Skip to main content

Not seeing red


I grabbed another rack pack of Topps Archives a few days ago for the sole purpose of obtaining some more '79s. These are the ones that came out. The old-time legends (Slaughter, Kell) don't do it for me, but ones like Aaron, Kepler and Sheffield are what make this portion of the set shine.

The other cards in the pack were worth a look -- I think Archives has done a finer job duplicating the feel of the respective tributes than past Archives sets have -- but pretty much disposable to me.

Then there was this card:


It's one of those 1969 Supers that is an insert in this year's Archives. I know I am belaboring this point and you're all bored with it, but let's turn it over to the back solely to appease my obsession.


This is the regular "base" version of the insert (no, we're not going to get into how frustrating insert variations are). I know it's the regular base version because I've seen y'all pull these and they all feature the gray cardboard and the blue writing.

Now let's return to the first '69 Super I pulled on my first '16 Archives post.



This one is numbered 22/50 on the back and the writing is black.

I expressed confusion over what this is, both here and on Twitter. The confusion lies in the descriptions of the set, which report that the variations of the '69 Supers are "red backs," which are numbered to 50, and "black backs," which are 1 of 1s.

My instinct is to consider this a "black back," based on the writing. But, obviously, the serial numbering tells me that it is not a 1/1. Instead the serial numbering lines up with what would be a "red back," because it's numbered to 50.

I don't see any red.

I don't think my idea of what is a "red back" and what is not a "red back" is off either. At least one other blogger either assumes or knows that the "red backs" feature red writing.

But where is the red writing?

Ryan Cracknell, former card blogger extraordinaire and now working for Beckett, wondered smartly whether the card stock of my Ross card, numbered to 50, features a redish tint, perhaps justifying the "red back" description.

I compared the base card and numbered to 50 card side-by-side:


You can obviously see a difference. And, in a world in which you're calling one card "red" and one card "not red" and there are no other choices, then, yes, I guess the Ross card back would be "red." It would also be "brown" (a more accurate description as far as I'm concerned), "tan," "cedar," "brick," "wood," "mocha," "brunette," and "clay."

There is a color called "red brown." Even that's a stretch, but at least it was nice looking at the models.

I am going to assume that the Ross card is the "red back" because nothing else is pointing me in a different direction, except for the fact that IT IS NOT RED.

This, of course, would all be taken care of by Topps, and other card companies, with the issuing of visual guidelines when they release sets. They may feel it is not necessary, that it somehow "adds to the fun" of figuring out what's in a set (more likely it adds to the fun for Topps of watching collectors stagger around trying to determine what they have). But when you are issuing sets that contain variations upon variations and inserts upon inserts and parallels upon parallels, some sort of map should be required.

Yes, I know I have a color hang-up. It's well-established.

Everyone else should, too.

Comments

Coast To Posts said…
If you were colour blind, you would be up the creek without a paddle.
Wow, very odd. I'm sure many of these have gotten overlooked. That is definitely not red. Why not make the writing on the back red? Or the signature on the front red?
Anonymous said…
If Topps wants to play their cards close to their vest (so to speak) in order to make things "fun" for certain kinds of collectors who like to discover things... OK, fine. I'm more or less OK with that.

BUT... That doesn't mean you can't put a small line of text on the back that says "2016 Archives Super Baseball Insert - 'Red' parallel". If I'm going to pull some rare hit, please tell me, don't make me research it.
Anonymous said…
Weird on the tint. I think that's it, because I looked at a couple 1/1 ("black backs") on eBay, and those look to me to clearly have more of a black tint on the back. With black writing.

I agree, though, that's really silly. A rare(r) variation should have something extra cool about, something differentiating. Not just a different color where you need to be a detective to figure out what the difference is.

Honestly, I just wrote red back in my post because that's what baseballcardpedia and the back of the pack said.
Laurens said…
Maybe the sell sheet info from Topps is wrong - presumably the reds are the harder to pull cards while the black cards are the more com on serial #'d to 50 variation.
Mike Matson said…
*raises hand* Yo... Part of why I hate the coloured inserts
Jeremya1um said…
I would've never known the difference if you wouldn't have figured it out and posted it. When will Topps quit making (mostly) gimmicky crap and start listening to what the majority of collectors want?
Billy Kingsley said…
I can't help but wonder if they originally planned the SN50 to be red, but later changed to green...but not until after the packaging and advertising was printed. I have not seen any of these in hand, but from the scan it looks more green than black to me.
night owl said…
It's definitely black.
CaptKirk42 said…
I don't like the having to research what the variants are either. It don't look "red" to me. OK yeah now with the side by side I can see. It reminds me of that line from Princess Bride, "you keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means". It also reminds me of the early 90s years when Topps "gold" variants were only gold because of the gold leaf/foil lettering instead of silver foil. As we collectors get older that foil crap gets harder to read. And this thousands of variants and parallel sets is no better than the "Junk Wax Years". For those who don't like that term excuse me it is the "overproduced" years.

Popular posts from this blog

This guy was everywhere

It's interesting how athletes from the past are remembered and whether they remain in the public conscious or not.

Hall of Fame players usually survive in baseball conversations long after they've played because they've been immortalized in Cooperstown. Then there are players who didn't reach the Hall but were still very good and somehow, some way, are still remembered.

Players like Dick Allen, Rusty Staub, Vida Blue and Mickey Rivers live on decades later as younger generations pick up on their legacies. Then there are all-stars like Bert Campaneris, who almost never get discussed anymore.

There is just one memory of Campaneris that younger fans most assuredly know. I don't even need to mention it. You know what's coming, even if Lerrin LaGrow didn't.

But there was much more to Campaneris than one momentary loss of reason.

A couple of months ago, when watching old baseball games on youtube hadn't gotten old yet, I was watching a World Series game from…

Some of you have wandered into a giveaway

Thanks to all who voted in the comments for their favorite 1970s Topps card of Bert Campaneris.

I didn't know how this little project would go, since I wasn't installing a poll and, let's face it, the whole theme of the post is how Campaneris these days doesn't get the respect he once did. (Also, I was stunned by the amount of folks who never heard about the bat-throwing moment. Where am I hanging out that I see that mentioned at least every other month?)

A surprising 31 people voted for their favorite Campy and the one with the most votes was the one I saw first, the '75 Topps Campy card above.

The voting totals:

'75 Campy - 11 votes
'70 Campy - 4
'72 Campy - 4
'73 Campy - 4
'76 Campy - 4
'74 Campy - 3
'78 Campy - 1

My thanks to the readers who indulged me with their votes, or even if they didn't vote, their comments on that post. To show my appreciation -- for reading, for commenting, for joining in my card talk even if it might …

Return of the king

(If you haven't voted for your favorite Bert Campaneris '70s card in the last post, I invite you to do so).

So you've been away for a few years and want everyone to know that you're back.

How do you do that?

Do what The Diamond King did when he returned to card blogging last month: Bombard readers with contests and giveaways! Well, you've certainly gotten MY attention, sir!

I'll start with the giveaways first. Since he returned, the Diamond King has issued multiple "Diamond King 9" giveaways, straight out of the chute and rapid fire in the last month-plus. As I've said before, I am very slow to get to these "first come, first serve" giveaways. I used to think "I spend too much time on the computer" and now I realize "I don't spend enough time on the computer at all!"

But I was able to nab two cards out of the many giveaways.


I won this key 1981 Fleer Star Sticker of The Hawk. I have since acquired several more &#…