tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27257197959732447.post3580972571749184847..comments2024-03-24T16:08:17.795-04:00Comments on The Topps Archives: Red Back, Wrong Backtoppcathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10698182920578539949noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27257197959732447.post-68216703919680143442013-06-06T09:19:59.496-04:002013-06-06T09:19:59.496-04:00Interesting, didn't think of Look n See as a p...Interesting, didn't think of Look n See as a proximate release. That would also make sense and shows how it's easy for baseball collectors (me) to consider only baseball. :-)<br /><br />I suppose it'd help to link the red sheet print strategy to their blue sheet printing in this case, unless each product was printed at different shops. You'd still have 11 All-Stars (8 + 3 withdrawn) on blue sheets, but no Teams to provide filler.<br /><br />Had the parallel thought that the Topps Russell Archives assets only included 9 usable team photos, establishing the set size, but don't think that's connected to a specific sheet layout and Russell likely would've covered every team at some point.Matthew Gliddenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00058637926401334906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27257197959732447.post-36376212543949427912013-06-06T06:47:51.268-04:002013-06-06T06:47:51.268-04:00Matt-it could be. This print freak has me reconsid...Matt-it could be. This print freak has me reconsidering a few things. I am going to cross-post your comment over at Net54 if you don't mind and see if anyone else can amplify. The sheets are probably larger than would hold a full set of each in that scenario as there would be 26 paired Red Backs to account for. <br /><br />Comparing to Look n See, which is the nearest set in time with these dimensions, suggests a possible print array of 11 x 11 for 121 cards the size of a single Red Back. If you take 20 possible Teams and Connie Macks, that takes 40 slots and we add 52 to get to 92, so some would be double printed so there is room.toppcathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10698182920578539949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27257197959732447.post-40201184066689838312013-06-06T01:26:03.047-04:002013-06-06T01:26:03.047-04:00Re-reading the 1951 section of your book and this ...Re-reading the 1951 section of your book and this post made me wonder:<br /><br />What if the Teams set size (9) indicates a "filler" release for "red ink" sheet space?<br /><br />9 teams + 11 Connie Mack = 2 vertical rows of 10, with remaining vertical rows of 20 Red Backs filling out sheets left-to-right for white / cream print runs. Later, given strong Red Back sales and legal issues with Teams cards, Topps switches to a) Red Back-only sheets on white / cream stock and b) limited numbers of Connie Mack + 1950 Teams on tan stock.<br /><br />That could mean Topps never meant to print all MLB teams, if only 9 fit on the combo sheet. In this case, including a Ty Cobb card (if intended) would've changed the layout to 8 Teams and 12 Connie Mack.<br /><br />Your PDF's Red Backs section noted that Topps printers sometimes swapped front and back gloss. With the above 9 + 11 + Red Backs layout, a sheet put in backwards after printing the fronts yields the Red Back front / Teams back combo you uncovered. It would also produce Connie Mack cards with rounded corners, as are thought to exist.<br /><br />What do you think, is this a plausible print layout that covers what you've seen?Matthew Gliddenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00058637926401334906noreply@blogger.com