1956 Topps #101-180 rare white backs w/ unusual premium

[cardsagain74]

When it comes to the #101-180 series with the '56s, why do only a select few of the rare white backs (like #153 Frank Thomas) sell at a crazy premium, even though the pop counts seem to show that those white backs should be just as elusive for the entire series?

I tried the search function since I figured this had come up before, but it didn't help much. Or else I suck at using it

[bobsbbcards]

VCP shows a striking premium for white backs in this range (PSA 7 average prices):

102 Jim Davis - 10x
103 Willie Miranda - 5x
104 Bob Lennon - 6x
105 Al Smith - 6x
106 Joe Astroth - 3x
107 Ed Mathews - 1.3x
108 Laurin Pepper - 5x
109 Enos Slaughter - .8x (an outlier)
110 Yogi Berra - no white backs recorded
111 Red Sox Team - 11x
112 Dee Fondy - 4x
113 Phil Rizzuto - 4x
114 Jim Owens - 2x
115 Jackie Jensen - 8x
etc.

132 Bobby Avila seems to have the highest premium with an average price of $453.85 for a white back and $24.13 for a gray back for a ratio of 19 to 1.

[savedfrommyspokes]

I have had the same question about 62 GT's....as with these WB 56s, certain 62 GTs appear less often for sale thus command a premium.

Not as bad as the Frank Thomas, the Willie Jones is another tough card.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by bobsbbcards

VCP shows a striking premium for white backs in this range (PSA 7 average prices):

102 Jim Davis - 10x
103 Willie Miranda - 5x
104 Bob Lennon - 6x
105 Al Smith - 6x
106 Joe Astroth - 3x
107 Ed Mathews - 1.3x
108 Laurin Pepper - 5x
109 Enos Slaughter - .8x (an outlier)
110 Yogi Berra - no white backs recorded
111 Red Sox Team - 11x
112 Dee Fondy - 4x
113 Phil Rizzuto - 4x
114 Jim Owens - 2x
115 Jackie Jensen - 8x
etc.

132 Bobby Avila seems to have the highest premium with an average price of $453.85 for a white back and $24.13 for a gray back for a ratio of 19 to 1.

Ah, but I was focusing on the more typical sales of raw low/mid grade cards. And for those, recent ebay figures for #s 102 through 115 above all have many raw white back sales with little to no premium.

But if you look at #153 Frank Thomas, it's an entirely different situation. There's hasn't been one sold on ebay since April, and it was $275 (best offer accepted) for a miscut one. There's also a creased Thomas on a fb group that had just been posted and was already up to $100.

#132 Avila is actually another exception. The premium for those isn't quite as exaggerated as the Thomas, but it's also much tougher to find and commands many times the grey back.

Which circles back to my original question: what makes Thomas, Avila, and a few select others so different, regardless of the grade?

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

I have had the same question about 62 GT's....as with these WB 56s, certain 62 GTs appear less often for sale thus command a premium.

Not as bad as the Frank Thomas, the Willie Jones is another tough card.

Yep, #127 Willie Jones is similar to Avila

[e6phillips]

I don't know the answer . . . I'm also interested in finding out.

I collect them too. Add the Courtney to the rare WBs, along with Thomas, Pirates Team and Trucks.

There may be no PSA 7 WB Berra but I did find a raw one.

I've found that if you are patient, you'll run across just about all of these and not pay a premium.



Always looking for 1956 Topps Salesman Samples, panels, hand cuts, printer defects, miscuts and wrong backs.

[G1911]

I'm collecting the 1956 Master set (white back/grey back, the cropping variations, etc., the more recognized ones etc.) and have noticed the massive price discrepancies on certain white backs too. Guess which ones I still need?

I'm not sure if some are being hoarded and simply appear rare, or if they actually are. Deductively, it does not make much sense that there would be SP's at all. Topps was using 110 card half-sheets in 1956 on their large size cards (100 or 110 seems to have been the norm depending on year during their large size days). Here's a 110 card series 1 sheet to show what I'm talking about: https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball-c...a/7085-80717.s 11 rows of 10 cards per row. This is a half sheet, sheets had two sizes and were cut in half down the middle as apparently the first step of handling and cutting into cards. Images of series 3 and series 4 sheets are attached, though the severe file size limits here mean they will probably be indecipherable and shrunk too small.


This series 1 (series 1 had 100 cards) sheet has all 100 cards once, and then one row repeated, making these 10 cards double prints on it. The other side of the sheet is unknown, I believe, but would have either the same cards repeated (true double prints) or a different row repeated (making two rows 1.5 prints, 2 rows printed 3 times, 9 rows printed twice on a full sheet).

