1959 white/gray backs

[Malverne]

Hi. This forum was recommended to me as the best place to seek info on the nature of the 1959 set's white and gray backs.

I've found what seems to be consistent information on cards 199-239 and 241-286 being found in both white and gray.

But there seems to be much conflicting info on the cards before and after. One widely circulated collecting publication's article referred to all other cards having uniformly gray backs. But that seems clearly wrong -- my observation says at least the first series has (only?) white backs.

I'd appreciate being referred to any definitive source of information. Thanks

[doug.goodman]

Here is what I have for the 1959 set :

Cards #1 thru #110 have white backs only, including all 3 variations of #40.

Cards #111 thru 198 have gray backs only.

Cards #199 thru #286 were each issued with both white and gray backs.

Cards #287 thru #374 have gray backs only, including both variations of cards #316, 321, 322, 336 and 362.

Cards #375 thru #440 have white backs only, including both variations of #416.

Cards #441 thru #506 have gray backs only.

Cards #516 thru #572 have white backs only.

The "master" set contains 668 cards.

Doug

[Malverne]

Can I ask if you researched the info yourself or have a source? regardless, much appreciate the info

[doug.goodman]

I have combined all of the info that I could find (SCD guide, Gilkeson book, etc) from any sources, and have also completed what I believe to be a master set. In the process of putting together sets, sometimes new cards turn up. That doesn't happen much with Topps cards, but my Baseball Magazine supplement collection has a few that aren't catalog listed and numerous variations of ones that are listed.

That being said, I also keep my eyes open for new variations that pop up in the hobby (like the new 1963 Davenport variation that Tom Gordon posted about last week), which sometimes leads me to a new hunt to re-complete a set.

I'm not a fan of what I consider printing defects (like the 1958 Herrera, or various cards with breaks in the lines surrounding borders), but I tend to follow along with the SCD guide as the final say. One of the Spahn "variations" in the 1959 set is, in my opinion, just a print defect, but I still "had" to have it to complete my set.

Doug

[Beatles Guy]

Good information Doug, thanks for sharing.

[ALR-bishop]

Doug--I agree with your views on variations, including the 58 Herrer and the 57 Bakep---and the 3d 59 Spahn and Haywood Sullivan ( even though I paid $ for all of them just because they are in the SCD Catalog). Another recurring but rare print defect in that set is the Ramos card. There has been a high grade version of it on ebay for some time with no takers. But that defect is not isolated. I have seen others on ebay and have one myself. But unless it gets listed, only extremists like me who have the sets done and are looking to expand them are likely to pay any premium for them.

All that power Bob L.....:)

[doug.goodman]

That 1959 Ramos card makes me laugh everytime it pops up in a search.
Doug

[Malverne]

Hi again Doug,

I began trying to reconcile your info with other sources.
This stood out immediately: Other sources say gray backs begin at 111 (instead of 199) and indeed, that's what the cards in my set show.
What I can't get a bead on is the run of those grays. Sources say they go from 111 to 203, by my 199 and 201 are white.

[doug.goodman]

My mistake, you are correct, and I have corrected my list :

Cards #1 thru #110 have white backs only, including all 3 variations of #40.

Cards #111 thru 198 have gray backs only.

Cards #199 thru #286 were each issued with both white and gray backs.

Cards #287 thru #374 have gray backs only, including both variations of cards #316, 321, 322, 336 and 362.

Cards #375 thru #440 have white backs only, including both variations of #416.

Cards #441 thru #506 have gray backs only.

Cards #516 thru #572 have white backs only.

The "master" set contains 668 cards.

That's what happens when you do things like this without the actual cards in front of you.

Doug

PS - I am hoping to have my 1959 set posted to my flickr sight soon. A couple more long flights should do it.

[ALR-bishop]

Doug---if Ramos gives you a chuckle, maybe this one will too. Check examples of card 316, NL Hitting Stars ( Mays/Ashburn) on e bay. In many of them a close look shows what looks like a scribbled "A" where their arms cross together. This defect shows up often. Printing error that was corrected, or later run defect like Herrer ?

No matter what definition you, me , or Bob L comes up with, there will be gray areas. To me that just makes it fun. People can collect and be happy with whatever motivates them. But, ironically, whether one of these takes off in value or is just an oddity in a Gilkeson publication or a dark secret with the secret order of variation/error collectors, depends on whether Bob L or Beckets or the Registry, or someone recognized in the hobby lists it somewhere.

[Rich Klein]

Were added to the Beckett DB at my behest way way back in the day (1991-92). I remember showing the good Dr. the three cards which I purchased for what I think was a grand total of $25 (condition varied) and he OK'd the three different cards.

Regards
Rich

[ALR-bishop]

I have the 3 Spahns. The question raised above is whether the 1921 and 1931 versions are variations and the blotched 3d card is a just print defect, or whether it is a 3d variation where an attempt was first made to correct the original error by blotting a number before reprinting the card with the correct DOB