1966 Topps question……….why?

[Elberson]

Ok, so I’m now working on 1966 Topps set (only 15 more to go)….I so needed a break from 1967 lol. Here’s my question….why is braves rookie card 84 the only card with 1966 rookie stars in white letters (first picture) All others are in yellow (second picture)? Just a curious question. I know it was the 1960’s and the cool story would be “tommy was in charge that day and BOY was he stoned”. So does anybody have any back info as to why?

[swarmee]

Most likely, just an honest mistake when reviewing the proof sheets.

[nwobhm]

If there was a reason beyond accidental could it be that this is Beauchamp on his 3rd consecutive Rookie card….?

[JollyElm]

A similar occurrence was when Topps 'forgot' to include the signature on at least one player's card - Milt Pappas - in 1967...

s-l1600-2.jpg

[Elberson]

I just find it weird. Topps did the same thing with one card from 1967 also different color from all the rest that were yellow and one red rookie star mixed in…….anybody know of any other years?

[Harliduck]

Yes...the Belanger 67 card was always weird it was red...but I do wish more were red as I like the look for that year. Pretty random.

As for the 66's...I'm just impressed you caught the white lettering! 69 Topps eyes...


Jolly...every time I flip the page with Pappas in the 67s it catches my eye that it's missing the signature...probably because I know it's missing.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Elberson

I just find it weird. Topps did the same thing with one card from 1967 also different color from all the rest that were yellow and one red rookie star mixed in…….anybody know of any other years?

For some reason, I have this thing about the color in the caption matching all of the players on a given team. This why I liked the 1966-69 Topps cards so much, although that is also when I first started collecting. Anyway, it always bugged me that all of my beloved Minnesota Twins had their '67 cards showing the team name in green--all except Harmon Killebrew, who showed it in yellow. I loved that pose and everything about the card except that damn yellow lettering, which really made it look like a fish out of water given that I sorted my cards by team.

[Cliff Bowman]

Thanks a lot, I do a daily search for 1966 Topps on eBay looking for miscuts and now every time I see that card all I see is the white lettering.

[Mark17]

In 1965, the Mudcat Grant card has a blue border, while all the other Twins are purple. I suspect it's because Grant's former team (Indians) also had a blue border. But in 1967, they did the same thing - this time making Killebrew's team designation yellow instead of green. No idea why this mistake occurred. It always bothered me as a kid.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Mark17

In 1965, the Mudcat Grant card has a blue border, while all the other Twins are purple. I suspect it's because Grant's former team (Indians) also had a blue border. But in 1967, they did the same thing - this time making Killebrew's team designation yellow instead of green. No idea why this mistake occurred. It always bothered me as a kid.

The Grant card bothered me to no end also. Yes his former team had their cards with a blue rather than purple border, but Mudcat was traded to Minnesota in June of 1964-- he had double digit wins for the Twins that half season. There was plenty of time to note the change when Topps printed the '65 set, which managed to get the right teams and color combos for the players who went to Cleveland in that trade. Especially bad since Grant wasn't even a low number in the 1965 set that might have gone to printing before being noticed. They just simply blew it.

It also bothers me to this day that Topps elected not to include any '65 World Series cards in its 1966 set-- the only year in about a twenty year stretch that lacks those Fall Classic recaps. Apart from celebrating the Twins first WS, it also deprived collectors of a couple more Koufax cards. Thanks for nothing Topps.

[Elberson]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

Thanks a lot, I do a daily search for 1966 Topps on eBay looking for miscuts and now every time I see that card all I see is the white lettering.

So sorry……I heard a story of one kid coloring that one card yellow, so look out for that variation lol

[JollyElm]

Here's a thread from a while back that has some of these sorts of oddities in it:
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=292032

(And a shout out to Tom S. who brought up the no-sig Pappas card in it.)

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

The Grant card bothered me to no end also. Yes his former team had their cards with a blue rather than purple border, but Mudcat was traded to Minnesota in June of 1964-- he had double digit wins for the Twins that half season. There was plenty of time to note the change when Topps printed the '65 set, which managed to get the right teams and color combos for the players who went to Cleveland in that trade. Especially bad since Grant wasn't even a low number in the 1965 set that might have gone to printing before being noticed. They just simply blew it.

It also bothers me to this day that Topps elected not to include any '65 World Series cards in its 1966 set-- the only year in about a twenty year stretch that lacks those Fall Classic recaps. Apart from celebrating the Twins first WS, it also deprived collectors of a couple more Koufax cards. Thanks for nothing Topps.

Topps really screwed us Twins fans from 1965-67. In '67, the Twins were in the pennant race down to the last game of the season, yet the 7th Series was never released in my area. We kept waiting and waiting for it. This was a bummer for 2 reasons: First, we were still wild about baseball in late September, and second, our Rookie of the Year and very popular Rod Carew was in that series. We never got that card.

As an adult, I got several Carew rookies, finally, but then another annoying Topps blunder got me worked up again....

You'd think, by the 7th Series, Topps would've had the font of the team names down pat and consistent. But no......

[JollyElm]

The thick black outline on the 'T' just vanished into the blackness of the background. It's the same font as the others. Or are you talking about something else?

The same effect can be found on the occasional Oliva card. When the printing on his sleeve is overly dark, the 'T' appears to be a bit too small...

s-l1600-2.jpg

[Mark17]

Thanks, I think you're right. Actually, the W is slightly bigger than the T and I and N. So I guess my decades of torment about that have been for naught.

[Harliduck]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

The thick black outline on the 'T' just vanished into the blackness of the background. It's the same font as the others. Or are you talking about something else?

The same effect can be found on the occasional Oliva card. When the printing on his sleeve is overly dark, the 'T' appears to be a bit too small...

Attachment 572292

Dammit....now I can never unsee that!!

[ALR-bishop]

Neat detective work Darren