1968 Topps Milton Bradley help

[wolfdogg]

I recently bought a collection that included a complete 1968 Topps set. Upon looking at the cards I noticed the back of the #110 Aaron card has a brighter more “yellow” back. I’m not real familiar with the Milton Bradley cards.....is this one?
Any help will be greatly appreciated

[savedfrommyspokes]

Yes, that Aaron card is a MB card.

[wolfdogg]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

Yes, that Aaron card is a MB card.

Thanks for the input
Now to replace it....

[Cliff Bowman]

It looks like the front of the Aaron has a sliver of the white Hot Rod card that was above it on the original sheet. Cool card.

[quitcrab]

Definitely a MB !

[pingman59]

Originally Posted by quitcrab

Definitely a MB !

And a sharp one at that!

[whiteymet]

Hi Gang:

I am reviving this thread with a question.

It was brought to my attention by another long time collector that PSA has on their POP report for the 1968 Topps Milton Bradley set #50 Willie Mays.

See https://www.psacard.com/pop/baseball...-bradley/95017

Looking at various checklists for the set I do not see Mays listed.

Wondering if someone found a real rare card or is it possible PSA made an error for the first time in their history!

Any insight appreciated

[ricktopps]

Fred,

I do not believe that Mays was ever part of the Milton Bradley "Win a Card" game. I have never seen it on a checklist and have never seen it or heard of it in anyones collection. I have put together a few of these sets and this is the first I have ever heard of a Mays despite talking with people that have put together many sets. Some 1968 cards can be somewhat difficult to assess the bright yellow backs in the Milton Bradley cards vs. the golden backs in the first two series of cards in the traditional Topps sets. There are some cards that have backs that seem to fall somewhere in the middle of the classic colors. The best article about the game and set and even a possible uncut sheet (simulation) is at:

https://sportscollectorsdigest.com/c...on-bradley-set

I suspect that this is a PSA mistake. I have never seen or heard of a Mays in the set, but it is certainly not unheard of for PSA to make errors in labeling the cards they grade. If anyone could show a picture of the front of a 1968 Mays card that showed the white border from 1967 football or Topps Hot Rods then this would raise the question to another level. until then, I believe this is a PSA error and I believe that a 1968 Willie Mays Milton Bradley does not exist.

Rick Johnson

[savedfrommyspokes]

Definitely a PSA mistake....from the link above to Carlton's article, Joseph's image shows the sheet...no Mays.

[deweyinthehall]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

Definitely a PSA mistake....from the link above to Carlton's article, Joseph's image shows the sheet...no Mays.

Well, there's a first time for everything, I suppose.

[etsmith]

Reviving an old post yet again, I take it that Billy Williams isn't in the Topps Milton Bradley set? I saw one of his 1968 cards with a white border at the bottom and checked the list of Milton Bradley cards and he wasn't on it.

[ALR-bishop]

Good article on the MB Game set by a fellow board member

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrE...TgqyODWJ870qA-


And the PSA checklist for the set


https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrF..._IO9NOcOwkfTU-


And, there is a checklist varitiation, although I think Carlton would say there are just 2 versions of the checklist in the set

[Cliff Bowman]

The 1968 Topps Billy Williams was on the bottom row of one of the two 132 card First Series sheets, all 11 cards in the row can be found with white at the bottom if they are severely miscut.

[etsmith]

Thanks, that explains it. Here's the card, I don't know why it has a purple line where the white meets the burlap.


Billy Williams.jpg

[G1911]

Originally Posted by etsmith

Thanks, that explains it. Here's the card, I don't know why it has a purple line where the white meets the burlap.

I believe it is a cutting line. Pretty much every 1968 Topps cars can be found with a line like this at top or bottom border, in multiple colors. These lines are common in 1969 and 1970 as well, though most uncut material I’ve seen do not have them.

[jchcollins]

So, is it true as I've read that the 1968 design MB cards were really not made or at least issued until 1969? If so how solid is the evidence on that? Has anyone ever tried to claim that the MB Koosman / Ryan is not a RC because it was not issued in '68?

