Show...me...your print variations!

[4reals]

A wise man on these boards once said, "if one looks hard enough, a print variation could probably be found for every card ever made". I would agree with that, and finding interesting print variations/variants/anomalies intrigues many of us. If you have recently found an interesting one share it here for the rest of us to admire!

[4reals]

I'll kick it off with this one I recently found...

A 1960 Charlie Neal A.S. with a solid black shadow and a transparent shadow.

[JollyElm]

My weird, 'whiteback' '69 Frisella…

144096

[ALR-bishop]

I am at the stage where I wish I had limited myself to collecting variations recognized by some combination of SCD, Becketts or the Registry master lists. Of course ,once recognized they get instantly expensive unless you foresaw something you felt would get recognized later. The 61 Fairly cured me of that notion.

Some print defects I think may be unique, and therefore very rare, but, for that reason, not very collectible ( not enough of them to get hobby into them). Other print defects may be recurring but not very notable.

This Yount variant is recurring, but not very interesting ( to me)

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/04db38ec-6717-4b88-a00a-bac2cd16b3fc_zpsb4b2b100.jpg

This King variant is, to me, interesting, but apparently too scarce to be very collectible. At one time it was listed in SCD, but I think it was removed in later editions due to the fact it was viewed as mostly non recurring, or maybe not recurring enough
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/dd83856c-688d-4863-acfb-d7e5aeb0f98d_zps938c32ea.jpg

http://s1267.photobucket.com/user/Bishop539/media/dd83856c-688d-4863-acfb-d7e5aeb0f98d_zps938c32ea.jpg.html?sort=3&o=36

One of the reasons I enjoy this forum so much is that there are so many other variant collectors, like Darren, Ben, Doug and Joe here

That Frisella is cool Darren

[brob28]

Joe, love that transparent shadow Neal. Looks better than the "regular" issue.

[4reals]

That Frisella is cool Darren

I agree, very neat!

[savedfrommyspokes]

Not a major print variation, but on this 61 Hoak card there is a green spot on his belt and then another green spot near the left border also. In a very quick look through ebay and COMC, out of 60+ copies I found two with the green spots.

[ALR-bishop]

Saved---I see the border irregularity but not the belt.

I also like cards where there are different defects on the same card

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/31dbf975-9cf7-4a98-a98d-a7d06d3ae058_zpsdbdc0839.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/WhitenOldClothes705_zps3a531688.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/img648_zps63f29a91.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/img634_zps2c95bf31.jpghttp://
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/img622_zps54e4f17d.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/79e0797c-e9d2-448a-80ae-2eb129075370_zpsa2a2b3eb.jpg

[savedfrommyspokes]

Al, just above Hoak's right hip, on his belt line (just to the left of where his black belt becomes covered by the uniform pants), there is a green print anomaly that appears on both cards. On my copy of this card, the green on the belt line is much more apparent than it appears in either of these scans.

[ALR-bishop]

Got it thanks.

Note the 3 different sky backgrounds in the 53 Schultz and Shea cards

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/WhitenOldClothes779_zps122c0e62.jpg?t=1400003562

[savedfrommyspokes]

Al, the 53s are neat....what caused the difference as these cards were produced from original artwork, were they not?


Here are a few more I have found ....

The 59 McDaniel has the white streak on the lower left area of the card. The 59 Singleton has the missing print(in the word "Chicago")...the guy I sold this card to told me he had been looking for years for a second copy to compliment his other copy with the missing print. The 63 Menke has the yellow area along the right edge...have not found a second copy of the Menke card with the yellow.

[ALR-bishop]

Had not seen or heard of those 3. I do have an Elmer with a yellow streak in the bottom border. That same defect exists in various forms on the Hank Sauer card. And there are 3 version of Lindy's 61 card

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/WhitenOldClothes780_zps41c5593c.jpg?t=1400009700
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/WhitenOldClothes781_zps10e59e46.jpg?t=1400096001

[4reals]

Love those 56 Pepper's Al, good eye on those!

Spokes: The yellow overprint on your 63 Topps Menke reminded me of these...

seems 63 had a problem with the yellow staying trapped in cards with the green strip on the bottom, my Fairly's are somewhat similar.

http://i773.photobucket.com/albums/yy19/joeoneone/cards%20blog/63TVariations-1_zpsc444a75a.jpeg
http://i773.photobucket.com/albums/yy19/joeoneone/cards%20blog/63TVariations-2_zpsdc49e9bf.jpeg

[ALR-bishop]

Joe---I believe, based on this article by George Vrechek, that the Zimmer qualifies as a true variation. Like the 52 Mantle, printing/cropping differences on a DP. Running down all 11 was not that hard on ebay


http://www.oldbaseball.com/refs/1963_New_Variations.pdf

[whiteymet]

There is a very rare subset of a very early printing of the 1962 Salada coins that most collectors are not aware of.