Series 2 has 80 cards, each half sheet would have the 80 cards + 3 double printed rows, making for 3 rows of 4x print and 8 rows of 2x print. Or, it would have the double printed rows different on each sheet, making for 6 rows of 3x print and 5 rows of 2x print. Series 3 and 4 are also 80 cards, and fit just fine. Series 3 has the 80 cards, and then 3 rows repeated for 110 cards. The other side was just like this, making 3 rows of DP's, or had different DP rows, making 6 rows of 1.5x prints. Either way, there's plenty of each card and every card appears on each half sheet. Series 4 is the same


The problem is, that when the half sheet is bigger than the set of cards, you're getting a full set on either side. We can see from the gray backs that Topps didn't do something very weird and include some row only once on a full sheet; there are no gray backs in series 2 that are significantly tougher, there's no short prints only some double or 1.5x prints (technically, a card not a DP in a series with DP's could be considered an SP by its nature, but this is so pedantic as to confuse the issue).

For there to be extreme SP's in the white print run, Topps would have had to redesign the sheets or design them from the start explicitly to create shortages, and have some rows in 4x or even more and some rows in 1x for it produce true SP's. Which makes no sense, If Topps was trying to screw collectors into buying more packs, it would be this way in the grey backs, in other Topps issues of the period, etc.

Which says to me I'm not sure these are actually any tougher. Market shortages often have little to do with supply. In the 1966 Highs thread we have shown the 1966 Topps 591 shortage is mostly hype, there are numerous other cards in that series printed in the same quantity that don't cost $100 in almost any grade because they don't have the marketing hype. There are many fantasy SP's in the hobby, 1953 Bowman baseball 113-128, 1955 Topps All-Americans (100 or 110 card half sheets, there are maybe 10 DP's but no SP's), 1953 Bowman football, etc. A lot of hobby history is people thinking a card is tough because they haven't seen it much, that narrative becoming accepted and driving up prices as people lock up the cards making them appear rarer, and then learning later that the cards actually are not tougher after all. Anecdotes are not that helpful in figuring out actual SP's.

I'm not saying that's definitively what has happened here, but I'm not sold yet that there is some bizarre print pattern here that was never used before or since or even on the grey sheets for series 2. I think we need more evidence beyond market prices to see if they are actually tougher, or people just think they are and thus behave as such, escalating prices as has happened on numerous false SP's over the years.

Anyone have an image of a series 2 sheet? I don't seem to have one in my archive if a copy exists.

[ALR-bishop]

G--Putting aside back color differences and the registration lines in the name/team boxes, would be interested in comparing lists of 56 variants (variations, recurring print defects/cropping differences). Can do off line if better.

[Harliduck]

So...question...after seeing this post and having no clue about the series 101-180 I went and looked at my set to see if I had any. In the first few pages I have several "white" backs, which are clearly white and pronounced. In the 101-180, I have three that stand out. They are quite duller than the first series white backs, but look more dirty white and more subdued. They certainly stand out next to the gray backs. Are these indeed white backs from the 101-180 series?

Card #134 in this pic -



Card #139 in this pic -



Card #172 in this one -




Again...the 3 cards seem to be in the middle...and definitely stand out. Sorry for the poor pics...

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Harliduck

So...question...after seeing this post and having no clue about the series 110-180 I went and looked at my set to see if I had any. In the first few pages I have several "white" backs, which are clearly white and pronounced. In the 110-180, I have three that stand out. They are quite duller than the first series white backs, but look more dirty white and more subdued. They certainly stand out next to the gray backs. Are these indeed white backs from the 110-180 series?

Card #134 in this pic -



Card #139 in this pic -



Card #172 in this one -




Again...the 3 cards seem to be in the middle...and definitely stand out. Sorry for the poor pics...

Yes, those are the white backs.

Gray backs are tougher than white in series 1, 1-100, but not too bad.

White backs are tougher in series 2, 101-180. Series 2 white backs are tougher than series 1 gray backs. On the whole, they aren't that tough and often carry no premium or a small one outside of select cards that have gained traction over the last decade or so.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

G--Putting aside back color differences and the registration lines in the name/team boxes, would be interested in comparing lists of 56 variants (variations, recurring print defects/cropping differences). Can do off line if better.

I will, as the kids say these days, 'slide into your DM's', sir.

[Harliduck]

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes, those are the white backs.

Gray backs are tougher than white in series 1, 1-100, but not too bad.

White backs are tougher in series 2, 101-180. Series 2 white backs are tougher than series 1 gray backs. On the whole, they aren't that tough and often carry no premium or a small one outside of select cards that have gained traction over the last decade or so.

Thanks...appreciate the clarity. Just like to know what I have...

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Harliduck

Thanks...appreciate the clarity. Just like to know what I have...

At first, I wanted to know what I had too. And then, that knowledge made me go down the master set road. It's a dangerous path of inquiry!

One of my favorite card sets of any time and type, I love the design and background images. Topps really hit it out of the park 1952-1956

[Collectorsince62]

This thread is one of the reasons this forum is so enjoyable. Who knew a few of the '56 white backs from the 2nd series were so tough in high grade? Of course I had to check my '56 set. It's an EX-MT set but I only have five of the series 2 white backs . . . and one of them is Frank Thomas. I just added a post-it note to the sheet in which Mr. Thomas lives for future reference. Thanks fellow collectors.

