1960 Topps Baseball glossy cards????

digicat

Hello all. A while back I picked up some 1960 commons and noticed that two of them are GLOSSY. They have a similar glossy coating as those All-Star cards that Topps packed in their 80s rack packs. The two particular cards are #144 Al Stieglitz and #469 Giants Coaches. Any ideas? Think these are authentic? Did Topps release some glossy cards with this set? I don't know why anyone would counterfeit 1960 commons.

Stone193

digicat
Welcome!

Do you have a scan of the back of the card? No "hi" gloss 60s were made to my knowledge. I'm thinking reprint?

mike

digicat

I'll get a scan up tonight. I compared these cards to non-glossy versions I have, and don't see any differences (other than the glossy coating).

Solar77

From a presentation set? I always heard those were a little higher quality.

digicat

What were the "Presentation" sets?

Stone193

<< <i>What were the "Presentation" sets? >>


They were nicely packaged sets in good looking cardboard boxes that were given to Topps employees and to the players that participated in the sets I believe.

The cards are the same in terms of gloss and stuff.

mike

digicat

Hmm. I had never heard of those. Do the Presentation cards carry any sort of premium, like the Tiffany sets of the 80s? Any idea of print runs?

MorrellMan

This rings a definite bell. I have/had a couple of 1960's that had higher gloss than the others, not like the shiny stuff out now, but definitely along the lines of the old '80s rack pack all stars. I think John Tsitouris was one; I'll go through my cards and see if I can find one.

Quality control was all over the place on the 1960 cards. I have some that are easily 1/4" larger than standard and the gloss is another example. I don't know how gloss was applied to the product in those days, but I'm guessing it was possible to overmix the gloss and not have it damage the final card.

If I find one, I'll post a scan.

digicat

Here's the scans of one of the glossy cards (I had a few more than I thought). Lots of print marks on the card, but otherwise, it's nice for a 45 year old card.

sagard

Looks like a regular issue card.

Example on Ebay.

digicat

Aye, but when you hold it up it up to other cards from the same set, you see the glossiness. It's kinda hard to see "gloss" in a scan.

Stone193

Hi Digi
Now I think I understand - what other cards do you have that seem "glossy?"

I'm scanning right now. The cards that were produced with the Sport Magazine on them and the orange color do appear more glossy than other cards.

Plus, there are two different stocks - one gray and the other a whitish cream color.



It won't show up here but the Sport Mag 60T Rookie Star card has more gloss than the Roy Face card.

mike

digicat

The other two 1960 cards I have that look "glossy" are:
#144 Al Stieglitz (grey back)
#469 Giants Coaches (grey back)

Interesting little mystery.

I did a little Google search on the Topps presentation sets and found this..
http://boards.collectors-society.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=500796&an=0&page=0#500796
has a few pics of the box the 1962 cards were in. This was 1962 though.

Stone193

<< <i>The other two 1960 cards I have that look "glossy" are:
#144 Al Stieglitz (grey back)
#469 Giants Coaches (grey back)

Interesting little mystery.

I did a little Google search on the Topps presentation sets and found this..
http://boards.collectors-society.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=500796&an=0&page=0#500796
has a few pics of the box the 1962 cards were in. This was 1962 though. >>


My Kaat card which has the appearance of higher gloss is also a gray back card - that is probably the "key" to the gloss situation.

I wonder what the 60T set collectors have to say?

mike

digicat

According to the Becket Almanac of Baseball Cards & Colectibles: of the 1960 Topps set,

#1 - 110 = cream-colored backs
#111 - 198 = grey backs
#199 - 286 = cream-colored backs
#287 - 374 = grey backs
#375 - 440 = either grey, cream-colored, or pure white (rare)
#441 - 572 = grey backs