The ultra rare Bailey, Brandt and Williams are a part of this printing. Every Salada collector knows that the rare Brandt comes with an S on the end of Orioles while the common one lists his team as Oriole. However the rare Brandt also has his name farther away from his face. See below.

There are others with this same name farther away from the face or other printing moved on the coin.

And there are the ever popular print blubs.

There's lots more too.

[4reals]

whitey - looks like the team name is also closer or further away from the body (in some cases touching the body), not just the player's name...thanks for sharing!

[GoldenAge50s]

Back in the mid '80's I bought a complete set of '72's from a friend back home, along w/ alot of other stuff he wanted to get rid of.

I went thru the box card by card to be sure they were all there and as I got to the end of the box I found this Dusty Baker card.

Only 1972 I have ever seen w/ a yellow back. Normal card also shown.

[ALR-bishop]

Good one Fred. A lot of front oddities in that set. Here are just a few

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/img449_zpsd14329d8.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/img452_zps302500cf.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/img499_zps2c565124.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/img451_zpsa4142ce3.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/img450_zpse7e4a206.jpg

[4reals]

One day while looking for interesting variations on ebay I stumbled upon this listing:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1963-TOPPS-5-ERA-KOUFAX-RARE-ERROR-VARIATION-SIDE-BORDER-LINE-MISSING-/151020006114?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item23297e6ae2

Note, the black ink missing on the left side. Obviously I was never going to pay the ridiculous asking price but I was interested in the variation so I put the card down as a saved search and 6 months later I finally found one for only $5! Pretty cool variation to add to the other three I have shown previously in this thread. Here it is...

[4reals]

Found a new Fairly variation to go with the others I posted. This one has a blue strip on the lower left.

http://i773.photobucket.com/albums/yy19/joeoneone/cards%20blog/63TOPPSFAIRLYVARBLUE_zps8d2d197c.jpeg

[NateMack]

I found this looking though my dup box. It is not a marker, I looked with my loop. It looks like the black just bled into the Philadelphia Phillies.

145912

[Exhibitman]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Topps did not mean to send this out this way:

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/freaksandgeeks/websize/1971%20Topps%20Super%20Powell%20blank%20front.jpg

1975 Topps Mini Steve Garvey; I will call him "Mini Miscut."

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/freaksandgeeks/websize/1975%20Topps%20Mini%20Garvey%20miscut.jpg

[ALR-bishop]

Adam-- is that top border uneven ?

[JollyElm]

We are all familiar with the 1966 Bob Heffner 'purple tree' variation, but take a look at the extreme craziness of this sucker…
146853

[ALR-bishop]

Good one Darren. Had not seen that version

[4reals]

I was unaware of the purple tree variation, nice!

[pbilyj]

Going thru my 61 Post Cereal cards, card #153 Andre Rodgers (Traded Line), which has 2 different background colors. Not sure exactly if a color ran out during the printing process of the one or the other. One card has a beige background and the other has a sky blue color. Found also that some facial details are better on some cards vs. others.
147371

147372

[savedfrommyspokes]

Going thru my 61 Post Cereal cards, card #153 Andre Rodgers (Traded Line), which has 2 different background colors. Not sure exactly if a color ran out during the printing process of the one or the other. One card has a beige background and the other has a sky blue color. Found also that some facial details are better on some cards vs. others.



In building my 61 Post set, I found a quite a few of these background color variations. These background color variations seem to be equally plentiful no matter the background, so I have opted to keep just the best looking example of each card with out regards to the background.

[bnorth]

Going thru my 61 Post Cereal cards, card #153 Andre Rodgers (Traded Line), which has 2 different background colors. Not sure exactly if a color ran out during the printing process of the one or the other. One card has a beige background and the other has a sky blue color. Found also that some facial details are better on some cards vs. others.
147371

147372

It is not just different color in the back ground. The photo is also cropped different.

[Exhibitman]

Adam-- is that top border uneven ?

No it is the black ink framing the bottom of the next card image.

[jimmysuitcase]

Going thru my 61 Post Cereal cards, card #153 Andre Rodgers (Traded Line), which has 2 different background colors...One card has a beige background and the other has a sky blue color.
147371

147372

Forgive me if I am about to mention a dead horse that has been repeatedly beaten, but I noticed that no one has mentioned the 62 Post set in this thread. I've found 2-3 color background variations of several of the NL players, so I hung on to them in my "master set." Is there any known shortage of blue vs. white vs. in between background colors?

[savedfrommyspokes]

Seems like the 61 set is a haven for these small print variations. On the 257 Hardy card, along the upper left edge a small streak can be seen within the image. This appears on a seemingly small percent of the copies I viewed. More interesting is that on one of my MC copies of this card, the Gene Green card next to this card on the sheet also has the same small streak, although shorter. The Gene Green card already has a noted variation with the amount of space between the title and name varying. The last Hardy I posted is a copy that has some interesting print defects including a much bluer sky and an ink smudge near the team name.

