New discovery about 1956 Topps baseball cards
 

Last week I received a 1956 Topps Roy Campanella card with a cream color back. The card had a glossy feel to it on the front and back (it didn't look glossy under a bright light, just felt that way as opposed to the coarser cardboard feel that the other cards have) and was made of thinner card stock. I thought it was a reprint so I examined it under a loupe and did a black light test but saw nothing unusual. I contacted the seller about the card and he said it had been in his collection since 1974 so it could not be a reprint. I did a little experiment and went through the 300+ 1956 Topps baseball cards I have by feeling the front and back of each one. This is what I discovered. I found 7 other cards that had the same glossy feel to them and were made of thinner card stock. The cards were:
#129 Jake Martin
#170 Bill Virdon
#168 Sammy White
#142 Gene Baker
#104 Bob Lennon
#107 Eddie Matthews
#131 bob Roselli
#123 Roy McMillan
All the cards have cream colored backs. I have many cards with cream colored backs but these were the only ones that felt flossy on front and back with thinner card stock. Could these somehow be the Canadian version? Does anyone have any of these cards that the could examine to support my findings?

Scans?

I had a Frank Thomas card like this that I ended up getting rid of because I assumed it was a reprint. I still need the white back Thomas for my gray/white variation set.

I would send the scans, or even the cards in question and request for input to Levi ( 707) via his 707 web site. Levi has been very helpful to me on Topps 50s and 60s issues. Dean at Dean's cards as well.

Quick peek through a box and I found the Martin and Lennon that have a slight gloss/shine to the front and a Sandy Amoros also but they have grey backs...the Lennon I also found with the cream back..

Many others of mine have a shine to them, some don't and there is no doubt they are real...

I have the 1956 set but so far have not completed the alternative back series in both stocks. I did send Levi a link to this thread. In his view the white backs from 101 to 180 are printed on an entirely different card stock than the 1-100 white/grays and the 181 to 340 cards, and that the 101 to 180 cards don't look or feel like either the 1 to 180 white/grays or the 181 to 340 cards

Expensive card


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Glossy fronts
 

I believe the white backs #’d 101-180 have glossy fronts. I have 35 of the possible 80 and they have the shiny front compared to my white backs 1-100