Card Identification Forum

Just curious, Bob...

• In the right picture, what's with the long dark stain in the top left corner/side of the right card back?
• Looking at that same right card back, it doesn't look "light gray" to me. It looks more like a very light tan/beige. Should we be referring to light tan backs?
• Your initial post states, "You can decide". I don't mean to be dense here, but what exactly is the question you want us to decide? I just want to make sure we're on the same page here.
• What is the overall goal of posting this thread?
• If this thread goes exactly the way you want it to go, what would you like to be the next step?

Pretty clearly visible on the left. Are the cards different thicknesses? 

I agree that the picture on the left are pretty clear visible differences.  One thing I'm not clear on in the picture on the left...are all of those cards from the same year?

Billy, excepting a micrometer, they appear to be the same thickness.

Responses >

• Sorry, didn't notice the stain, I have a couple of shoeboxes full, I've collected from various sources.
•  You might say light tan/beige or aged lol.. Remember they are in a shoebox not albums or loaders.
•  They were declined, so just bringing them to the membership to comment on. Few have indicated they have any but I'm showing you I do - a box full. Believe me or not.
•  Does the membership feel there should be a parallel set added; Light Grey, and Light Beige [white].
•  Just Add a Parallel set.

Jason, If the proof I provided isn't good enough then so be it. But I'm not a liar, or am I trying to be deceitful. It really makes my 50+ years of collecting a sham. Sorry that all members have to judge me on a few innaccurate observations.

How about we just keep card discussions to the cards themselves?  That should help everybody.  Read your post before you hit send.  If its about cards, click "post".  If its about you, or another member or what you want, click "delete".

If these get added, I would not categorize them by the back color but the cardstock; Grey Cardstock and White Cardstock

I don't see why different card stocks need to be listed. If we do list them most Topps from the 80s & early 90s will have to be changed. I've found different card stocks on most of them sets. From thick to thin to not quite the same colors, paper grain and Topps is not the only one. 

I'm a set builder I don't care what version of a card I get. I just want the missing card. 

I understand the thing about differences in collecting. But I also see no one selling cards bringing up card stock.

I have repeated many times, You Guys Decide, I see reason to add- proof provided, precedance set, but precedance isn't always considered by ADMIN.  One way or another, the differences will be amply noted here.

and....If its about you, or another member or what you want, click "delete".  2-way street my friend!

Since you asked, my opinion is this is not a variation or parallel we add.  Unlike the Topps Traded sets that come in a brighter back and in dull greyish backs, these are not so much a vastly different stock of paper but simply a different grade of the same paper.

The majority of the hobby also view it this way as they do not distiguish between the two different paper grades.  I know TCDB likes to be their own voice in the hobby but being different than the rest just to be independent is not always the correct path.

My opinion would be the same as Bruno's.....I don't see this as a parallel that would need to be added.  As was also mentioned.  Cards in the pre-90's era were printing on basically the same paper and just depending on the run was the paper stock/color that was sent out.  These were not intentional or "corrected" variations by the company.  They are the same card.  I don't see any true errors/variations with the card.

If we were allowed to add these, then I would bring up the 2020 Topps no foil logo (YES, I know printing ERROR).....Those you can see as definite (albeit unintentional) variations.