Chrome, Finest, Reversed Printing, and Opaque Whites

Last December fellow print geek @robbyt86 tweeted an astute observation about someone else’s printing plate rainbow when he noticed that the rainbow consisted of both regular and Chrome cards and that the Chrome cards were printed in reverse. The top two printing plate cards in the image are regular paper printed right-reading (as can be seen in the jersey logo and number). The bottom two are Chrome printed wrong-reading.

This got me thinking and I hypothesized that Chrome was printed in reverse on clear plastic and then fused to the foilboard. This would explain the difference in the printing plates as well as the mix of foil and non-foil finishes. Opaque white ink isn’t usually the best thing to print on top of but this technique would lay it down last, on top of the other inks, which is a perfect use for it.

The more I thought about this the more I realized that this was also probably how Finest was made in the mid-1990s* and that I wanted to do some digging to confirm whether or not this was indeed the case.

*and that there was a decent chance that the protective coating on Finest is still on the clear layer of these Chrome/Finest cards today only it’s getting peeled off after printing but before packing.

So I decided to soak one of my excess Chrome cards to see what I could find out. I selected a 2015 Topps Chrome Hunter Strickland for this since I had gotten tired of him after the 2018 broken hand debacle. 2015 is a good design for this since the colored border meant there was, presumably, some opaque white right there on the edge.

Soaking went well. Card came apart as expected except for the surprise Tide Pod marks inside the card stock. After cleaning everything up I was left with just the front of the card and a literal foil backing.

The next step for me was to start sanding each side to confirm what side the ink was on and see if I could find a way to remove just the foil. This didn’t work super well but I did confirm that the ink is indeed printed on the inside layer of the plastic. You can make out the scuff marks on Strickland’s face and how they stay on the surface of the card rather than removing any ink. Compare this to where I sanded on the back by the Giants logo. The foil and image both start to disappear—especially along the edge.

So I was stuck both because Chrome is impossible to scan and because I hadn’t really produced anything interesting. And then Artiezillante commented on my previous post where I dove into the patent archive. I’ll just reproduce it in full here as well.

So in addition to cards I have a fairly extensive collection of wrappers from the 1980s-today because you never know when you’re going to need to go to the wrapper to answer a question. On the 1997 Finest Series 1 and 2 wrappers they have the following language:

Topps Finest is a registered trademark of The Topps Company, Inc.
SGW US Patent #4933218, #5082703, #5106126, Chromium (R), Holochrome (R), #5223357, Skin Protector TM, ClearChrome (R), Pat. Pending

I don’t have a 1996 Finest wrapper, but I do have one from 1995 and none of that language is there. The 1998 Finest wrapper is nearly impossible to read (the wrapper is clear so the print on the back gets jumbled with the design on the front) but it also mentions US & Foreign patents for Chromium, Holochrome, Skin Protector, and ClearChrome, though there are no patent numbers. The earliest Topps Chrome wrapper I have is from 2002 and it has the same language as the 1998 Finest wrapper.

This was fantastic and turned out to be exactly what I was looking for. Patents 5082703, 5106126, and 5223357 in particular describe exactly what’s going on with Finest and Chrome.

Patent 5082703 describes the clear layer,* how it’s printed on the back side, and how the thickness of the ink printed can be changed so as to create textural effects. The pictures in the patent show a generic image in Figure 1 with Figures 2, 3, 4, and 7 representing different cross sections with the clear layer always being labelled 12 and the different ink layers on the back being shown in profile.

*Patent 4933218 that Topps also mentions is an earlier version of 5082703.

Patent 5106126 meanwhile covers the opaque masking of portions of the printed image so that multiple finishes are available after a metallic layer is added to the piece. More specifically it builds on printing on a clear substrate (what the previous patent covers) by depositing an opaque layer behind select portions of the image before layering reflective/metallic material on the back of the entire piece. This results in some portions of the printed piece having a metallic sheen and other pieces being dull and paper-like.

