back and it also has that smoother feel to it. The other cards that have the slightly darker backs feel a little grainier.

Thanks.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

http://https://forums.collectors.com...vs-white-backs

I would really like to access the link you provided, but unfortunately when I click on it, it says the site can't be reached. Is there any way you can resend it?

Thanks.

[swarmee]

Just take off the http:// at the front since it was doubled in the URL.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Just take off the http:// at the front since it was doubled in the URL.

Ok, did it, thanks. I actually did see this post yesterday when I was searching the topic on the net. One person did say: "55's are indeed white, some though are on a different stock of paper and not as glossed..."

I'm thinking the Podres card is one of the glossier cards.

Anybody else out there have a Podres card and or any of the ones I guess from #1-110 that are glossier than the ones with darker backs?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Ok, did it, thanks. I actually did see this post yesterday when I was searching the topic on the net. One person did say: "55's are indeed white, some though are on a different stock of paper and not as glossed..."

I'm thinking the Podres card is one of the glossier cards.

Anybody else out there have a Podres card and or any of the ones I guess from #1-110 that are glossier than the ones with darker backs?

Yep! I have Podres both ways (and a number of the other cards). I am putting a master set together for the commons and low-end hall of famers (it's a boring variation, but I like this set so much I'm happy to find a reason to hunt for a few more). The difference is often difficult to discern in scans, usually very clear in hand.

Stock variations are pretty common with Topps sets. The 'mainstream' only recognizes them if the difference is white stock vs. grey stock, but a number of Topps baseball sets have them, authentically different stock instead of cards aging different, etc. 1969, 1966 (the second to last series has a dark cream or a bright white that is really blatant in hand), 1970, there are many of them beyond the 1956 1-180, and the 1959 series (3rd, I think) and 1960 series (5th?) that have white and grey stocks. 1955 is definitely one of them. The "brighter white and smoother, glossier" version seems to be a bit less common, but it is not difficult at all or anything.

This stock change is, I think, especially significant in 1955 because the series are not really known (as far as I am aware). The historical division groups cards 1-150 together, 151-160 together, and finally 161-210. This clearly does not align with the sheets and series. The first 110 cards are probably series 1, which fits on a sheet. Whether the remaining 100 cards (Topps put 100 different cards, with I think 10 double prints, in their Football issue that year that has numerous erroneously listed SP's) were on one sheet, or were multiple series with more card's repeated on a half-sheet is, I think, completely unknown still (4 pulled cards replaced with 4 DP's that must have existed in two unique rows). 111-210 only have the rougher, less glossy, creamier stock.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by G1911

Yep! I have Podres both ways (and a number of the other cards). I am putting a master set together for the commons and low-end hall of famers (it's a boring variation, but I like this set so much I'm happy to find a reason to hunt for a few more). The difference is often difficult to discern in scans, usually very clear in hand.

Stock variations are pretty common with Topps sets. The 'mainstream' only recognizes them if the difference is white stock vs. grey stock, but a number of Topps baseball sets have them, authentically different stock instead of cards aging different, etc. 1969, 1966 (the second to last series has a dark cream or a bright white that is really blatant in hand), 1970, there are many of them beyond the 1956 1-180, and the 1959 series (3rd, I think) and 1960 series (5th?) that have white and grey stocks. 1955 is definitely one of them. The "brighter white and smoother, glossier" version seems to be a bit less common, but it is not difficult at all or anything.

This stock change is, I think, especially significant in 1955 because the series are not really known (as far as I am aware). The historical division groups cards 1-150 together, 151-160 together, and finally 161-210. This clearly does not align with the sheets and series. The first 110 cards are probably series 1, which fits on a sheet. Whether the remaining 100 cards (Topps put 100 different cards, with I think 10 double prints, in their Football issue that year that has numerous erroneously listed SP's) were on one sheet, or were multiple series with more card's repeated on a half-sheet is, I think, completely unknown still (4 pulled cards replaced with 4 DP's that must have existed in two unique rows). 111-210 only have the rougher, less glossy, creamier stock.

Ok, great to know and thanks for this information!

The first thread I posted on Net54 had to do with my concern about the difference I felt in some 1959 Topps cards, and I found out that there were some differences in the stock.

Good luck with putting together your 1955 master set, and again, I really appreciate the information.

[ALR-bishop]

The 1955 front variations got more complicated with the additions of Robinson and Williams. The Williams was pretty easy to find, the Robinson less so. Getting all 4 Elliots was challenging too.

https://www.tcdb.com/Errors.cfm/sid/36/1955-Topps

I did the alternative backs for 1959 and 1960. The red v black for 52 are not hard but the gray backs 131 to 180 are hard and expensive. Same for 1-50 in 1954. They are not hard in 1956 but expensive because of so many stars.

Vrechek article on 55 variants

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A2KI...tYaTNrHn_SC9U-

[G1911]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

The 1955 front variations got more complicated with the additions of Robinson and Williams. The Williams was pretty easy to find, the Robinson less so. Getting all 4 Elliots was challenging too.

https://www.tcdb.com/Errors.cfm/sid/36/1955-Topps

I did the alternative backs for 1959 and 1960. The red v black for 52 are not hard but the gray backs 131 to 180 are hard and expensive. Same for 1-50 in 1954. They are not hard in 1956 but expensive because of so many stars.

Vrechek article on 55 variants

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A2KI...tYaTNrHn_SC9U-

There is at least one other card like the Robinson variation. Bob Grim has the same logo cut off or not variation as Jackie, but either no one notices this or they don't care because he's a mediocre pitcher and not Jackie Robinson. I've seen a lot of variance in Andy Carey team logo too, but it's not as blatant as Grim/Robinson. Unlike a lot of these variants that I'd call recurring defects instead of 'true variations' (like the Elliott, Robertson, Minarcin), Grim appears to be a true variation, a difference in the projection of the team logo in the design that was changed.

I think the Wehmeir is pretty darn tough, I still need that one. I'm missing Ted and Jackie's variations too, but that's due to me being cheap on my variants

[ALR-bishop]

55 Rosen as well

[G1911]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

55 Rosen as well

Did not know about that one, thank you!

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

The 1955 front variations got more complicated with the additions of Robinson and Williams. The Williams was pretty easy to find, the Robinson less so. Getting all 4 Elliots was challenging too.

https://www.tcdb.com/Errors.cfm/sid/36/1955-Topps

I did the alternative backs for 1959 and 1960. The red v black for 52 are not hard but the gray backs 131 to 180 are hard and expensive. Same for 1-50 in 1954. They are not hard in 1956 but expensive because of so many stars.

Vrechek article on 55 variants

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A2KI...tYaTNrHn_SC9U-

Thanks for the info! Have learned quite a bit about the 1955 Topps set from this thread.