Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Are both Beckett & SCD wrong about 1993 Triple Play Previews

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

gracecollector

Well-known member
Aug 7, 2008
6,559
215
Lake in the Hills, IL
Here's a long read on an esoteric card set very few will even care about, but I just might be on to something that would change both Beckett and the Standard Catalog.

The story begins with a wanted card. The 1993 Donruss Triple Play set was supposedly previewed to dealers with a 12 card set. These preview cards were the first 12 cards in the set. Now, Beckett and SCD will tell you that the preview cards have a big "PREVIEW" stamped across the card backs. This was the case with 1992 Triple Play Previews.

Mark Grace is part of the 12 card set (he is card #11 ). Most of you know how hard I collect anything Grace (see website link below if unfamiliar). I had never seen a 1993 Donruss Triple Play Previews card in the last 17 years, one with a PREVIEW across the back. Seemed odd I had never seen one. But there it remained on my checklist, confirmed by both Beckett and SCD, remaining the only Grace card I needed from the pre 1/1 era beginning in 1997.

Last week a card claiming to be a Grace 93 Triple Play Preview was listed on eBay. No scan of the back was given. I jumped on the buy it now just taking the chance.

Yesterday I received the card and at first glance I was disappointed. It appeared to be the same as a regular Triple Play, and no "PREVIEW" printed across the back. Tonight I dug out my regular card example, and compared it very closely to the supposed "PREVIEW." Again it appeared identical. But then I caught one very slight difference.

On the card backs, there are faint "Triple Play" logos on the black areas of the card. They are very transparent though, so tough to see at first glance. I noticed on the regular card, the Triple Play logo was printed very sharply, with the thinnest of outlines around the letters. On the supposed preview, the outlines around the letters were much bolder and a little fuzzy. I tilted the card back and forth (like looking for a refractor finish), and was surprised that as I did so, the regular card logos stayed the same color, but the preview card logos faded to black - blending in with the card logos - but then came back into sight as I kept turning it. This could be a different ink between the cards.

The seller of the card emailed and said that they received these cards direct from Donruss in a clear 12-card cellophane wrapper, no "PREVIEW" printed on them anywhere.

I'm ready to believe that both the major catalogs are wrong in their description of these cards. If anyone can produce a scan of a 1993 Donruss Triple Play Preview card with a "PREVIEW" back print, I'll stand corrected. I've looked everywhere and can't. Please prove me wrong if you can! I just want to know the truth.

So for anyone who has ever looked for this issue, this may explain why you haven't found what you're looking for. The differences between the two are so slight as to be virtually impossible to detect unless you are looking specifically at those little back logos.

Here's a scan of the logos. My scanner had a very hard time picking up the "PREVIEW" logos, but no problem with the regular logos. I had to adjust the contrast very sharply to be able to show the difference in logo thickness.

tripleplay.jpg

BTW, here's the checklist of 1993 Triple Play Previews:
Ken Griffey Jr. 1
Roberto Alomar 2
Cal Ripken 3
Eric Karros 4
Cecil Fielder 5
Gary Sheffield 6
Darren Daulton 7
Andy Van Slyke 8
Dennis Eckersley 9
Ryne Sandberg 10
Mark Grace 11
David Segui-Luis Polonia-Awesome Action 12
 
Last edited:

tunahead

Member
May 17, 2009
948
1
Austin,TX
I purchased the Ripken that this dealer had for sale...

After you pointed out the slight differences, I compared my "preview" to a normal one I had. The Triple Play logo on the back of the preview is definitely fuzzier and thicker. I didn't notice the logo on the regular card fading to black as much, but the one on the preview is definitely easier to notice. The other thing I noticed is that on the front of the card, the black outlines of the player's name are thicker on the normal card compared to the preview.

Checkoutmycards.com had 24 copies of this card... all the back scans had the thinner Triple Play logo on the back. The front scans weren't large enough for me to tell if they all had thicker borders than the supposed preview card.

I'll get some scans up tomorrow to show the differences.

It's interesting... but not sure I can justify $50.00 for this card yet! :?
 

tunahead

Member
May 17, 2009
948
1
Austin,TX
Sorry I didn't get these posted sooner:

tp1.png

The supposed preview has thinner black outline on the name "RIPKEN"

tp2.png

The "preview" is the fuzzier of the Triple Play logos on back.
 

tunahead

Member
May 17, 2009
948
1
Austin,TX
A few more things I've noticed after looking at these a bit closer... the grey/silver color of the player name on the front are noticeably different. On the back of the card, the white text is brighter and also is a bit thicker on the "preview" version. Also on the back, the player name appears more orange-ish on the "preview" and more red on the normal card.
 

Grace17

New member
Jul 28, 2016
13
0
Hi Gracecollector! I've been looking for the card and everytime I would turn the card over, I would look for this magical "Preview" to appear. Never happened. Found this post today and went through my 104 Grace triple play kids and thanks to your post, I found 1 (only 1). I see what hour bare talking about with the "Triple Play" stamp. It definitely different than the other 100 I have. One thing I did notice that stood out the the copyright next to the "MLBPA" is much more brighter than the standard card. I went through all my Grace base cards as well and they all have the lighter copyright. See attached pics.
attachment.php
attachment.php
Sorry they are so small.
 

Attachments

  • image.png
    image.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 228
  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    229.8 KB · Views: 216

DeliciousBacon

Well-known member
Apr 23, 2011
3,444
94
Warwick, RI
I think I picked up a few Samples on COMC a long time. I say "think" because these are really really hard to figure out. For all I know, my Grace is a sample, and I can't tell the difference!
 

Grace17

New member
Jul 28, 2016
13
0
When I run my sampls in my standard card, the copyright stands out pretty good and the logo stands out to me. It looks "chunky" compared to the standard.
 

gracecollector

Well-known member
Aug 7, 2008
6,559
215
Lake in the Hills, IL
Hi Gracecollector! I've been looking for the card and everytime I would turn the card over, I would look for this magical "Preview" to appear. Never happened. Found this post today and went through my 104 Grace triple play kids and thanks to your post, I found 1 (only 1). I see what hour bare talking about with the "Triple Play" stamp. It definitely different than the other 100 I have. One thing I did notice that stood out the the copyright next to the "MLBPA" is much more brighter than the standard card. I went through all my Grace base cards as well and they all have the lighter copyright. See attached pics.
attachment.php
attachment.php
Sorry they are so small.

Glad to help. I think you do have a preview version there on the bulky logo card.

Brad
 
Jan 14, 2015
429
5
New Jersey
I'm not certain that these are preview cards vs simple print variations. I say that because I have seen several mattinglys come up on eBay in both variations and he is not one of the players listed as part of the preview set. I could be wrong though as this is just my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

tunahead

Member
May 17, 2009
948
1
Austin,TX
I'm not certain that these are preview cards vs simple print variations. I say that because I have seen several mattinglys come up on eBay in both variations and he is not one of the players listed as part of the preview set. I could be wrong though as this is just my opinion.

Pics or it didn't happen :D
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top