1951 Topps Red Back Panels

[packs]

I've opened up 5 packs of 1951 reds and they were all panels. I don't see why one individual card would not be issued as part of a panel.

[toppcat]

Red Back panel pairs:

1-26
2-25
3-21
4-43
5-16
6-31
7-12
8-47
9-41
10-32
11-24
13-17
14-18
15-35
19-50
20-40
22-52
23-44
27-34
28-48
29-39
30-46
33-51
36-42
37-49
38-45

Blue Back pairs:

1-40
2-12
3-11
4-17
5-37
6-35
7-10
8-25
9-13
14-29
15-42
16-41
18-24
19-34
20-33
21-32
22-44
23-26
27-43
28-46
30-31
36-49
38-47
39-50
45-51
48-52

Play the game:

Red Backs distribution of results:

Balk 1
Ball 18
Bunt 1
Bunt Sacrifice 1
Double 2
Fly Out 2
Foul Ball 3
Foul Out 1
Hit By Pitcher 1
Home Run 1
Out 2
Single 3
Stolen Base 2
Strike 12
Triple 2


Blue:

Balk 1
Ball 16
Bunt 1
Bunt Sacrifice 1
Double 1
Fly Out 2
Foul Ball 3
Foul Out 1
Hit By Pitcher 1
Home Run 1
Out 4
Single 3
Stolen Base 2
Strike 14
Triple 1

[ALR-bishop]

On CU there has been a recent thread by a guy who says he has red backs with different stocks in terms of color and thickness

[Volod]

Nifty research there by Dave. The only thing I knew for sure about the Red Back panels was that there were two panels used to help protect the delicate Connie Mack All-Star cards from the insidious caramel candy in the same package. Too bad Topps didn't show as much concern for the delicate teeth of its juvenile customers.

[ALR-bishop]

Bigger concern may have been the impact on your internal organs if the candy made it around the security of your teeth

[steve B]

Originally Posted by packs

I've opened up 5 packs of 1951 reds and they were all panels. I don't see why one individual card would not be issued as part of a panel.

There are also some really common packs of 51s that contain singles.

https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...pps-red-backs/

They are probably the same cards that are on the panels, but it's possible that one variation was on the panels and the other in the singles packs.

[ALR-bishop]

I have the packs and wrappers I posted above. The game pack has a whole set of red backs in panels, but my Doubles Pack, as Steve points out, has two separated cards. The wrappers I posted contained a combination of red or blue back panels and Current All Star or Connie Mack cards

[packs]

Originally Posted by steve B

There are also some really common packs of 51s that contain singles.

https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...pps-red-backs/

They are probably the same cards that are on the panels, but it's possible that one variation was on the panels and the other in the singles packs.

I doubt the authenticity of that pack. For example, the video doesn't show a piece of candy being removed. Every pack I've opened had a piece of candy in it; a shriveled weird looking black/brown sticky thing.

Update: it appears that in the past Topps stated they released a second run of cards sold as individuals and without candy included. Must be why the candy isn't present.

[steve B]

There was a big find of those singlecard packs in the late 70s /early 80's, and at the time they were really inexpensive. I didn't spring for a pack at I think $10 or 15, but did buy a few wrappers for $5 for maybe 3 of them.

They're still pretty cheap compared to other unopened stuff from the 50's.

[toppcat]

The Doubles were issued in 1952 (so are a reissue) with no candy and they must have paid some poor slob to separate all the cards! Why not just fold them over? Pretty sure the reissue was to get around legal problems with Bowman.

[Volod]

Originally Posted by toppcat

The Doubles were issued in 1952 (so are a reissue) with no candy and they must have paid some poor slob to separate all the cards! Why not just fold them over? Pretty sure the reissue was to get around legal problems with Bowman.

I had thought that the caramel candy was used in Topps original issue in order to do an end run around legal concerns with Bowman's monopoly on "gum" cards. So, it seems like Topps just dropped the godawful candy altogether and reissued the cards alone to clear out their overstock.

[ALR-bishop]

There were never any contracts that provided a player could not authorize the use of their likeness in any other context. Topps and Bowman used contracts that purported to provide for the exclusive use of a player's likeness marketed with gum, candy or confections....the products both were peddling. Candy proved to be pretty messy

After Bowman was bought by Topps subsequent market entrants such as Fleer and Leaf could have always marketed cards with no insert, or with an insert other than gum and confections. But the market, kids, seemed to expect something. Fleer tied horrible cookies and Leaf tried marbles. Neither made a dent in the cards with gum market

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Volod

I had thought that the caramel candy was used in Topps original issue in order to do an end run around legal concerns with Bowman's monopoly on "gum" cards. So, it seems like Topps just dropped the godawful candy altogether and reissued the cards alone to clear out their overstock.

They still managed to get sued by Bowman over the use of the word "Baseball" in 1951. This probably right around the time the Blue Backs (and related ML All Stars) got released and that ended all their Baseball Candy Distribution for the 1951 season. The case wasn't decided until March 31, 1952 with Topps prevailing on that front. Overstock yes, but without a confection in the Doubles packs and with the word "baseball" very small compared to "Doubles".

I'd be curious when the Doubles were actually released in 1952 and why Topps thought to step on their Giant Size 1952 cards with them. It's highly probable to my mind they came out before the regular 1952 cards.