That could get interesting. I'm guessing I would side with those that say yes, come on it's a variation of the same card. It is period correct and produced in the same manner as the real '68 Topps set, even if it was done somewhat later.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

So, is it true as I've read that the 1968 design MB cards were really not made or at least issued until 1969? If so how solid is the evidence on that? Has anyone ever tried to claim that the MB Koosman / Ryan is not a RC because it was not issued in '68?

That could get interesting. I'm guessing I would side with those that say yes, come on it's a variation of the same card. It is period correct and produced in the same manner as the real '68 Topps set, even if it was done somewhat later.

I have always assumed that the MB's are a 1968 issue. If they were a 1969 issue, I would think the 33 football cards in the set would not be 1967 Topps cards, but would then have used 3 rows from the 1968 footballs. The selection of 1967 footballs + first 2 series of 1968 baseball selection (and the 22 1968 Hot Rods) seem to strongly suggest a 1968 printing. I'd be interested if there's anything to indicate this assumption based on the checklist has been wrongful.

[ALR-bishop]

John—See Carlton Miller's article linked in post 12. I do not think anyone knows more about the MB set than he does

[Exhibitman]

I bought a lot of random FB cards recently and got my first MB, a Ben Davidson. Speckles of a baseball card at the bottom.

[G1911]

I have most of the 132 card set, but I’m missing a majority of the hot rods still. While all cards were printed in equal number (except the Marichal checklist), few bother to list the cars online. They have proven difficult for me to find, while the baseball and football are pretty common to find. The MB versions of the footballs are a significant chunk of those cards total populations, the AFL print runs were so much lower than MLB.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by G1911

I have most of the 132 card set, but I’m missing a majority of the hot rods still. While all cards were printed in equal number (except the Marichal checklist), few bother to list the cars online. They have proven difficult for me to find, while the baseball and football are pretty common to find. The MB versions of the footballs are a significant chunk of those cards total populations, the AFL print runs were so much lower than MLB.

Based on the sheet Carlton and Joe put together(seen above), both Marichal checklists appear on the sheet, thus there would be an equal number of these two checklist cards.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

Based on the sheet Carlton and Joe put together(seen above), both Marichal checklists appear on the sheet, thus there would be an equal number of these two checklist cards.

Correct, one has fine mesh and one has wide mesh.

[ALR-bishop]

So, are DPs with differences variations or just two versions of a card ?

Are all of the 68 baseball MB cards variations, or just a second set or separate subset of the 68 Topps set ?

[horzverti]

Originally Posted by G1911

I have always assumed that the MB's are a 1968 issue. If they were a 1969 issue, I would think the 33 football cards in the set would not be 1967 Topps cards, but would then have used 3 rows from the 1968 footballs. The selection of 1967 footballs + first 2 series of 1968 baseball selection (and the 22 1968 Hot Rods) seem to strongly suggest a 1968 printing. I'd be interested if there's anything to indicate this assumption based on the checklist has been wrongful.

The MB Win-A-Card game was first marketed toward the end of 1968, during the Christmas shopping season. This explains the use of the most recently produced BB cards, the 1968s. I would guess that 1968 FB cards were on store shelves during this period, so I am not sure why they chose to include 1967 FB cards and not the more current 1968s. I can only assume that Topps made this decision to not potentially interfere with sales of their 1968 FB cards.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

So, are DPs with differences variations or just two versions of a card ?

Are all of the 68 baseball MB cards variations, or just a second set or separate subset of the 68 Topps set ?

Good question. In regard to the MB set, learning from Carlton's research on this set, I count the Marichal checklists as two different cards as they appear in their own respective spot on the sheet. IMO, the MB set would not be complete w/o copies of both. Coincidentally, the same two versions of this Marichal card appear in the 1968 Topps set. Each version appears on a separate sheet, thus like most all Topps checklists by series, I have always considered them variations as I would only need one in my set to consider it complete. Either way, I think it is up to each collector to decide this question.

Until I met Carlton (pre net54), I considered MB cards variations. After he explained the nuances of this set to me, the MB set is most certainly it's own set independent of all other sets(IE. not a subset ).

[ALR-bishop]

I tend to agree with you Larry on both counts.

