2020 Topps Baseball Forum

Here are the odds from a jumbo hobby pack no odds for the really short printed cards that the card code ends with 117, so far only 2 have been identified.  Mookie Betts "Hollywood #420 and the Luis Robert, Alverez, Bichett combo #392.  

Topps is calling them SSSPs. https://www.beckett.com/news/2020-topps-series-2-baseball-variations-guide/

2020 Topps Series 2 Baseball Variations: The Return of the SSSP

Like the scarce polar bear Pete Alonso and Rob Manfred cards from Series 1, there is a third tier of variation short prints. Odds for these aren’t on the pack. And the number that exist still isn’t know.

However, they are different — and presumably the most rare — as they have a different code signifier on the back.

The first “SSSP” to surface was a “Rookie Stars” card featuring Bo Bichette, Luis Robert and Yordan Alvarez. It looks fairly inconspicuous and has the same checklist number as Robert’s RC (#392).

Codes to Remember:

• Base – 099
• SP Variation – 115
• SSP Variation – 116
• SSSP – 117

How about NCIH? Seeing that I don't think anyone on here will land one of these it'll be, excuse me Mr. McMahon, "No Chance in He!!"

That's Beckett calling them that, not Topps.

I don't have a problem if y'all want to call it something other than SSSP. I agree that's kind of dumb, but we aboslutely must provide a distinction. I'm sorry, you cannot just leave all cards produced in shorter print runs as "SP" when some "SPs" might have 1,000,000 copies while another has 5. That is doing a disservice to users of this site.

I saw someone else mention that the print run is not listed -- the problem is that technically, Topps has not even acknowledged their existance. We know now that they exist and in extremely low quantities, but we have absolutely no idea of the odds or the exact print runs besides some basic back of the napkin math. 

So, to solve this problem there are two options:

1. Create a new special label soley for Topps' newest gimmick (STG -- "Stupid Topps Gimmick" has a nice ring to it Splinter ;)

2. Mention it in the notes of the card.

There are no other options. The goal of the checklists is to be as accurate and thorough as possible to provent users from becoming confused and to allow users to not have to do additional searching to learn about the checklist. We want this site to the premiere site to go to to find this stuff out -- and for the most part it is. Let's not slack on that in this instance.

That is exactly what I was thinking. Thanks for the link Ed.

Have not ran in to I think any basketball sets yet from memory.

Card companies are certainly not making it easy to compile this information what with all the different pack sizes, hobby/retail variations and not listing odds/print runs. I was certainly thinking with '90s sets in mind.

Call it an "SSP" then update Note2 or add a Comment with whatever info about how rare it is. There are times where I'll add trivia or notes about a card in its Comments section if I don't feel it belongs in Note2

Makes sense to me

As a noted variation collector on the site, I find it important to note that these cards are unique.  Each of the variations have a unique code on the back and differing pack odds: 

SP code 115 and approximately 1/hobby box

SSP code 116 and approximately 1/hobby case

SSSP (or whatever) code 117 and probably 10 copies

I collected all of the SSSP cards from Series 1 and was tracking them for a long time, so I'm making an assumption that the print runs will be the same for Series 2.  I doubt I will collect each of the 4 known variations from Series 2, but I'm going to try.  My point is that the code on the back distinguishes these cards as being unique, so if we want to be accurate here on this site we should denote them as well.  SSSP, however dumb it may be, is the now accepted lingo in the industry.

The last point is a very valid one to me.

At what stage is not using a term that has become common lingo in the industry just doing a disservice to users?

If users know these cards as SSSPs and would want to search for them under SSSPs but the term was not used here is that not just making life harder tha it needs to be?

Think of it as if this was a photography site that refused to acknowledge the term "selfie" because it was deemed not to be a real word. Instead users need to search for "photos taken of oneself using a mobile telephone" or something to that effect. I think all would acknowledge that is just being obtuse.

Now SSSP may be a newish term and maybe it seems stupid (but, really how many degrees stupider is it than SSP. Super short print, what does that really mean!) but if it is becoming the accepted term for these cards then is it just making the site like the old man yelling at the wind if it was not to be acknowledged?