« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Missing gloss - 1985 Topps?  (Read 717 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Adrian

  • Posts: 51
  • If you’re not having fun, you’re doing it wrong
Missing gloss - 1985 Topps?
« on: April 07, 2025, 04:16:03 PM »
I was looking at my 1985 Topps Wacky set and noticed I have a bunch of cards that seem to be missing the gloss on the back. I am not aware of any variants. Anyone ever seen the same?

https://imgur.com/a/qmtMpq0
Logged

Offline Soremel

  • Posts: 570
Re: Missing gloss - 1985 Topps?
« Reply #1 on: April 07, 2025, 05:24:11 PM »
Quote from: Adrian on April 07, 2025, 04:16:03 PM
I was looking at my 1985 Topps Wacky set and noticed I have a bunch of cards that seem to be missing the gloss on the back. I am not aware of any variants. Anyone ever seen the same?

https://imgur.com/a/qmtMpq0

I recently watched one of Greg Grant's YouTube videos (I don't recall the specific video) where he makes this observation. When I heard about the variation, I checked my sets & extras, and all I have are the gloss-backed cards. Based on your photos, and what Greg pointed out in the video, this seems to be a legitimate back stock variation. Now, the burning question is "Which one, if either, is rarer than the other?"
Logged

Offline Adrian

  • Posts: 51
  • If you’re not having fun, you’re doing it wrong
Re: Missing gloss - 1985 Topps?
« Reply #2 on: April 07, 2025, 05:28:15 PM »
Quote from: Soremel on April 07, 2025, 05:24:11 PM
I recently watched one of Greg Grant's YouTube videos (I don't recall the specific video) where he makes this observation. When I heard about the variation, I checked my sets & extras, and all I have are the gloss-backed cards. Based on your photos, and what Greg pointed out in the video, this seems to be a legitimate back stock variation. Now, the burning question is "Which one, if either, is rarer than the other?"

I knew there were variations for earlier sets, but wasn’t aware of this for 1985, as it’s not even mentioned on Greg’s site either. I have a lot more gloss back than non gloss, so I have to believe it’s rarer if it’s a variation.
Logged

Offline Soremel

  • Posts: 570
Re: Missing gloss - 1985 Topps?
« Reply #3 on: April 07, 2025, 05:34:13 PM »
Quote from: Adrian on April 07, 2025, 05:28:15 PM
I knew there were variations for earlier sets, but wasn’t aware of this for 1985, as it’s not even mentioned on Greg’s site either. I have a lot more gloss back than non gloss, so I have to believe it’s rarer if it’s a variation.

From what I've seen, I'm leaning toward the non-gloss backs being the rarer, as well. Before I had responded to your post, I checked Greg's 1985 page, and nothing had been updated, yet. Then again, the video that he points the variation out in was only loaded up to YouTube within the last few months, and he probably hasn't had the time to revise the info for that set.
Logged

Offline Adrian

  • Posts: 51
  • If you’re not having fun, you’re doing it wrong
Re: Missing gloss - 1985 Topps?
« Reply #4 on: April 09, 2025, 07:39:30 AM »
Quote from: Soremel on April 07, 2025, 05:34:13 PM
From what I've seen, I'm leaning toward the non-gloss backs being the rarer, as well. Before I had responded to your post, I checked Greg's 1985 page, and nothing had been updated, yet. Then again, the video that he points the variation out in was only loaded up to YouTube within the last few months, and he probably hasn't had the time to revise the info for that set.

Had a chance to review his videos. He doesn’t mention anything directly about 1985 - unless I missed it. But I’ll go with it. Hopefully someone can confirm with their own collection experience.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
 

anything