PDA

View Full Version : Topps 1986 Oddity


ALR-bishop
11-24-2013, 12:09 PM
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/img652_zps2b74f3b7.jpg?t=1385230018

ALR-bishop
11-24-2013, 12:12 PM
The missing black dominates the Winfield, but the blue defect occurs elsewhere too on some prominent cards
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/img311.jpg

bnorth
11-25-2013, 04:07 PM
Very cool card. I seen it on eBay a while back where you the buyer or seller? Any chance you will disclose what it sold for.

ALR-bishop
11-25-2013, 06:01 PM
I have never sold anything on ebay

bnorth
11-25-2013, 06:19 PM
I have never sold anything on ebay

I do not blame you for that, it has become a pain to sell on eBay. Here is the listing with the same exact error. http://www.ebay.com/itm/1986-Topps-Dave-Winfield-70-Partial-Blackless-Error-Variation-Extremely-Rare-/300886026706?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item460e3469d2&nma=true&si=4wm1N%252FxcqdD6AksGGLTO85ldw6U%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557 I have been looking for the Puhl card that was beside the Clemens with no luck so far.

Was hoping it was you that bought or sold it. Just curious about what it sold for.

Cliff Bowman
11-25-2013, 07:55 PM
Was hoping it was you that bought or sold it. Just curious about what it sold for.[/QUOTE]

$125.00. I offered the seller $100.00 a few months ago but was declined. Al gets all of the cool cards :mad:

ALR-bishop
11-26-2013, 07:40 AM
Have not seen one with the blue defect either. But seeing a similar defect the on Winfield is interesting. It likely exists on other cards in the set as well

Cliff Bowman
11-26-2013, 07:43 PM
Have not seen one with the blue defect either. But seeing a similar defect the on Winfield is interesting. It likely exists on other cards in the set as well

1986 Topps Mike Smithson from the same sheet as the 1986 Topps Dave Winfield, C*.

Matthew80
11-27-2013, 10:39 AM
Interesting to see them on the HOF-type players. Must have sucked as a kid to draw one of these, I bet.

Do these types of printing errors occur in many 1980-90 sets and in Donruss and/or Fleer?

steve B
11-27-2013, 10:57 AM
Yes, they can and do appear in nearly all the 80's/90's sets, and can appear in almost any set.

There are two different things shown, with similar results.

The Clemens and Seaver are caused by a poorly made plate for the black color. There should be a bunch of them out there depending on how long the printer used the bad plate.

The Winfield and Smithson are caused by water or solvent dripping on the plate. Too much water in one spot and the plate won't pick up any ink. Solvent will do nearly the same thing. Those are usually truly unique, there may be a card from the next sheet showing a similar but less severe version, but not always.

Both are interesting, showing that Topps printed Blue under the black.
I'm not sure why they would do that, it won't ever show unless the registration is way off, and over millions of cards the cost of extra ink would actually add up. It might have been done as a QC measure so they could see if the ink was printed evenly when it was just the blue layer.

Steve B

bnorth
11-27-2013, 11:35 AM
Yes, they can and do appear in nearly all the 80's/90's sets, and can appear in almost any set.

There are two different things shown, with similar results.

The Clemens and Seaver are caused by a poorly made plate for the black color. There should be a bunch of them out there depending on how long the printer used the bad plate.

The Winfield and Smithson are caused by water or solvent dripping on the plate. Too much water in one spot and the plate won't pick up any ink. Solvent will do nearly the same thing. Those are usually truly unique, there may be a card from the next sheet showing a similar but less severe version, but not always.

Both are interesting, showing that Topps printed Blue under the black.
I'm not sure why they would do that, it won't ever show unless the registration is way off, and over millions of cards the cost of extra ink would actually add up. It might have been done as a QC measure so they could see if the ink was printed evenly when it was just the blue layer.

Steve B

I have always been interested in the printing process of cards. When saying the plate was bad on the Clemens & Seaver errors are you talking about the screen not being exposed properly or are you talking the actual aluminum plate because a lot of printers call the screen the plate. Also what makes you think the Clemens & Seaver are from a bad plate.

As far as the cyan under the black that is very common on cards. I have several progressive inked cards that they actually put down the cyan, magenta, and yellow all under the black.

Any printing info would be greatly appreciated.

ALR-bishop
11-28-2013, 08:07 AM
Good info as usual Steve. I have not personally seen the blue on other Winfield's but the Seaver and Clemons, although scarce, are recurring and known in the hobby by variant collectors. I have a partial sheet I can scan when I get back home. On it the Seaver and Clemons abut diagonally bottom to top.

Cliff Bowman
11-28-2013, 01:21 PM
A lot that sold recently on eBay for 99 cents that I regrettably missed. Apparently they are not as rare as thought.

ALR-bishop
11-28-2013, 03:32 PM
Guess not:)

I think the Seaver is likely to exist in similar quantities, whatever they may be

bnorth
11-28-2013, 05:28 PM
WOW that was a nice lot of Clemens blue streak errors. The only Clemens blue streak I have is the top card in the center of a rack pack.

steve B
12-02-2013, 02:23 PM
I have always been interested in the printing process of cards. When saying the plate was bad on the Clemens & Seaver errors are you talking about the screen not being exposed properly or are you talking the actual aluminum plate because a lot of printers call the screen the plate. Also what makes you think the Clemens & Seaver are from a bad plate.

As far as the cyan under the black that is very common on cards. I have several progressive inked cards that they actually put down the cyan, magenta, and yellow all under the black.

Any printing info would be greatly appreciated.

It could be either.

The original art was photographed through a color filter and/or a screen to make a large negative. I was taught that the screen is the actual filter that produces the halftone (Dots effect) The large negative was taped to an opaque paper making the mask, which was used to expose the coating on the aluminum plate.

That's a bit over simplified for Topps, I'm pretty sure they had multiple parts along the way. For instance for 86 they probably had a set of empty frames with the team name that were photographed but not screened since there's no dot pattern. That way they could make a lot of each team and use them as needed to assemble masks for each sheet.

So anywhere along the line there could be a problem.

The original art could have a peeled spot or uncolored spot
There could be a bit of debris on the art or in the camera.
There could be a bit of debris on the mask, such as a bit of tape or a spill of - I forget the name, but an opaque reddish stuff like whiteout used to block off parts of the mask. There was a special tape too, sort of transparent but dark red used for the same purpose.
Or a bit of debris in the plate making process that prevented an area from being exposed.

The last one is the most common. In a shop looking primarily for production they might use the aluminum plate for a while, especially of the problem wasn't noticed until the plate was mounted in the press. Our shop was slower and more into quality, I can't recall a bad plate being used. Most got caught in platemaking, maybe one borderline one was sent to the pressroom to see if it was good enough.

One time we had a lot of dust in the camera room. (Yes, Room. The camera was around 8ft tall and 10ft long maybe 4ft wide. I think the biggest negative could be around 18x24, possibly 24x36 ) So the negatives had a lot of specks. They moved me into that department for a few days to help paint over all the specks on the masks so they wouldn't print that way. I think I was the only one who wasn't mad about the situation.

Regular scotch tape was used to tape the negatives to the masks. If that got into the image area it would become part of the image. That's very common on 1981 Fleer. Sloppy work.

Steve B