1987 Topps Wrong Back

[gonefishin]

Although I'm not a collector of post 1969 cards, I do pick up a few that interest me from time to time. I recently acquired quite a few 1987 Topps that have wrong backs, and one I thought was pretty cool - a Barry Larkin rookie with a Jose Conseco back. I just got it back from SGC. I was wondering if anyone out there collects the wrong back cards. If so, please show a few.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by gonefishin

Although I'm not a collector of post 1969 cards, I do pick up a few that interest me from time to time. I recently acquired quite a few 1987 Topps that have wrong backs, and one I thought was pretty cool - a Barry Larkin rookie with a Jose Conseco back. I just got it back from SGC. I was wondering if anyone out there collects the wrong back cards. If so, please show a few.

Nice, I like to pair them up. For example you now need the Canseco front with the Larkin back.

I used to have way over 10K of them but have sold off several huge lots of them. My favorite wrong backs are 1990 Score that I got directly from Score back in the day.

Here is by far my favorite 2 cards. For the most part the 90 Score WB pairs I own are the only known ones to exist. This pair features my favorite 2 players Wade Boggs and Roger Clemens.

[gonefishin]

That's pretty cool Ben - thanks for sharing.

[JustinD]

Interesting that SGC would grade a printer sheet flip error, I didn’t know they would do that. They must be the only company that will assign a numerical grade to these. I just definitely learned something.

It does make a neat display for the match pair but seems comparatively expensive to slab such a common and inexpensive error for an 87’. You should easily be able to buy a lot of at least 100 for the price to grade one. I assume you are either a Larkin or Canseco collector.

[swarmee]

*never mind*

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Interesting that SGC would grade a printer sheet flip error, I didn’t know they would do that. They must be the only company that will assign a numerical grade to these. I just definitely learned something.

It does make a neat display for the match pair but seems comparatively expensive to slab such a common and inexpensive error for an 87’. You should easily be able to buy a lot of at least 100 for the price to grade one. I assume you are either a Larkin or Canseco collector.

As long as they are factory cut and not hand cut they will get a number grade. PSA also grades them and has for a very long time. Not sure about the other graders.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by bnorth

As long as they are factory cut and not hand cut they will get a number grade. PSA also grades them and has for a very long time. Not sure about the other graders.

PSA has stopped grading a lot of cards like this. If they're not checklisted errors (like the 1990 Donruss Nolan Ryan swaps), they're super stingy on slabbing and grading anything nowadays, per posts I've seen.

[gonefishin]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Interesting that SGC would grade a printer sheet flip error, I didn’t know they would do that. They must be the only company that will assign a numerical grade to these. I just definitely learned something.

It does make a neat display for the match pair but seems comparatively expensive to slab such a common and inexpensive error for an 87’. You should easily be able to buy a lot of at least 100 for the price to grade one. I assume you are either a Larkin or Canseco collector.

Hey Justin, sometimes I find a card that simply appeals to me and I have it graded. It was graded because that's the way I wanted to retain the card, not to resell, flip it, or any other reason. In this case, it was a rookie card of a Hall of Fame player with what I think is a great picture of Larkin - especially the look on his face in the photo. The Conseco back simply makes it very unique. So, $22 to have this card protected for as long as I will keep it - that's ok. Also, I don't really care about the 7 grade either. I don't collect the 87 set for obvious reasons. With that said, if you can find 100 of the Larkin rookies with a Conseco back, in SGC 7 condition, I recommend you buy them!

Your comments regarding grading I find interesting. If you look at the grading standards, it shouldn't matter what is pictured on the front or the back. Other that verifying that it is an authentic card from that set, all grading does is provide their position on the quality of the card; surface, corners, centering, etc. etc. etc. So why shouldn't they grade it.

Thanks for the response and take.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by gonefishin

Hey Justin, sometimes I find a card that simply appeals to me and I have it graded. It was graded because that's the way I wanted to retain the card, not to resell, flip it, or any other reason. In this case, it was a rookie card of a Hall of Fame player with what I think is a great picture of Larkin - especially the look on his face in the photo. The Conseco back simply makes it very unique. So, $22 to have this card protected for as long as I will keep it - that's ok. Also, I don't really care about the 7 grade either. I don't collect the 87 set for obvious reasons. With that said, if you can find 100 of the Larkin rookies with a Conseco back, in SGC 7 condition, I recommend you buy them!

Your comments regarding grading I find interesting. If you look at the grading standards, it shouldn't matter what is pictured on the front or the back. Other that verifying that it is an authentic card from that set, all grading does is provide their position on the quality of the card; surface, corners, centering, etc. etc. etc. So why shouldn't they grade it.

Thanks for the response and take.

Not insulting in any way, Just interested if your PC was indeed the reason. Please collect what you want my friend!

I have some older BGS errors and proofs myself because I like them, but all are Authentic grades. As for PSA, I have also not seen anything much like what Swarmee stated that is not a recognized variation numerically graded in a very long while due to the impact on registries. Those older PSA numerics that I have seen were not labeled differently and did not create slots because they had a print defect sub. In other cases like proofs, they are zero points toward a registry and thus of very little value. I think this is the fun of when PSA actually does add a variation.

The shock to me is likely somewhat explained by SGC not having a registry after thinking on it. If PSA started numerically grading common errors willy nilly, it would throw an F150 size wrench in the player registries with all the possibilities. That was my first thought when I noticed.

Ben, those are interesting even more as I think about it. They are legit sheet placement errors as the reverses are upside down, so no seeming horseplay on a created anomaly. To have perfectly centered wrong reverses of the same card is a true rare occurrence as the press operator would have had to place the sheets in wrong the same but perfectly opposite way twice...a snowball's chance in hell. How did you acquire from Score? Was it in the liquidation sale?

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I used to have way over 10K of them but have sold off several huge lots of them. My favorite wrong backs are 1990 Score that I got directly from Score back in the day.

Do you by any chance happen to have 1990-91 Score Hockey wrong backs?

There is a rumored error on the Alexander Mogilny and I would love to confirm it, if so.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

Do you by any chance happen to have 1990-91 Score Hockey wrong backs?

There is a rumored error on the Alexander Mogilny and I would love to confirm it, if so.

Sorry no Hockey. I only got some 89 and 90 Baseball wrong backs.