What's with this 66 Topps Card?

[Kutcher55]

Just killing time on a freezing Saturday in the northeast. A few weeks ago I updated my HOF RC of the criminally underrated Jim Palmer, or so I thought I did, but I guess I wasn't paying close attention because when I got it even though it was in nice shape it had a faded quality to it, especially on the back. I don't think it is sun fading although it could be. I think I read somewhere that 66s had a print run with different kind of card stock. It occurs to me the card could be fake although it does pass the smell test and I think it is authentic.

Below are pics of the front and back, as well as the back of another decent pitcher from that era, which is much more typical of the backs on every other 66 I have ever owned. Curious for the 66 experts to chime in. Thanks!

[Gorditadogg]

He's got racoon eyes too. I think that is a real card but with heavy fading.

[G1911]

Faded authentic card, probably from the sun.

[JollyElm]

Yeah, it's sort of a rule of thumb:
99% of the time the fading on an otherwise normal-looking card was caused in some way by the sun.

[ALR-bishop]

Jim was standing too close to Willie

[Exhibitman]

Faded. Legit print variations do not look like that.

[Cliff Bowman]

I don't think these are the result of sun fading .

[savedfrommyspokes]

Clearly sun fading on this Palmer card. The different card stock only appears in the 6th series...a brighter, smoother finished card stock was used in not only this series, but with the FB set that year also.

[Kutcher55]

Well then I guess it’s just faded. It looks almost as if someone tried to toast it like a campfire marshmalllow. I guess sun fading can effect both sides of a card.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

Clearly sun fading on this Palmer card. The different card stock only appears in the 6th series...a brighter, smoother finished card stock was used in not only this series, but with the FB set that year also.

Series 6 has the really noticeable difference, with the smoother vibrant white stock vs. the standard cream back. Series 1 also has two stocks, but with a less immediately eye popping difference. I think Series 2-5 also have a stock variation, though the standard cream is more common in them. Series 7 I don't believe has a stock variation.

The stock differences drive me nuts sometime. I'm building only series 6 both ways for my set at present, using a completely arbitrary cutoff of how eye catching I find the Topps stock differences to be.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by G1911

Series 6 has the really noticeable difference, with the smoother vibrant white stock vs. the standard cream back. Series 1 also has two stocks, but with a less immediately eye popping difference. I think Series 2-5 also have a stock variation, though the standard cream is more common in them. Series 7 I don't believe has a stock variation.

The stock differences drive me nuts sometime. I'm building only series 6 both ways for my set at present, using a completely arbitrary cutoff of how eye catching I find the Topps stock differences to be.

You could always split the card on it's edge to determine the stock difference.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by tschock

You could always split the card on it's edge to determine the stock difference.

Besides, cutting it in half will give me two cards instead of one!

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

I don't think these are the result of sun fading .

Nuclear accident.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

I don't think these are the result of sun fading .

LSD? It was the 60s.