[G1911]

I took a run at the dataset to see what it suggests.

The card with the lowest population is Bob Roselli at 39. The most for a common (obviously, people grade HOFers more and we lose the reasonably fair comparison if we look at Mickey Mantle vs. a guy like Roselli) is Ray Narleski at 89. Just over double. There's a few in the low 40's, a lot in the 50's, 60's and 70's. There is natural fluctuation over commons known to have the same print run in all sets, and this is well within what I postulated above; some are DP's on the sheet because it's an 80 card series on a 110 half sheet. The same effect can be seen on the gray backs (Roselli 486, Narleski 672 for example; in higher populations the % disparity becomes smaller and smaller), because it's sheet would be the same as series 3 and 4 shown above. The cards with less white backs also have less gray backs in the pop report; we can figure out which ones were likely the cards on the DP'd rows used to fill out the sheet even without having one. There are not actual SP's, just some DP's as we would expect and are also present on the gray backs.

This recent market notion, that there are some cards much tougher than others and deserving of huge premiums, is not supported by the evidence. It is contradictory to the dataset and what common sense and deductive logic would tell us about the sheet and printing. If people want to pay 20x for standard print run row cards would normally go for in Topps sets, my DM's and PayPal are open.

[Lefty2002]

Just ran across this thread and could likely answer some questions posed. I am a S2 WB collector, it came about naturally attempting to put together a raw super set. Ultimately completed it with full PSA graded, but accumulated many raws as well. I have bought and sold all of the high $ cards related to S2 WB’s. As to the Frank Thomas WB 153, there is a person who hoards them. I’ve sold him 5 or 6 in the last couple of years.
Oh… I’m always buying more, so lmk if you’ve got any for sale.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by Lefty2002

Just ran across this thread and could likely answer some questions posed. I am a S2 WB collector, it came about naturally attempting to put together a raw super set. Ultimately completed it with full PSA graded, but accumulated many raws as well. I have bought and sold all of the high $ cards related to S2 WB’s. As to the Frank Thomas WB 153, there is a person who hoards them. I’ve sold him 5 or 6 in the last couple of years.
Oh… I’m always buying more, so lmk if you’ve got any for sale.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure if this is the same buyer or not, but I have had for years one buyer out of NY who buys of all of my 56 WBs (100-180) , seemingly no matter the price.

[Lefty2002]

Yep that’s him… not me.
But I’d be a buyer as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[G1911]

There's another hoarder of some of the cards too, on the west coast. I think a few buyers are what keeps the common perception about certain cards around even though it is clearly false.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by G1911

There's another hoarder of some of the cards too, on the west coast. I think a few buyers are what keeps the common perception about certain cards around even though it is clearly false.

No one here appears to have the misperception that those cards are "tougher" as in "fewer were produced". It's only related to their availability and price in the marketplace (regardless of the reason)

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

No one here appears to have the misperception that those cards are "tougher" as in "fewer were produced". It's only related to their availability and price in the marketplace (regardless of the reason)

I didn't say the people in this thread, who tend to be more hobby literate than the general buying population. I've been hearing stories about the Trucks in particular for a decade plus.

[e6phillips]

I don't know why some cards are scarcer, but I have some data that could be useful.

While I have not seen an uncut sheet of the second series, I think I've been able to piece together part of the sheet through miscuts. My miscuts are all gray backs but I'm assuming that the card positions are the same on both sheets.

4 of the toughest white backs - Thomas, Trucks, Courtney and Pirates Team - are in the bottom row of the sheet.

I have no theory as to why that would make a difference especially since others on the bottom row - Killebrew and Hodges -- are not rare.

Maybe someone who understands the printing process better than I do could explain this.


Always looking for 1956 Topps Salesman Samples, panels, hand cuts, printer defects, wrong backs and miscuts.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by e6phillips

I don't know why some cards are scarcer, but I have some data that could be useful.

While I have not seen an uncut sheet of the second series, I think I've been able to piece together part of the sheet through miscuts. My miscuts are all gray backs but I'm assuming that the card positions are the same on both sheets.

4 of the toughest white backs - Thomas, Trucks, Courtney and Pirates Team - are in the bottom row of the sheet.

I have no theory as to why that would make a difference especially since others on the bottom row - Killebrew and Hodges -- are not rare.

Maybe someone who understands the printing process better than I do could explain this.


Always looking for 1956 Topps Salesman Samples, panels, hand cuts, printer defects, wrong backs and miscuts.

All cards on a row will (usually) have the same print run, some may be more condition sensitive due to corner misplacement, etc. The population difference, is probably why I excised stars from my data; people who don’t care about backs or don’t even know will submit super stars like Harmon Killebrew and Gil Hodges, while not many people submit commons. All the stars will have higher pops than the higher pop commons, and do in every year.

Very cool work on the miscuts! I’ve been lazy and hoping to find a sheet image… one probably still exists somewhere