[mouschi3]

If following the hypothesis that they were cut from a sheet, the regular refractors had no other way to differentiate themselves from pack pulled refractors.  The sheet cutters would need to do something different to drive demand, thus the 2-card panels or single card with extra edge border.  The golds wouldn't need that since the lack of die cutting and serial number itself make them different from pack pulled ones. 

It hurts my heart thinking that there were beautiful sheets of 1999 Finest Refractors/Gold Refractors cut up to try and make a bit extra vs leaving them as a whole.


I saw the football versions of these originally pop up on eBay soon after Topps no longer had NFL/NFLPA licensing.  I figure Topps got rid of anything football related from their archives and the sheets found there way out into the wild.

I totally believe they printed off some extras in case of damaged card replacement requests since these straight bordered cards even have the Finest protector peel on them but I'm willing to bet they kept them in sheet form since to cut them with the scalloped edge it would have been a single zig zag cut to separate them.  A straight cut then scalloped cut would have reduced the card size and not been as efficient from a manufacturing standpoint.

Best part is, even with conjecture, it is still a mystery!  They exist and they are cool



Absolutely spot on with them being proofs too.  I think the existence of the 2-panel cards appearing the same time as the straight edge gold refractors maybe lessens this possibility but it can't be ruled out either!  I found these over the years from the 1999 set that are/could be proofs from different parts of the production cycle:

<img src="http://jplarson.com/finest/1999/oddball/ja_gems_tv.jpg"></a>

This is an "acrylic" card from the Topps Vault with certificate.  No chromium finish, paper back, card stock thickness the same or similar to the actual set, and some have 1-3mm of white border along a couple edges.  They were advertised from Topps as "blank back proofs".


<img width="350" src="http://jplarson.com/finest/1999/oddball/bsanders_proof.jpg"></a> <img width="350" src="http://jplarson.com/finest/1999/oddball/bsanders_proofb.jpg"></a>

This "proof" popped up on eBay with a bunch of other 1999 football examples all at the same time in the mid/late 00's and I haven't seen them since.  They have the chromium finish but no protector peel.  They are razor thin and have no rigidness to them, they fold and flap like a piece of cloth.  There was no paperwork with the cards and allegedly were picked via dumpster diving. 

I haven't experimented with it but I wonder what would happen if I pulled the peel of a pack pulled version and soaked it for days on end.  Would the paper disintegrate into the water and leave a floating foil piece like this?

I mention these because if it was done for football it's very likely it was for baseball too!  Something to keep an eye on.

To answer your question, yes, a soaked finest card will result in that same backing - that isn't to say that it isn't a type of proof from the factory, but there wouldn't be a way to differentiate it either way.  

Here are a few approval back cards (I have the Ring Leaders one still, but not the McD's one) 


I LOVE this card ...



As for sheets, I actually bought a framed Fleer bankruptcy sheet of Star Rubies blank backs from their archives to cut up.  My primary reason is for the Canseco, but the blank back cards of other players will be sold/traded to those who desire having a blank back version of their guy.  It will no doubt make some folks cringe cutting it up, but we player collectors value super rare differences in singles of our guy than whole sheets.  It'll be great to do it, but is always nerve wracking!