But if one adopts the limited definition of a variation as a card intentionally changed by the manufacturer are double prints in a set, like the 52 Mantle, Thompson and Robinson variations ( or the many checklist DPs of the 60s and 70s) ? The differences were not specifically intentional but did result from intentional decisions in the set up of the sheet.

Are the 62 greenies that did not involve pose differences variations ?

How about the 82 Blackless "set " They are just unintentional print defects but ended up in packs. Variations ? SCD listed them as a separate set

I tend to view DP differences as variations. The greenies also. But I tend to view the 82 Blackless as print defects, although clearly they are recognized by the hobby as either variations or a separate subset of the 82 Topps.

Also agree that each collector should make their own call

[G1911]

The Marichal checklist was printed in double quantity, with 2 spots on the sheet. One with each variation of it. Just as the 311 Mantle is a DP with a variation, so too is the MB checklist. That it has a variation does not make it not a double print. A DP with a variation has never normally been considered an entirely new card, just a card that has a variation. The card is a double print.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by G1911

The Marichal checklist was printed in double quantity, with 2 spots on the sheet. One with each variation of it. Just as the 311 Mantle is a DP with a variation, so too is the MB checklist. That it has a variation does not make it not a double print. A DP with a variation has never normally been considered an entirely new card, just a card that has a variation. The card is a double print.

I would agree with your opinion on DPs with regular issued Topps sets, however, the MB set is anything but a regular issued Topps set. Thus, each of these checklists, as they are easily distinguishable, are one part of the 77 card baseball portion of this set as well as one part each of the overall 132 unique cards for this set. With cards from both the 1968 Topps 1st and 2nd series represented on the MB sheet, each of these checklists were taken from their respective series and were (for whatever reason EDA see my next post) both included in one of the 77 spots for baseball cards on the MB sheet. If both checklists appearing on the MB sheet were from the same series, then I would agree that this card would indeed be a DP.

[ALR-bishop]

I guess I find myself more in Greg's camp on this. Like the 52 Mantle, Thompson and Robinson the CL was printed twice on the same sheet and has differences and hence, to me, are variations. But I need both to have a complete "master" set.

I know Carlton, whose views I highly respect....and yours as well...differ from mine, and that's fine by me

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

I guess I find myself more in Greg's camp on this. Like the 52 Mantle, Thompson and Robinson the CL was printed twice on the same sheet and has differences and hence, to me, are variations. But I need both to have a complete "master" set.

I know Carlton, whose views I highly respect....and yours as well...differ from mine, and that's fine by me

I agree with the 52s that the Mantle, Thomson and JRob are true DPs, they had twice the number of cards printed than other cards it their SAME series. And yes, with these DPs, each copy is distinguishable from the other version. Many true DPs are not.

My understanding of what a DP is, it is simply a card that appears twice a frequently as single printed cards from the SAME series.

The fine mesh and wide mesh 68 Marichal checklists (and any Topps checklist from that appeared in multiple series) are not DPs because they appear in separate series. Obviously due to appearing in two separate series, there would be twice as many copies of the checklist cards from the individual player cards from those two series. And yes, a checklist card could be a DP within the same series.

The reason both Marichal checklists (the copy from the 1st series and the one from the 2nd series) appear in the MB set, is that Topps simply used entire rows from both the 1968 Topps 1st and 2nd series sheets and placed these full rows onto the MB 132 card sheet. It just so happened that two rows both started with a Marichal checklist card, one from the 1st series, the other from the 2nd. While it may be a coincidence that these two rows starting with the Marichal CL were chosen, I get the 1st series choice as it has Gibson on the row.

For me, no question that this MB Marichal card would be a DP if Topps used the same row twice on the MB sheet, and in that case all 11 cards on that row would be DPs as compared to the rest of the sheet.

Not to beat on a dead horse though, folks should collect what they want and how they want.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

I would agree with your opinion on DPs with regular issued Topps sets, however, the MB set is anything but a regular issued Topps set. Thus, each of these checklists, as they are easily distinguishable, are one part of the 77 card baseball portion of this set as well as one part each of the overall 132 unique cards for this set. With cards from both the 1968 Topps 1st and 2nd series represented on the MB sheet, each of these checklists were taken from their respective series and were (for whatever reason EDA see my next post) both included in one of the 77 spots for baseball cards on the MB sheet. If both checklists appearing on the MB sheet were from the same series, then I would agree that this card would indeed be a DP.

