1964 Topps - Is There A Set With More Variability?

[jingram058]

If so, I haven't come across one. It looks like 1964 Topps was printed in more than one location. Probably not, but looks like it. Quality control appears to have been non-existent with this set. Please don't get me wrong. I love this set with it's huge team names on the front and the creamsicle backs. But there are wild variations to color for the players name bottom banner and the team name font color. On the back, some are in fact creamsicle orange, but some are not orange, but red. And sometimes you can read the text, and sometimes you can't. Sometimes they are flat out blurry or out of focus (like my shaky Parkinson's photography, apologies). I guess all this is really what makes this set attractive to me, in some weird unexplainable way.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by jingram058

But there are wild variations to color for the players name bottom banner and the team name font color. On the back, some are in fact creamsicle orange, but some are not orange, but red. And sometimes you can read the text, and sometimes you can't. Sometimes they are flat out blurry or out of focus (like my shaky Parkinson's photography, apologies).

I don't like the design of the set anyway compared to the 1963 or 1965 issues, but you've just given me another reason not to collect the 1964 cards.



P.S. Please reduce the width of your picture though. It's messing up the formatting of this page.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

I don't like the design of the set anyway compared to the 1963 or 1965 issues, but you've just given me another reason not to collect the 1964 cards.



P.S. Please reduce the width of your picture though. It's messing up the formatting of this page.

Looks fine on the mobile version.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Balticfox]

The picture is going well beyond the side of the screen on my 17.1" laptop. Pictures should be limited to an absolute maximum of 1050 pixels or so.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

The picture is going well beyond the side of the screen on my 17.1" laptop. Pictures should be limited to an absolute maximum of 1050 pixels or so.

I have no way to fix them that I know of. If they're too big the photo uploader won't accept them. I will take more and remove these if it's that big a deal.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

The picture is going well beyond the side of the screen on my 17.1" laptop. Pictures should be limited to an absolute maximum of 1050 pixels or so.

Consider them fixed.

[ALR-bishop]

I have some nostalgia for the set because I completed it by buying it series by series as they were issued by Topps through The Card Collector's Company in NY

[raulus]

I guess you could argue that the modern stuff has lots of variability, with all of the colors and refractors and whatnot. You can pretty much taste the rainbow!

But I suppose the counterpoint is that variability is deliberate, whereas with 64T, it's an accident of production.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Consider them fixed.

Thank you!

[akleinb611]

This thread brings up something I noticed a very long time ago (in 1964, in fact), which is that it is almost possible to figure out which series a particular card belongs do, by looking closely at the card photo itself. Each series in 1964 has its own "look," and unfortunately, since I'm not conversant in photography terms, I may have trouble articulating what I mean by that.

I collected this set at the age of nine, and yes, I noticed that the first series featured mostly photos that were rich, well color balanced, lacked grain, and has a certain three dimensional quality. The second series seemed - flatter, somehow. The third series was shockingly grainy, really subpar in a number of ways I can't quite articulate. The fourth series seemed a bit better, if still falling short of the quality of the first. The fifth series was the most striking. It was as if Topps had noted the graininess of the third series and had completely overcompensated. The photos in the fifth series have an unnatural smoothness that made all the players look like they had been dipped in wax. And then the sixth and seventh, final series, were corrected again, and were almost as well balanced as the first series.

I may be better at explaining all this now, but even as a kid, I could see that each series looked strikingly different. This wouldn't have been the result of multiple printings, because each series looks the same within itself, just very different from one series to the next. This sounds like what the OP is saying. Has anyone else noticed this, and has anyone gotten hold of information about what was going on at Topps that year?

I've provided examples from the first, third and fifth series, but I have no idea if my impressions will be visible on the scans. Your thoughts?

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by jingram058

If so, I haven't come across one. It looks like 1964 Topps was printed in more than one location. Probably not, but looks like it. Quality control appears to have been non-existent with this set. Please don't get me wrong......

I think we will find out Topps had cards printed by a number of firms when demand exceeded expectations. Not sure about timing or the exact particulars but my feeling is that more hands were involved than we currently realize.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by akleinb611

This thread brings up something I noticed a very long time ago (in 1964, in fact), which is that it is almost possible to figure out which series a particular card belongs do, by looking closely at the card photo itself. Each series in 1964 has its own "look," and unfortunately, since I'm not conversant in photography terms, I may have trouble articulating what I mean by that.

I collected this set at the age of nine, and yes, I noticed that the first series featured mostly photos that were rich, well color balanced, lacked grain, and has a certain three dimensional quality. The second series seemed - flatter, somehow. The third series was shockingly grainy, really subpar in a number of ways I can't quite articulate. The fourth series seemed a bit better, if still falling short of the quality of the first. The fifth series was the most striking. It was as if Topps had noted the graininess of the third series and had completely overcompensated. The photos in the fifth series have an unnatural smoothness that made all the players look like they had been dipped in wax. And then the sixth and seventh, final series, were corrected again, and were almost as well balanced as the first series.

I may be better at explaining all this now, but even as a kid, I could see that each series looked strikingly different. This wouldn't have been the result of multiple printings, because each series looks the same within itself, just very different from one series to the next. This sounds like what the OP is saying. Has anyone else noticed this, and has anyone gotten hold of information about what was going on at Topps that year?

I've provided examples from the first, third and fifth series, but I have no idea if my impressions will be visible on the scans. Your thoughts?

I can't describe it any better than this, but I think this is true of a number of the old Topps sets and you are exactly right. The photos or borders or both look distinctly different in sharpness and clarity and after awhile you can predict which series a card was in. Oftentimes the first series and the high numbers have the 'best' photo quality, I think.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by G1911

I can't describe it any better than this, but I think this is true of a number of the old Topps sets and you are exactly right. The photos or borders or both look distinctly different in sharpness and clarity and after awhile you can predict which series a card was in. Oftentimes the first series and the high numbers have the 'best' photo quality, I think.

Can definitely see that in the higher series of the 1972 set, in both the border colors and the depth of the photos.

Back to the 1964s, I bought a Giants Gunners (Mays and Cepeda) card on the 'bay and when it arrived it felt strangely thinner than other 64s that I have. I haven't measured the thickness, so I can't tell for sure, but it certainly did feel 'different'.

[jingram058]

For all it's flaws, I find myself strangely drawn to this set.

[Rich Klein]

There are more quirks to this set than one may realize.

The high numbers are tough but not impossible the way some 61, 66 and 67s are but I had a devil of a time back in the day getting the Hi # Phil Niekro RC

There are some informational blurbs you want to shake your head at including two of my favorites., If I get them wrong please forgive me as I'm going from memory

The Archie Skeen RC has this classic on the back, "Archie has retired to be a school teacher". How did you not replace him in the set?

The Bennett/Wise RC has this sentence: This 19 year old righthander is only 18 years old., Guess Topps invented time travel more than six decades ago.

Gene Conley is pictured in the last series as an Indian. His Indian career, well, 2 minor league games in what we could call rehab today and that was the conclusion.

No really big RC's BUT 3 HOF Rookie Cards *unless I'm missing one* Dick
"Don't call me Richie" Allen; Tony LaRussa and the aforementioned Phil Niekro

There is NO WAY you can get a complete autograph set: Jim Umbricht mentions his passing on the back and Ken Hubby on the Front.


I do wish they had put in a career capper card for Stan Musial in the 1st series but that's me

Etc Etc Etc

Rich