 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8
06-09-2019, 06:02 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Just based on some long ago memories, here are some observations:
Generally, Donruss cards were thinner than Topps, especially the first issue in 1981. I don't think they could even stand up straight by themselves. Early Upper Deck cards are also thin. Score cards from 1988 and 1989 seemed thicker than average. Topps traded/update seemed a bit thicker (at least in the 1980s) when the card stock was different than the regular issue. I've recently been putting together a 1957 T baseball set, and those cards are very thick.
__________________
Working Sets: Baseball- T206 SLers - Virginia League (-1) 1952 Topps - low numbers (-1) 1953 Topps (-91) 1954 Bowman (-3) 1964 Topps Giants auto'd (-2) 
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| 1964 Topps Thickness & Color Variation | xdrx | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 22 | 12-01-2022 09:21 AM |
| Ultra Pro 9 pocket pages for patch/relic cards + 70 pt thickness? | Beastmode | Modern Baseball Cards Forum (1980-Present) | 1 | 08-28-2017 11:07 AM |
| Question about E97 C. A. Briggs Co. thickness | Mainstreetsportscards | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 0 | 02-13-2015 10:35 PM |
| Thickness of T201 Mecca Double Folders | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 6 | 10-18-2006 04:58 PM |
| 1915 Standard Biscuit card questions | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 2 | 10-17-2001 01:35 PM |
Threaded Mode