54 Jackie Robinson Gray Back - Mislabeled?

[rsdill2]

The '54 Gray Backs have always perplexed me. They seem to vary somewhat in their shades of gray. Not as straightforward as their '52 cousins.

Picked this up. To my eye, it appears mislabeled. I've sent scans to PSA but it may be a while before I hear back. You can see that in the 3rd scan, it is slightly more gray than the other two cards in comparison, I just can't buy the fact that this is a gray back.

What are your thoughts?

[SMPEP]

It's labeled correctly.

Nice pick up.

Cheers,
Patrick

[rsdill2]

Originally Posted by SMPEP

It's labeled correctly.

Nice pick up.

Cheers,
Patrick

Thanks for chiming in Patrick. PM sent.

[Marckus99]

IMO, Should be much darker.

[ValKehl]

I'm also thinking the back should be darker, but I hasten to add that I have no expertise re these 1954 gray backs. Here are the backs of my two raw Pete Runnels cards side by side for comparison:

[rsdill2]

Thanks for all the responses.

I've heard from both sides: it should be darker and isn't a gray back. I've also been told it's definitely a gray back - particularly due to the darkness in the cartoon.

Truth is, I don't know. And it blows my mind that this card is either a $200 card or a $1,500 card and nobody can tell which one it is.

PSA has offered to pay shipping both ways to review and potentially reholder. They've already proved that they don't know what they're looking at so that just doesn't really make sense on my end to do that. If they say it's not, and reholder it in a standard (non gray-back slab) then it's a $200 card. But I have people whose opinion on this matter I respect telling me it's definitely a gray back. I'm leaving it as is and it's a part of my personal collection.

I welcome any further input and opinions. Thanks.

[glynparson]

They vary greatly from light to dark. Without having in hand I say it is probably correctly labeled

[glynparson]

I change my mind it’s probably mislabeled. Though I do feel
They vary in darkness in scans. Not as much in hand

[1954 topps]

I have searched through thousands, likely tens of thousands of 54 Topps cards looking for the exclusive gray backs. They are extremely rare and they are very noticeable when flipping through a stack of raw cards if you know what your looking for. So noticeable in fact that you shouldn't have to glace at a card a second time to determine if it's a gray back. There is a huge difference between an aged card that spent time in the sun vs. a gray back. The paper stock was completely different. Pictures don't always pick up the correct coloring, lighting can alter images, monitors settings can be set differently, etc. however, based on the image I'm seeing on my screen I can tell you it's mislabeled. I'd flip past this card without looking twice.

[hockeyhockey]

can someone do a side by side with pics of gray back and non-gray back? i'm still totally confused by what these should look like. thank you!

[toppcat]

I continue to be amazed at the attention and pricing given to card stock variations, likely used to just to finish out runs for the most part. Even 50's and 60's cards without true gray/white variance can have different stock. Witness the dingy vs whiter stock used for the 1951 Red Backs or 1967 cards as an example.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by hockeyhockey

can someone do a side by side with pics of gray back and non-gray back? i'm still totally confused by what these should look like. thank you!

I think the image in post 5 shows it pretty strongly.

[ALR-bishop]

[ALR-bishop]

Seems to me that with the exception of the 52 and 54 " Canadian" grey backs the demand and premiums for different backs are not as strong. The 56 different backs can be pricey but mostly because of all the big names in the series