One key point here is that metallic layer is laminated or sprayed on to the substrate. This is not how cards are produced so the key takeaway here is the custom opaque ink sections.*

*Compare this to the custom foil stamping detailed in Upper Deck’s hologram card patent I mention in my previous post

The last patent, number 5223357, covers the assembly of the cards. The patent specifies holographic film but the key takeaway for me is that it discusses adhering together two distinct sheets—the clear layer (labelled 12) and the metallic/holographic layer (labelled 14)—rather than the single sheet that the other two patents discuss.

The cross-sectional drawings in this patent also distinctly show how the ink is located between the two layers and confirms that my hypothesis about how these cards are assembled is correct.

It also explains why the Chrome printing plates are wrong-reading since, once they’re printed on the the clear substrate, they become right-reading when viewed through the plastic.

When you look at a Chrome card you’re looking at the back of the printing through the clear plastic sheet that it’s been printed on. The non-shiny sections have opaque white ink printed on top of the colored inks (remember you’re looking at the back of the printing). The shiny sections are from a foil sheet that has been glued to the plastic sheet. The rest of the card is regular paper card stock* on which the card backs are printed just like traditional paper cards.

*The plastic/paper dual composition is why Chrome cards tend to curl so much. Paper responds to humidity much more than plastic and so depending on conditions in the Topps plant vs conditions in your home it will expand or contract a little and result in curling.

Author: Nick Vossbrink

Blogging about Photography, Museums, Printing, and Baseball Cards from both Princeton New Jersey and the San Francisco Bay Area. On Twitter as @vossbrink, WordPress at, and the web at

13 thoughts on “Chrome, Finest, Reversed Printing, and Opaque Whites”

  1. With 2008 Topps Chrome and 2009 Finest it’s more difficult to see that the images are reversed on the printing plates, but they are. The basketball cards pictured show the backwards Chrome logo and player name, but Topps put borders around the 2008 Topps Chrome and 2009 Finest plates (at least baseball issues). I have a Luis Castillo from 2008 and a Johan Santana from 2009 Finest and the borders of the actual plate are covered by an “artificial” border that mimics the design from that year. The facsimile signature on the Castillo card is one way to see that it’s reversed; Johan is easier to tell because he is throwing right-handed on the printing plate card. I pulled the Johan from a pack so I’m pretty sure it hasn’t been altered on the secondary market.

    Now, if you can unravel the mystery of what changes in the material composition Topps used in 2010 Chrome products you would be a true hero. While Chrome cards from previous years tend to curl a little, just about everything I have and have seen from 2010 that uses chrome curls more than other years.


    1. Hehe I suspect that it’s not a change in the material but possibly an environmental change in the production. Different humidity level in the printing plant for example could do it.


  2. Dropping a link to a fantastic YouTube video which shows a 1991 Upper Deck chrome prototype. Since most of these patents were filed in 1990, the timing of this showing up on a card in 1991 makes sense. The interesting thing is that this prototype card has a magnetic back. This is consistent with the patents being signage-based and how the last patent which covers assembly of the cards is from 1993.


  3. Ohh Wow, thank you so much ! I’ve been myself trying to understand and prove the manufacturing process of those Chrome Card on “TOPPS Chrome Pokemon trading Card” and I’m so happy to finally have found this post and the pattent that prove my theory.
    I had done the same test of you and had the same result with Standard Chrome Variation And with Tekno Chrome Variation.
    I would be really interested to learn more about the Embosement process of the clear plastic sheet if you have any information about those. (I’ll dig a bit more in the pattent to see what I can find).
    Also if any of you found the manufacturing process of the UV Coating or Chemical Whiteners use by Topps it would mean the world to me as I’m investigating some Topps Card Variation produced in 1999 without UV Coating/Chemical Whiteners.
    I found them while doing test with blacklight and I am trying to explain prove the cause of this variation 🙂
    Daniel Girard Bolduc


    1. After more reading of the pattent I now understand hwo the Embossement/Etching manufacturing process work but I would still be interested into learning more about the type of Printer used to make those.
      The UV Coating and Optical Whiteners are still the part I would need help to understand how Topps use them in the making process of the cards.
      Daniel Girard Bolduc


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: