1964 Topps Stand-Up Proofs

[nolemmings]

I have a couple of questions about 1964 Topps Stand-Ups progressive proofs. I just acquired what appears to be the final proof of Orlando Cepeda–no die cuts–as seen in the bottom row second card. The others I obtained more than 15 years ago as a group, so I thought/think this is the final piece. The last card shown on the bottom is the final version as released.

Note that the green “grass” is a bit higher on the final, which is even slightly more noticeable in hand. Also note the difference in the backs shown far right. All but the one I just obtained have the lighter cream color while the unperforated is darker and nearly exactly like the final product. Also note the lighter backs are about 1/32" less wide.


My question is whether you think the unperforated “final”card I just obtained is in fact a proof or just a card that slipped through the production process without a diecut.

I also would appreciate opinions of value. I did not spend a lot of time researching these in the past 15 years, and all I seem to locate quickly is a partial set of three Ernie Banks that went for about $1800 in Mile High and a set of four Mantles (missing the ghost white) that went for $3300 in REA. I did not see back scans that might help me here. This is the only group of five of which I am aware. If you have others, please show them. Thanks for looking.

[ALR-bishop]

This is a proof sheet with production notes that include Cepeda that I bought years ago from Topps Vault.



While it was never issued at retail both die cut and unfinished proof cards exist of each subject in the Topps 1967 Stand Up set

[JollyElm]

Not sure if it helps, but I picked up this non-perforated Colavito awhile back, and simply assumed it (and the other cards on its sheet?) bypassed the perforation phase at the Topps factory...

1964colavitostandupnonperforated.jpg

...but it seems the grass may be more limey (and not as dark and rich) than it 'should' be? Not sure, but don't have a perforated Stand-Up Rocky to compare it to. Mine here is also cropped very much like yours, so maybe those two similarities point to them being the products of the same sheet or group of sheets.

[steve B]

The final proofs for anything are usually hard to tell unless they're still a sheet.

I would think the ones with no die cut and lighter green are proofs, or at least the first copies when the inking levels were being set.

I lean towards proofs, as the darker shade should still look darker even if it's not inked all that heavily.

There "should" be proofs of each individual color too, and a blank with just the die cut.
And harder to tell still, a really final stage including all colors and the die cuts. They still have to check that the die cuts are all in the right place.

[steve B]

The final proofs for anything are usually hard to tell unless they're still a sheet.

I would think the ones with no die cut and lighter green are proofs, or at least the first copies when the inking levels were being set.

I lean towards proofs, as the darker shade should still look darker even if it's not inked all that heavily.

There "should" be proofs of each individual color too, and a blank with just the die cut.
And harder to tell still, a really final stage including all colors and the die cuts. They still have to check that the die cuts are all in the right place.

[ALR-bishop]

Agree that it is almost impossible to distinguish between most blank back proof cards and blank back mistakes in production, unless it comes from Topps Vault or the front differs in some way from the issued cards, as is the case with the 84 Encased cards, the 3 1960 proofs of Cimoli, Throneberry and Hadley, the 67 Maris Yankee ( which may have been a "produced" proof) and the dozen or so 77 proofs listed by SCD, which includes the R Jackson Oriole.

But in some cases a blank back proof may show a different colored stock than an issued card