QUESTION About Topps 1969 World Series Cards

[jgannon]

Hey guys -

In your experience - have you ever come across reprints or counterfeits of any of the 1969 Topps World Series cards? I buy raw cards, and I just received the first in the World Series run today of Game #1 of Bob Gibson's 17-strikeout game.

It kind of seemed a little sheen and I noticed the back of the card was a little whiter than the other cards I have from the series run. Although, then I realized that I had another card that looked and felt the same way as the Gibson card, which was the Game #5 card with Al Kaline on the front.

Here are some pics of the backs. You really can't tell any difference between them from the fronts really.

20210130_105157.jpg

You can see that the card on the left of Game #2 - which I am confident is an original - differs in color from the Gibson and Kaline cards on the right.

The card on the left, Game #2, feels a little thicker too. All the rest of my cards in the series run have the same color as the card on the left. The only two which look whiter on the back and feel a little flimsier, are the Gibson and Kaline cards.

So again, my question is, has anyone come across any reprints or counterfeits of these cards?

Thanks in advance for any input you can give me on this!

[swarmee]

All the cards are real. 1969 Topps had some very pink/white backs, and some muted pink/cream backs. Just a stock issue that the price guides or grading companies don't care about.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by swarmee

All the cards are real. 1969 Topps had some very pink/white backs, and some muted pink/cream backs. Just a stock issue that the price guides or grading companies don't care about.

Ok thanks, that's reassuring. But the lighter backs also feel a little flimsier. Is that part of the difference of the different backs?

[jgannon]

Just to add to this a little - I know that the 1959 Topps - 1959 - there are white backs and gray backs - and the white backs have a thicker and sturdier feel than the gray backs.

I'm just wondering out there, while I feel better that I now know that there were different colored backs to the 1969 cards, was there also a difference in the sturdiness of the backs, where the whiter backs were a little thinner feeling?

[JollyElm]

Here's a quick snapshot of my 1969 album, where the WS cards have various backs...

1969backs.jpg

Card #162 (not pictured) has the darker back.

[Harliduck]

Agreed with all...I have 3 complete sets...lots of variety on the pink color and know exactly what you are talking about with the stock feel. Same with 66 Topps...

[toppcat]

Seems like Topps always did a run with brilliant white stock and then inferior stock (or vice-versa). Many years and series are like this.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by toppcat

Seems like Topps always did a run with brilliant white stock and then inferior stock (or vice-versa). Many years and series are like this.

I guess so. I do know that the 1959 white backs were thicker and sturdier than the gray backs. And as mentioned above, there were differences in the 1966 set. I don't have a lot my my cards that I used to have from those years, so I don't have the references I used to have. But I'm going to analyze some of the cards I do have.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Harliduck

Agreed with all...I have 3 complete sets...lots of variety on the pink color and know exactly what you are talking about with the stock feel. Same with 66 Topps...

Oh ok - that's good to know! I mean the color was one thing, but I was concerned about the different feel in thickness of them.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Here's a quick snapshot of my 1969 album, where the WS cards have various backs...

Attachment 438112

Card #162 (not pictured) has the darker back.

Hey thanks. But may I ask you - do the cards with the whiter backs feel a little thinner to you? As though the card stock of the white cards is a little thinner?

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Hey thanks. But may I ask you - do the cards with the whiter backs feel a little thinner to you? As though the card stock of the white cards is a little thinner?

Well, tactilely (yes, I just wanted to use that word!) they feel pretty much the same, not obviously thinner or lighter. But when concentrating on the issue at hand, I would guess they may be a hair thinner.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Well, tactilely (yes, I just wanted to use that word!) they feel pretty much the same, not obviously thinner or lighter. But when concentrating on the issue at hand, I would guess they may be a hair thinner.

Yes, that was a strategic and apt use of the word, lol!

But now you have me wondering again! I would have to imagine from all the comments here that the cards are legit. But to me, there is a definite difference in the feel of the card stock, with the cards that I have with the white back, definitely not being quite as stiff if you give them a little bend from he middle.

I used to have so many of these cards when I was a kid!! I wish I had 'em now!!

[Jeff Alcorn]

Hi,

Having grown up collecting in the 60s and 70s, Topps many times used the 2 different card stocks- the white back and the more standard cream colored stock. The white stock can feel thinner and more flexible than the standard stock. This issue was especially noticeable in the 1966 - 1970 sets, both baseball and football.

Also, the white stock seemed to reproduce the front pictures a little more brightly than the standard cream stock, and seemed to be quite similar to the stock used by O-Pee-Chee at the time. Topps stopped using the white stock after 1970, while O-Pee-Chee used it throughout the 1970s. Also, I don't think that every series in every set featured the 2 stocks, as there are some series in certain sets that I have only ever seen the standard cream stock. For example, I can't think of any 1967 or 1970 Topps football with the white stock- does anybody have any? 1969 football, despite the black backs does use both stocks in the 1st series only, the 2nd series is all standard stock.

Hope this info. is of some help.

Jeff