This would be a very new definition of a unique card that has never before been accepted or used. Almost all Topps checklists have this difference from their DP’ing. We do not consider the base Topps set version to require 2 of the Marichal checklists, that have the exact same variation from being printed in 2 series with a different border design. We consider a base 1968 Topps set to be 598 cards. Variations are not unique cards, they are a variant you need for a master set, but they are not an entirely different card. I have both for my set because I like variations, but the Marichal checklist is a single card with multiple variations, just like every other variation card.

[G1911]

The MB Marichal checklists are from the same series. The MB’s are a single series issue. It is the same picture, the same list, the same card number, in a 1 series release.

[ALR-bishop]

Good discussion. In my case whether DP or not, I had to have both versions to have the set complete in my mind

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by G1911

This would be a very new definition of a unique card that has never before been accepted or used. Almost all Topps checklists have this difference from their DP’ing. We do not consider the base Topps set version to require 2 of the Marichal checklists, that have the exact same variation from being printed in 2 series with a different border design. We consider a base 1968 Topps set to be 598 cards. Variations are not unique cards, they are a variant you need for a master set, but they are not an entirely different card. I have both for my set because I like variations, but the Marichal checklist is a single card with multiple variations, just like every other variation card.

Originally Posted by G1911

The MB Marichal checklists are from the same series. The MB’s are a single series issue. It is the same picture, the same list, the same card number, in a 1 series release.

We are not likely to agree that these two Marichal cards in the MB set are unique cards. With Topps simply using complete rows from previous sheets to create the MB set, in this case the two rows with Marichal cards are from different series, it is tough to call them DPs based on their origin or difference in appearance. As this MB "series" was assembled by using rows from previous issues, it may be best to view each row as being unique in itself. I view the Marichal cards each being a part of a unique row of 11 cards that was taken from either a 1st or 2nd series sheet. So, with this "issue", no row is DP.

My point previously is that this MB set is unique compared to any regular issue set. I agree with DPs from the same series occurring in regular Topps issues. However, if you try to apply the conventional interpretation of a DP to the MB set, you will end up with many DPs.

There are numerous cards that have the same card #s in this single "series", albeit they originate from different issues....so even though many cards have the same card number, but the cards are different on the front/back (like the Marichal checklists), are these also DPs based on the conventional DP definition? .....of course not.

This set is unique and applying traditional Topps DP rules to it doesn't work.

Again, enjoy collecting it however you choose.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

We are not likely to agree that these two Marichal cards in the MB set are unique cards. With Topps simply using complete rows from previous sheets to create the MB set, in this case the two rows with Marichal cards are from different series, it is tough to call them DPs based on their origin or difference in appearance. As this MB "series" was assembled by using rows from previous issues, it may be best to view each row as being unique in itself. I view the Marichal cards each being a part of a unique row of 11 cards that was taken from either a 1st or 2nd series sheet. So, with this "issue", no row is DP.

My point previously is that this MB set is unique compared to any regular issue set. I agree with DPs from the same series occurring in regular Topps issues. However, if you try to apply the conventional interpretation of a DP to the MB set, you will end up with many DPs.

There are numerous cards that have the same card #s in this single "series", albeit they originate from different issues....so even though many cards have the same card number, but the cards are different on the front/back (like the Marichal checklists), are these also DPs based on the conventional DP definition? .....of course not.

This set is unique and applying traditional Topps DP rules to it doesn't work.

Again, enjoy collecting it however you choose.

You're welcome to use any redefinition making the MB's separate from all other cards you'd like. I will continue to use the long-established one that does not treat the MB's differently from every single other set of cards, and stand by original claim in post 20.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by G1911

You're welcome to use any redefinition making the MB's separate from all other cards you'd like. I will continue to use the long-established one that does not treat the MB's differently from every single other set of cards, and stand by original claim in post 20.

Originally Posted by G1911

I have most of the 132 card set, but I’m missing a majority of the hot rods still. While all cards were printed in equal number (except the Marichal checklist), few bother to list the cars online. They have proven difficult for me to find, while the baseball and football are pretty common to find. The MB versions of the footballs are a significant chunk of those cards total populations, the AFL print runs were so much lower than MLB.