[4reals]

great post on the Hardy, thanks for sharing!

[ALR-bishop]

...and the Green too :)

edited---I was able to find one of the Hardy and Green variants without much trouble. But on Green, another seller convinced me there are cropping differences on several of the 1961 cards, similar to minor cropping differences in the 1963 set written about by Vrechek in this article

http://www.oldbaseball.com/refs/1963_New_Variations.pdf


I know it is a stretch, but does nay one see any spacing differences on these Green cards between the name and position in the yellow box

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/WhitenOldClothes826_zps8919e411.jpg?t=1403029446

[brightair]

Nice photos, thanks for sharing these!
I see the difference Al, also the picture is cropped slightly differently.
Richard D

[4reals]

Here's a run of variations on the '67 Topps McNally card, see the sign in the upper right corner and the bleeding magenta.

http://i773.photobucket.com/albums/yy19/joeoneone/cards%20blog/1967TMcNallyvariations_zps7de562f3.jpeg

[savedfrommyspokes]

Nice observation Joe, I like how the bleeding progresses in the last two copies you posted.


I found this 68 Wine with the border break along the left edge.... similar to the 73 border break cards.

[bnorth]

Nice observation Joe, I like how the bleeding progresses in the last two copies you posted.


I found this 68 Wine with the border break along the left edge.... similar to the 73 border break cards.

Thank you for pointing out this error version. I picked up the card on the left as the other was already sold.

While there I also picked up the far right version of the 67 Topps McNally card.

[ALR-bishop]

Was aware of the Wise but not the Mcnally(s)

[Northviewcats]

Here are four more 1963 Cropping Variations.

Best regards,

Joe

[Exhibitman]

1948 Leaf Mickey Harris w/turd-brown BG

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/freaksandgeeks/1948%20Leaf%20Harris.jpg

[ALR-bishop]

Joe D --Have you noticed the back variation on the McBean ? As I recall I rounded up all of these, 13 as I think, using a great article by George Vrechek that described, explained and pictured all of them. If you google Topps 1963 variations the article turns up

[Northviewcats]

Hi Al,

Thanks for the link to Vrechek's article. For anyone who is interested, I scanned the backs of the McBean card to show the two different variations.

The "A" in the cartoon has two different colors. I have over a dozen cards of each variation and all of the McBeans with one strip showing on the front also have a yellow "A" on the back. All of my cards with the second stripe visible on the shoulder on the front of the card have a white "A' on the back.

Interesting.

I also included a scan of the Oldis variation as well.

Best regards,

Joe

[ALR-bishop]

Recurring defect/difference on Carlton card over his cap

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/WhitenOldClothes844_zps24825dc9.jpg?t=1405190072

[ALR-bishop]

I recently updated my 1959 and 1960 Topps sets to include both the gray and white back variants...1958 ( 199-286)....1960 (375-440). In doing that I noticed this print defect. Not sure if it is recurring. This is a white back

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/WhitenOldClothes847_zps90387d5a.jpg?t=1405442599

[bigfanNY]

I know not pre 1980 but this one perplexed me. 2012 Topps as they had in past years had a number of "Error" or Short Print cards in both series one and Two. But this #328 John Lackey "Rainbow" error has never gotten a listing. I had a nephew born that year so like many relatives before I put together a master set of cards for him to give when he get older. I saw some early posts for the lackey card but held off until about April then I purchased 3 of the cards one from Alabama one from Ohio and one from California. So I know it had wide distribution was only in the very first print run from that year and was told by folks that broke down many cases of Product that they only got one "rainbow lackey card each. They had held them saw no traction and sold them in April for a couple bucks each. I had them Graded last year and despite clear printing error you can see flip is the same for both cards. I did notice that about 20 2012 lackeys were graded so I would think there is a small population of the cards that has been graded and Look forward to your learned opinions.

[ALR-bishop]

Neat item Jonathan. To the best of my knowledge PSA normally only notes variations/variants/differences on their flips after hobby recognition in some way, such as recognition in a catalog like SCD or Becketts. On the other hand, as far as I know PSA recognized the 61 Fairly on their own.

I know some collectors on CU got some variations recognized by PSA through persistent efforts that included sending them hobby articles about the cards they were trying to get recognized. Others worked to get SCD to recognize their variant cards as a first step

[bigfanNY]

Thank you for the input. What I really do not understand is clearly this card is a "variation" but in this day of company produced "variations" real ones need a champion or group of champions to hound a TPG in order to receive recognition. And I know that quality control is much much better now that in the 50's thru 1990's so real factory error cards are much scarcer but it seems to me a TPG would have enough experts especially in modern cards to recognize an error card when it is siting in their hand. I also know if stuff like this is my biggest problem I have NO problems. Great thread love variations.

