82 Topps Traded White Back Variations
 

Not sure how many people are aware of these. I noticed junkwaxgems sold a couple on ebay and did some digging and found some of my own. Unfortunately, none that I found were Dodgers and that's all I'm really interested in. Before I list the ones I found on ebay I was wondering if anyone had any white back Dodgers (#s 5, 75, 84, 103). I have #s 4, 7, 17, 22, 37, 53, 54, 59, 66, 73, 78, 86, 88, 99, 110, 116, 117, 119, 128 to trade.

Imagine what Ripken collectors would pay for a clean white back variation? Would love to see one. I've already scoured ebay and comc...none there.

Check out the ones I have and tell me what you think........

http://i720.photobucket.com/albums/w...ps4qncrobp.jpg

Pretty close. I would say somewhere between pink and white...perhaps salmon? Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are the cards in the 1st post supposed to be the 2 different types? I see a pink and a lighter pink.

82 Topps Traded White Back Variations
 

They aren't supposed to be two different types, but without question, they are.

Could you post a picture of one of the white back cards?

Backs
 

I thought he did, unless you mean a front

Ok maybe the ones in the top picture are them? They sure look like normal cards with a little less ink on the lighter pink ones, they are not white.

1982
 

The one on the right looks white to me, or at least not pink. But I am saddled with old eyes :)

Maybe it is my old eyes. It looks white in the "COMPLETE MAJOR LEAGUE BATTING RECORD" but looks light pink in the part I am guessing is supposed to be white on this slight print variation.

I have a box of about 600 or so 82 Traded cards and in just the first 100 or so cards I found these pairs....there were multiple other "white" backed copies I did not match up to a corresponding pink back. I can certainly see Ben's point about not seeing much of a difference, however, in hand the variance in color on the back is much more obvious than it appears in the scans.

I would agree with this.

I first discovered these in 2010. The first example was Checklist 132T. It took me 3 years to find any others.

Yes, the examples that I found and sold (dirt cheap) are truly without ANY red ink in the noted areas, just the raw cardboard color. This was definitely a design change by Topps.

And yes, there are also examples, though unrelated, that have lighter or varying degrees of red ink in the stat and bio areas on back. This is very common and affects many Topps issues.

Yep the ripken i showed looks much whiter in person, if it wasnt for this thread I would have never found any difference between them. One is a BGS 9 and the other a PSA 8

I got 2 of these cards in the mail today thanks to a fellow member. IMHO they are just a fairly common print anomaly found in many Topps cards. To me these are the same as the 90 Topps All-Star cards that can be found with any where from a light gray to a dark black background.

The very light magenta print pattern can easily be seen in the close up of the "white" card.

Variants
 

The majority of the "variants" posted in the variations thread in the other post war forum are likely unintended recurring print defects or deviations. I don't look at them as true variations which I view as intended changes in a card or in the printing process affecting a card. But it is often difficult to determine if a difference was intended or just a recurring defect. I do not know if these differences were intended or an accident but they are obvious differences, similar to many of the variants posted in the other thread and ones similar to it.

Collect them if you like them

I agree Al. My collection is so weird that when I tell some friends about a new card the first thing they ask is "what is wrong with it?".:eek::D

Variants
 

Every time I buy a card from Sean Bassik he sends me a note asking if it is a variation/variant :)

Since my sets are done it usually is