Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan
In my opinion, the red backs should warrant a higher value, as their fronts are a brighter image.
The black backs (which I collected when I was a teenager) are not as sharp and bright-looking as the red backs.
Actually, you can distinguish a red back from a black back 1952T card by just looking at its front. You do not have to flip it over.
TED Z
T206 Reference
. |
I agree with your assessment, Ted, but isn't part of the allure of black backs, the fact that they are slightly more hard to find/rare than red backs? Maybe that only applies to high end, graded 8+ type of cards?
Many articles have been written over the years about black backs and many stories here on Net54 so I am surprised by some of the responses in this thread about them.
I know when I joined the site back in 2016 and began collecting again, I didn't know anything about black backs either but through responses/info I gathered here and elsewhere, I began to take an interest in them in my quest to learn more.
Maybe things have changed with regards to them, and if so, I wasn't aware of that, but when I'm searching now to upgrade some of my lower, rougher looking cards in that series, the majority of the time I try to find the black back versions.
""Red backs are considered more common than the black backs. That makes the black back cards more valuable for the most part. Much like the rest of the 1952 Topps set, these cards were well ahead of their time. The red back and black back cards included players like Spahn, Gil Hodges, Duke Snider and Phil Rizzuto.Jun 9, 2014
https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...s-black-backs/