Jonathan

[Rich Klein]

Neat item Jonathan. To the best of my knowledge PSA normally only notes variations/variants/differences on their flips after hobby recognition in some way, such as recognition in a catalog like SCD or Becketts. On the other hand, as far as I know PSA recognized the 61 Fairly on their own.

I know some collectors on CU got some variations recognized by PSA through persistent efforts that included sending them hobby articles about the cards they were trying to get recognized. Others worked to get SCD to recognize their variant cards as a first step

A Beckett dealer told them about the 61 Fairly and then it was listed in Beckett. PSA did not do that one independently.

[ALR-bishop]

Thanks for that info Rich, I had not realized that. In your view how can it be distinguished from other 61s with the green in the baseball on the back ? Or other front and back print defects that are recurring and even more prominent ? I kind of understood Bob Lemke's SCD criteria before he retired. Does Beckett have some known criteria or is it ad hoc depending on who is recommending it or their persistence ?

By the way I have no interested in trying to get anything recognized myself, this is just curiosity

[savedfrommyspokes]

I found this 58 Korcheck card....I was not able to locate another copy, so this "variation" must be "extremely rare"( LOL).

Notice the yellow line above the black box(does not appear on other copies of this card), and then the word "Catcher" in the black box has a small bit of yellow on the bottom while it looks like a red marker was used to color the upper part of the word "catcher" all while the red appears to overlap (more obviously on this card than on other copies) the black print.

Looks like a case of the sheet shifting during part of the printing process when either the red or yellow were supposed to print, as evidenced by the extra yellow on the top of the "W" in the Sentors logo. But what I do not understand is why the yellow line above the black box exists without any offsetting print errors on the upper edge and why the red overlapping the black print is so obvious(as this is not obvious on other copies). .

[ALR-bishop]

Cool. There was another one similar to it on ebay


http://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/e11400.m1842.l3160/7?euid=ac2aa2d0600d4461945302a36e403995&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fcgi.ebay.com%2Fws%2FeBayISAPI.dll %3FViewItem%26item%3D181456705409%26ssPageName%3DA DME%3AL%3AOC%3AUS%3A3160&exe=9760&ext=22535&sojTags=exe=exe,ext=ext

[savedfrommyspokes]

Looks like the ebay Korcheck slipped in the opposite direction during printing.

[bnorth]

Cool. There was another one similar to it on ebay


http://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/e11400.m1842.l3160/7?euid=ac2aa2d0600d4461945302a36e403995&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fcgi.ebay.com%2Fws%2FeBayISAPI.dll %3FViewItem%26item%3D181456705409%26ssPageName%3DA DME%3AL%3AOC%3AUS%3A3160&exe=9760&ext=22535&sojTags=exe=exe,ext=ext

Nice pair of print offset cards Al. Down ward red on one and up ward red on the other one. EDIT: After looking at the first card shown by savedfrommyspokes it looks like the black is what is printed offset(down ward) compared to the other 3 colors.

I have noticed that darker red blob showing in the black over the around the player position on some 58's I have.

[4reals]

I know everyone is aware of the 86 Topps Clemens blue streak variation and the Seaver blue streak variation from the same year but I just saw this card end on ebay tonight. It sold for $15 at auction. As a Dodgers collector I had no interest in it but thought I'd share its existence for those of you who might want to track one down. From a previous thread I know the layout of these cards on the sheet was discussed and based on those findings I think it would be safe to assume there is a fourth card floating around out there that has a similar blue streak.

http://i773.photobucket.com/albums/yy19/joeoneone/_57_zps926e63e5.jpg

[ALR-bishop]

There was some speculation that the Puhl card might have a simialr defect

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/dc1b2ae9-f8c6-4f8e-9881-73aa7acc55a9_zps2e6b4dae.jpg

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/img311.jpg

There is blue on this one....among other issues

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/img652_zps2b74f3b7.jpg

[bnorth]

I have been looking for that Terry Puhl card with no luck. The Clemens, Seaver, and Puhl card are extra cool to me because they are all the same exact printing error.

Strangely Al's Winfield and the Flanagan do not interest me and I have paid huge premiums for print spots on a card.:eek:

[4reals]

would love to see an uncut sheet image containing the Winfield and Flanagan cards to see who they butt up against...perhaps each other?

[Cliff Bowman]

would love to see an uncut sheet image containing the Winfield and Flanagan cards to see who they butt up against...perhaps each other?

I won the 1986 Topps Mike Flanagan printing error card and a 1986 Topps Alan Wiggins printing error card that fit together like a puzzle, I will show them when I receive them. The 1986 Topps Dave Winfield is from the C* sheet, the 1986 Topps Mike Flanagan is from the F* sheet. There should be a 1986 Topps Dwayne Murphy printing error card missing some of his name floating around out there somewhere.

