1966 Topps cardstock variations

[Footballdude]

Just wondering if anyone else has found the 1966 Topps cards to be printed on 2 different types of card stock? One is very white and noticeably thinner, while the other is more tan and thicker/stiffer.

Could the thinner card stock examples be considered even more condition sensitive, since they would be more susceptible to bending/creasing?

Just curious. Vintage football cards never seem to get the same amount of attention as their baseball counterparts, even though there are similarities between the 2 as far as printing variations go.

Thoughts?

[jefferyepayne]

I don't know specifically about 1966 but it is pretty common for football cards from that era to have different card stocks. It appears that Topps would use up whatever stock they had left from their baseball runs and then purchase additional stock irrespective of what they had used previously.

As you note, football wasn't considered as important as baseball to them so I think they just used whatever card stock they had laying around or could pick up cheap.

jeff

[Footballdude]

That makes sense. From what I've seen, even the price guide people have never given much consideration to football variations. Not that I would be too concerned about the values, but I think things like this are at least worth mentioning, especially in any kind of comprehensive reference book.

I have also noticed similar differences in 1968 Topps (white and tan backs), as well as 1967 (white/tan backs plus the Milton Bradley "mustard yellow" printed backs.)

[2dueces]

I opened 100's of 66 football packs as a kid. It was the first set I ever put together. Straight from boxes at Lefty Harry's corner grocery store. I looked at some of those in my collection and all had pure white backs. As I upgraded the set over the last 15 years I noticed that the stock and color is different no matter how good the condition of the card is. I only upgraded to mint cards to replace some not so minty ones.

I lived in Buffalo as a kid and my only conclusion is:

1. Cards exposed to different temps and weather browned differently?

2. Different paper stock was bought and used by Topps as more cards were printed. Maybe a different supplier?

I have to lean to 2. We know that variations of the print happened on different runs. (red line-no red line variations on the back) I'm sure uniformity in card stock was not a concern.
Who knew that us OCD collectors 48 years later would care?

[Footballdude]

2deuces - That's interesting that all the cards you opened were the white card stock. Jeff's assumption that Topps used up whatever they had from a previous run could be correct. Not just from a previous baseball card run, but from whatever other non-sport sets they were printing at the time as well.

I have also heard the theory that Topps printed cards in 2 different plants (one closer to east coast and one closer to west coast) to supply either coast easier. That might make sense why your packs were all "white backs". Those might have been what was supplied to the east coast and the "tan backs" on the west coast. Who knows.

No doubt though that they are 2 different card stocks, for whatever reason.

If you look at one of each, under magnification, you will see that the white stock is noticeably thinner. You will also see that the center of the white stock, sandwiched between the top and bottom, is actually dark grey. While the center of the tan stock is tan like what you see on the back.

Now, a couple ??'s come to mind:
1 - Since these are 2 different card stocks, either printed at different times or in different locations, was one printed in greater numbers then the other?

We may never know since Topps, as far as I know, has never disclosed their production numbers. Just looking at random cards on ebay, that show a front and back scan, the "white backs" seem to show up less frequently. But my random searching donn't mean nothing. It could be totally the opposite. And I'll bet most dealers, and probably most collectors, don't care one way or the other.

But here is my dilemma since starting to notice these.



When looking at my fledgling set from the back, there are white backs and tan backs mixed. I'm not sure I like this. The OCD in me is now telling me to either pick one type over the other, or make 2 sets (twice as much $$).

Here's the problem however. I prefer the look of the white backs, but they are thinner and might be more susceptible to damage, making decent copies that much harder to find. But the tan backs seem to be easier to find. What to do, what to do (thinking aloud)?

[jefferyepayne]

Clearly the OCD answer is that you need to build both a tan and a white set

jeff

[Jim65]

FWIW, my '66's seem to run 50/50 white/tan. My sampling is small, I don't build sets, so have no commons (except Dolphins)

[Footballdude]

Jeff - That's called enabling, so the OCD in me may accept your challenge.

Yes, it may be that there are equal amounts of both. Most of my set are white backs, but that may be because I purchased them from a singe, original owner, source.

I'm just wondering how hard it will be to target, say, white backs, especially on places like ebay, when sellers don't often scan the backs of the cards.

[2dueces]

I've got the full set in a binder. I'll check the backs when I get a chance. I should have kept track of the upgrades but I just replaced cards that weren't mint. I'll break down the #'s.

[2dueces]

100 of my 132 are white backs. Again my set came from packs from Buffalo NY. I would imagine that all or most of the darker back are up grades. Star cards are mixed.