1966 Topps backs
 

Anyone know why some are lighter than others? I've always been curious but never really been able to figure out why.

I could see some really anal set collectors only going for one type.

I have noticed this also....possibly Topps used slightly different types of card stock during production. Similar to 56, 59, 60 Topps and OPC issues.

There's a lot of Topps issues with variations in coloration. I think it's some combo/interaction of cardboard and how far along in the press run a series was.

1969 was worse than 1966
 

Later this morning I will post a picture in the other 68 blog going about the backs of the cards. In that year Topps ran out of stock and starting with the 3rd through 6th series used two different types of stock backs.

In the case of the 66s, I think it's a milder version of the 69s. The 69 color ranges from a deep salmon to a very light rose. I read where a collector with printing experience thought if they were cutting corners then they stretched the ink, sort of like not changing the toner on a xerox when the light first comes on.

And Topps was certainly cutting corners in 1969.

Unless the color is a stock color available from an ink supplier -And most aren't- The ink is mixed by hand by the press operator according to a recepie sort of like paint gets mixed at the hardware store. (Only it's much gummier, so the mixing is done with a putty knife instead of a shaker)

So there are lots of reasons the ink might be lighter or darker.

Cardboard color makes a difference too, and the inexpensive cardboard used varies in color at times. It can also be coated/uncoated stock absorbing the ink differently.

Steve B

Paint Balls
 

More good info , thanks Steve

When I was putting my 66 set together, I thought I may have stumbled into some reprints, but was wondering why would certain commons be reprinted. Some of the cards seem thinner, and are much whiter. I did a search here when I first joined and noticed this topic on 66s comes up about once a year, so I felt much better that in the very least I wasn't alone...