[ALR-bishop]

Congrats Cliff and thanks for the info

[4reals]

Thanks Cliff, appreciate the pic. Does the Puhl actually exist? I've never seen one.

[Brianruns10]

Just picked this one up. I've so seldom seen one come up for sale that I jumped on this one. Paid a pretty penny for it, but I think it'll pay dividends once this card gets recognized as a legit variety. And if my hunch is right, and this one is scarcer than the Campos black star...hoo boy :)

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTAyNFg3MjQ=/z/PrIAAOSwGzlTw0qr/$_57.JPG

[ALR-bishop]

Congrats on the House Brian

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/WhitenOldClothes858_zps7b8b3a31.jpg?t=1406497459

[mrmantlecollector]

Hank aaron 1958 blue background.
http://i765.photobucket.com/albums/xx299/mrmantlecollector/hank%20aaron/IMG_0003-2.jpg (http://s765.photobucket.com/user/mrmantlecollector/media/hank%20aaron/IMG_0003-2.jpg.html)

[ALR-bishop]

I have one of those, and I think a couple of other guys here have one. There has been some debate about whether these are being "manufactured". If they were recurring print defects you would think other cards like them from the Aaron sheet would show up. Here is a similar Mays that I think could be a fading due to light issue

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/img369.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/img366.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/img367.jpg

[Cliff Bowman]

Here is the aforementioned 1986 Topps Mike Flanagan printing error card and the card next to it on the printing sheet, 1986 Topps Alan Wiggins with the same flaw. Thank goodness for that mid eighties mass production and poor quality control. Oddly enough, both players met unfortunate and untimely demises after their careers were over.

[ALR-bishop]

Neat combo Cliff

[4reals]

Yes Cliff, very nice!

I understand the excitement surrounding the 90 Thomas NNOF card (star RC) and the missing ink is in an important location of the card (name). However, when you simplify it down to the type of error it is (similar in nature to the 86's shown) it really shouldn't be recognized by the publications as a legit variation. In theory, they should then go and add all of the other examples we've found over the years and that just is never going to happen. It would be easier to strip the NNOF Thomas of its master set residence but I'm afraid the reaction at this point would not be positive. Logically it doesn't make sense to me but I don't see that it's ever going to change.

[ALR-bishop]

We need to elect someone to be in charge of this hobby. We are in a sate of anarchy :)

[steve B]

Yes Cliff, very nice!

I understand the excitement surrounding the 90 Thomas NNOF card (star RC) and the missing ink is in an important location of the card (name). However, when you simplify it down to the type of error it is (similar in nature to the 86's shown) it really shouldn't be recognized by the publications as a legit variation. In theory, they should then go and add all of the other examples we've found over the years and that just is never going to happen. It would be easier to strip the NNOF Thomas of its master set residence but I'm afraid the reaction at this point would not be positive. Logically it doesn't make sense to me but I don't see that it's ever going to change.

The 90 Thomas and the Wiggins/Flanagan pair shown are entirely unrelated errors.

The Wiggins/Flanagan is from water or solvent dripping onto the plate or blanket in the press. It's a fairly common error for the era, but finding a matched pair is very cool. It's also the sort of error that is probably unique or nearly so.

The Thomas is from some debris, probably tape blocking some of the black plate from being exposed when it was being made. A printing error, but a recurring one. Probably uncommon since the plate would have been replaced pretty quickly. I'd call it a variation, since it's the result of a different plate. Others might not because of the unintentional nature of the error.

Steve B

[ALR-bishop]

Steve---I have seen a few of the Seaver/Clemons blue defects, which are another matched pair. I am not sure what happened on the Winfield, which has a blue defect but also some missing ink similar to the 90 Thomas. I find it interesting because there seems to have been 2 defects in play.

Since the Seaver/Clemons did recur, at least for a few runs, is it likely the same would have happened on the Flanagan/ Wiggins ? Would these blue defects from 1986 have been self correcting without any intervention ?

There is a very good thread on CU about the Thomas card and the related cards around it that are also missing the black ink. Somewhere in that tread there is a scan of all the cards on an uncut sheet with a diagram of the fairly large piece of debris or tape that cause it.

[steve B]

Seaver/Clemens is more like the 90 Thomas. Probably not as severe, If I remember that thread right there's something like 15 cards affected by the same object that caused the Thomas.

I have some 77 Topps cloth checklists that have the same problem as the Flanagan/Wiggins.

It's possible that it recurred over a few sheets, but no more than a few.

When the operator adds water sometimes it drips onto either the plate or the offset blanket. If it drips on the plate it would probably only be on one sheet since the plate is wet and inked each rotation, and the pressure should squeeze out enough water to keep it to one sheet. I can see water getting on the rubber blanket maybe lasting a couple rotations under the right conditions.