Well, at least we agree that it is a 132 card set.

[Exhibitman]

I think it is a stand-alone 132 card set. It was printed separately from all other Topps cards that year. It was distributed separately from all of the sets from which it was drawn. It was never in packs. It was never sold at retail by Topps. It contains cards derived from three other Topps sets. It contains cards across multiple years of issue. It is most akin to the various Topps sets made for Burger King from 1978-1980. Just not part of the regular issue.

A variation would be a card printed and sold in the same manner as the others that the manufacturer just happened to change during the print run, like the 1973 Kaline with the boo-boo, the 1972 Cubs cards with the different colors under some of the letters, or the 1974 Washington NL Padres.

A print flaw is not a defect, it is a card with a mistake on it, like the 'blob' cards in 1971 Topps.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

Well, at least we agree that it is a 132 card set.

Ha, like I said, I have both because I collect both master sets.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

A print flaw is not a defect, it is a card with a mistake on it, like the 'blob' cards in 1971 Topps.

I have a hard time seeing how a print flaw is not a defect. To be a 'flaw' or a 'mistake' would, definitionally, make it a defect.

[etsmith]

Are the white lines only at the top and bottom on vertical cards? Here's a Rod Carew with a white line at the side.

Rod Carew.jpg

[brob28]

Edward, it depends on each cards print sheet placement. The Carew MB card can have a white border on the right side or bottom of the card. The Topps regular issue can have a white border on the right side only. So the card you show can be either issue, to be sure my next step would be to compare the shade of yellow on the back of the card.

[G1911]

That’s the right edge of the sheet; not the border of a hot rod or a football player card. A row only has 1 type on it; all 11 in a row were baseball, football, or cars, not a mixture of them.

[brob28]

This should help Edward. The first image is a partial series 1 sheet of the regular issue, the second image is a re-created MB full sheet.

[etsmith]

Thanks.

[bobsbbcards]

If I bought an unopened “Win-A-Card” game, how many cards would I expect to find inside? Would there be a “complete set” of 132? Would I receive two not-all-that-similar Marichal checklists?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by bobsbbcards

If I bought an unopened “Win-A-Card” game, how many cards would I expect to find inside? Would there be a “complete set” of 132? Would I receive two not-all-that-similar Marichal checklists?

From the SCD article above: "The number of cards per game ranges from 86-105 cards...". A 131 card basic set nor a 132 card master set would be present in a game.

[ALR-bishop]

If you can find an unopened game you won’t get a full set or mint cards, but you will pay a lot. 😊, The article linked in post 12 is really very good, not a typical SCD description of the set. But you do need both checklists for your set Bob, whether they, and all the baseball subjects, are variations or a separate set

[G1911]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

If you can find an unopened game you won’t get a full set or mint cards, but you will pay a lot. 😊, The article linked in post 12 is really very good, not a typical SCD description of the set. But you do need both checklists for your set Bob, whether they, and all the baseball subjects, are variations or a separate set

The master set is ALWAYS the correct answer .

[horzverti]

Originally Posted by etsmith

Are the white lines only at the top and bottom on vertical cards? Here's a Rod Carew with a white line at the side.

Attachment 544141

The Carew card in post #40 is a regular Topps card. See that near 90 degree angle where Carew’s top and bottom uniform meet? In that area, in the background where the grass meets the dirt…see the stray red ink spot? That spot is present only on the Topps version. The MB version won’t have that spot or the spot will be super faint. Also, some MB Carew’s do indeed have a white line at the right. It is just a sheet gutter line.

Nearly all MB star cards have a similar “tell” on the front…Aaron, Gibson, Brooks, Namath, Seaver, Mathews, one of the Marichal checklists….and I already let the cat out of the bag on the Ryan. Once you see them, you can’t miss them.

[toppcat]

One thing I've always wondered is whether the salmon backed "Fun Pack" sheet from this era with Who Am I (no coating and some subjects pulled), Hot Rods and Target: Moon cards was prepared for the Win-A-Card Game. maybe as a second series if all went well.