If it was solvent, which is used occasionally to remove ink buildup on the rollers, then it might last a bit longer on the blanket. But again probably only one or two turns on the plate since the water would float it off and the pressure would push it out.

I do have one card showing where the ink floated on a very overwatered plate. Pretty odd effect.

Steve B

[4reals]

The 90 Thomas and the Wiggins/Flanagan pair shown are entirely unrelated errors.

The Wiggins/Flanagan is from water or solvent dripping onto the plate or blanket in the press. It's a fairly common error for the era, but finding a matched pair is very cool. It's also the sort of error that is probably unique or nearly so.

The Thomas is from some debris, probably tape blocking some of the black plate from being exposed when it was being made. A printing error, but a recurring one. Probably uncommon since the plate would have been replaced pretty quickly. I'd call it a variation, since it's the result of a different plate. Others might not because of the unintentional nature of the error.

Steve B


Steve B,

You're right in regards to the solvent/debris on plate difference...I suppose comparing the Thomas NNOF to the 86's was a mistake, however, there ARE many examples similar to the NNOF that are not recognized, like the '63 ERA Leaders card I showed earlier in the thread, and most notably, the other partial blackless '90 Topps cards from the same sheet like these:

[steve B]

I didn't explain that very well.

The group of 90T related to the Thomas are from something causing the plate to be made incorrectly.

The plates are made from a set of large negatives called the mask. It's usually a bunch of negatives taped to an opaque paper or plastic sheet. The plate is exposed much like a photograph would be, then developed. If something like a hunk of tape or strip of paper was between the mask and the plate that part wouldn't get exposed and that portion of that color wouldn't print.

I think the 90T and the Seaver/Clemens were both caused that way. The 90T is the most extreme example I've seen. Very sloppy work by the platemaker.

Other cards missing areas of color may be similar, but it's just one way of having missing color in an area.
Incorrect original
Incorrect mask
Bad plate
Solvent/water drips
Debris in the press.
Too much wetting of the plate
Underinking
Damaged/stained paper stock
Misfeed of a sheet
Partial print of the sheet - Impression cylinder not engaged for the whole rotation
Sheet not fed through at all

I think that's it, there could be others I missed.

And some of those have related errors.

Debris in the press can sometimes wrap around the plate, get inked and print what looks like faded solid color.

If there's too little water instead of too little the entire plate can get inked to varying degrees and will also print a light solid layer.


All are pretty cool, but the only one I'd call a variation is the incorrectly made plate.

Steve B

[ALR-bishop]

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/img250.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/img631_zpsbe3acf4f.jpg

[gracecollector]

1959 Don Zimmer #287. From what I've tracked, about 90% of printing has unbroken "O", 9.5% has broken "O", and 0.5% has a partially broken "O".

Unbroken "O" in Dodgers.
http://www.baseballcardstars.com/zimfiles/zimcards/59TOPPS.jpg http://www.baseballcardstars.com/zimfiles/zimcards/59TOPPSBIG.jpg

Partially broken "O" in Dodgers.
http://www.baseballcardstars.com/zimfiles/zimcards/59TOPPSPARTIALBROKENO.jpg http://www.baseballcardstars.com/zimfiles/zimcards/59TOPPSPARTIALBROKENOBIG.jpg

Broken "O" in Dodgers.
http://www.baseballcardstars.com/zimfiles/zimcards/59TOPPSFULLBROKENO.jpg http://www.baseballcardstars.com/zimfiles/zimcards/59TOPPSFULLBROKENOBIG.jpg

[ALR-bishop]

Good one Brad. Has Don ever looked better than on that card :)

[4reals]

Steve, thanks for the explanation, your reasoning makes sense to me. Do you think the other 90's from that sheet will ever be recognized like the Thomas?

Here's a Podres variant...some can be found with a section of pink in the top border where there should be orange. On ebay the pinks are about 20:1. Not too hard to find.

http://i773.photobucket.com/albums/yy19/joeoneone/cards%20blog/65TPodresVariations_zps2b35b1e7.jpeg

[steve B]

I think the other 90's related to the Thomas should be recognized. Each is just as tough if not tougher because commons don't get much attention. (Took me more than 2 years to find an 88T Canseco to finish the set and he's not exactly a common)

But I don't think it will happen anytime soon. The Thomas was an obvious error on a really popular card and was in guides early on.
The first time I saw one the seller wasn't sure of it and to me it looked like a print error. So the others would have been treated the same way if they'd been noticed. And for better or worse, pricing and acceptance revolved around Beckett and they always downplayed print errors.

Obviously neither they or the standard catalog could list every difference, especially once the huge production of the late 80's began. And even now there are dealers that put minor print errors out there as "variations" often with what I'll politely call "imaginative pricing". If a major price guide began listing actual small differences to an audience with no understanding of the technical aspects that sort of thing would only be worse.

Especially for stuff in the questionable category. I have a couple 1991T partial wrong backs. Player cards with the underlying pink that's not a player card background but a manager background. Are they ones where they were printed on a sheet intended to be a different sheet? Like one printed with the pink from say the A sheet then finished with the blue and front from the C sheet? Or was the pink back plate made wrong. Eventually I'll compare the sheet layouts and see if any normal sheet matches up. If it does, they're probably the first, and "just" print errors - uncommon but errors. If none of the normal layouts match they're likely actual major variations that escaped notice for years.

Steve B

[4reals]

Broken borders in upper left corner, one with a single break and one with a double. The double is somewhat tough to find.

http://i773.photobucket.com/albums/yy19/joeoneone/cards%20blog/61THoeft2_zps1898b7e1.jpg

[Cliff Bowman]

This is not my card nor is it my auction. It is currently on eBay. If I'm not supposed to do this, somebody please let me know. I was wondering if anyone has an opinion on it. I'm guessing that someone in the past 45 years whited out the Clarence Gaston square and colored in the circle with a marker. It is a very neat job if someone did, though. The back of the card has the normal printing, the seller put up a scan of both sides on the listing.

[Exhibitman]

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/freaksandgeeks/websize/1952%20Topps%20miscut%20Wood_1.jpg

[bnorth]

This is not my card nor is it my auction. It is currently on eBay. If I'm not supposed to do this, somebody please let me know. I was wondering if anyone has an opinion on it. I'm guessing that someone in the past 45 years whited out the Clarence Gaston square and colored in the circle with a marker. It is a very neat job if someone did, though. The back of the card has the normal printing, the seller put up a scan of both sides on the listing.

The 2 major red flags for me is the added yellow in the logo area isn't even the same yellow in the name. Now for the even bigger give away. Right below ROOKIE STARS you can see were they got as little carried away with the solvent and messed up the red ink. There are a few more red flags but those 2 give me the most concern.

Would like to check it out in hand for the slim chance it is real but would not pay anywhere near the opening bid to do it.

[JollyElm]

I asked the seller a couple of very specific questions. We'll see how he answers them.

[Footballdude]

http://i1309.photobucket.com/albums/s628/rbpuzzles/rudi_zpsc40bfaec.jpg

A 1976 Joe Rudi with almost invisible black lines and team name. Under magnification it looks light grey, probably low on black ink.

[Footballdude]

The 1969 rookie card above, with the missing picture, can easily be created with a common pencil eraser, and some careful masking. What makes me thick of a pencil eraser is the area under the word "rookie stars", some of the sky of the picture to the left, the red area that says "Bill Davis" and even parts of the black line seem to have parts where they got a little wild with the eraser. Someone else mentioned chemical removal, maybe bleaching. But it's pretty obvious it is a "creation" meant to deceive, maybe by the seller, or maybe by someone in the past and it has just been passed along in collections. Who knows.

[Footballdude]

http://i1309.photobucket.com/albums/s628/rbpuzzles/1970_zps1f4a4260.jpg

I've had these 2 cards since the early 70s. As a kid I always thought thy were magical, like I was seeing through the card, to the printing on the back. I eventually realized they were most probably "kiss prints". These probably occurred by placing one printed sheet on top of another, when the ink was not totally dry, so the image of the back printing of the top sheet got transferred to the top of sheet under it.

[mrmopar]

Not cards, but lots of slight variations on these photos:

http://1978theyearitallbegan.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-los-angeles-dodgers-5x7-b-picture.html

Have only scanned the collection for Garvey variations so far, but would guess other players have them too:

http://1978theyearitallbegan.blogspot.com/2010/09/dodger-team-issue-8x10-color-photos.html

[bnorth]

My fingerprint collection. The McNertney cards have varying amounts of the print shown, I have found 3 main variations with the print showing.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Ben, can you tell if the prints match on the McCovey and McNertney cards....could it be Sy on both cards????

[MikeGarcia]

http://imagehost.vendio.com/a/2042957/view/1957VITO_NEW.JPG



.....not quite the fame of the Gene Baker/Bakep but I love the serendipity ...or maybe the printers were just bored one day....

...the slab is the old ''PGS'' from the early days of grading companies in the 1990's ; they are no longer in business , for many years now..

[ALR-bishop]

Hey Mike. good one. Can not tell from scan, is the word, pitcher messed up too ?

[MikeGarcia]

Hey Mike. good one. Can not tell from scan, is the word, pitcher messed up too ?



----yup , good eye--- the bottom of the ''p'' is gone , the cross of the ''t'' is missing and the bottom of the ''r'' isn't there either...looks like ''Diicher''...

[savedfrommyspokes]

In flipping through some 71's, I noticed this #251 Reberger card has a small loop on the upper right area of the white border around the image. This variation seems to be just a small one, but I found just one copy on COMC, and following a very quick scroll through the ebay listings I saw just a few there.

[Cliff Bowman]

The 1971 Topps Frank Reberger can also be found with a recurring large ink blob next to his face.

[4reals]

The 66 Topps Jerry Lumpe apparently has an unlisted "white wedge" variation with a white streak in the yellow box just above his position. They don't seem too extremely difficult to find but some sellers have them listed high to see who will bite.

Here is a nice PSA8 graded example for those completing master set runs:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1966-Topps-161-Jerry-Lumpe-PSA-8-15135195-/191299980089?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item2c8a5e0b39

Here is a decent autographed one I would jump on if I were a Tigers collector or auto set collector:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1966-TOPPS-JERRY-LUMPE-DETROIT-TIGERS-AUTOGRAPHED-CARD-/230823296105?pt=US_Autographed_Trading_Cards&hash=item35be23fc69

[4reals]

Love your blob, Cliff! Whatta ya think of mine?

http://i773.photobucket.com/albums/yy19/joeoneone/cards%20blog/53ToppsCampanellaBlob_zpsb849a61e.jpeg

[ALR-bishop]

There is a recurring print defect in his 52 cards as well. It was listed in the 52 Super Set by Huggins & Scott

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/JSGSink867_zps924b7a44.jpg?t=1410019015

The Lumpe and the 2 Rebergers are not too hard to run down

[4reals]

Nice, Al. Tough to find those cards with back defects since mist ebay sellers don't provide back scans anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MikeGarcia]

http://imagehost.vendio.com/a/2042957/view/1956TEDDY_NEW.JPG



....don't know if this was reported before : the line above the name box is yellow on the white back and a thinner blue on the gray back...see it ?

[JollyElm]

http://imagehost.vendio.com/a/2042957/view/1956TEDDY_NEW.JPG



....don't know if this was reported before : the line above the name box is yellow on the white back and a thinner blue on the gray back...see it ?

Hey Mike,
Check out this thread I started a while back…
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=185244

[ALR-bishop]

Dick Gilkeson noted the line differences on the Williams card and several other cards in the 56 set in his variations publication some time back, 85 to 95 . And with ebay, the number of known cards with these lines has proliferated. I wonder if you looked long enough whether you could find them on all cards in the set.

I have a couple of examples in my set but Darren's prior thread convinced me it would drive me crazy trying to run down all the possible differences on just the Williams, let alone all the other cards in the set ;)

Here are other 56 odditiies

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/img385.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/WhitenOldClothes711_zps1698c868.jpg

[steve B]

I'd think most of the 56s would have the line differences. The Wiliams was in Nozakis book, along with maybe one or two others.

One of the good things about Ebay is that to some degree it lets us look at far more cards than we could have in the early 80's. A big collection might have a lot of cards, but hardly anyone went through them looking for little differences. And after a point dealer didn't keep them in stock by the boxful.

Steve B

[ALR-bishop]

with or without white "arm band". The white band is the scarcer of the two, but is not hard to find


http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/img498_zpsa13ee72c.jpg

[Cliff Bowman]

How did I miss this one on eBay? Did anyone here win it? It's the first 1974 that I have seen with this printing flaw, similar to the 1990 Topps Frank Thomas No Name.

[savedfrommyspokes]

I saw this card posted in another forum....has anyone ever seen a 69 Topps card like this with a grey back? Any ideas on how this card ended up with a grey back?

[ALR-bishop]

I have seen 2 other Mathews cards with this defect

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/RiverCruiseDay-by-Day892_zps18a5647f.jpg?t=1414941965

[Exhibitman]

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/freaksandgeeks/websize/1968%20Wilhelm%20Miscut.jpg

[mrmopar]

It's funny, I have started to go through my Dodgers (mostly post 1980) and I have been looking for these odd print dots and such. Unless you have a decent quantity to compare, it's hard to see the differences.

I remember a time when the funny cuts, blurry photos and other printing flaws were flat out garbage!

I also remember getting cards in the late 70s with little bits of what looked like rubber band pieces under the card surface. They would create a small bulge. I dug one out one time and found a small bit of this rubber band like material.

Interesting how eventually everything becomes collectible to someone.

[4reals]

How did I miss this one on eBay? Did anyone here win it? It's the first 1974 that I have seen with this printing flaw, similar to the 1990 Topps Frank Thomas No Name.

That's great, Cliff! Probably means there's a couple different cards from the same sheet with that same characteristic.

[porkchops]

Enjoyed reading this thread .
Here's one I pulled .....
http://i807.photobucket.com/albums/yy352/alienporkchopscards/Thread%20Scans/001_zpsa3a92469.jpg
Ken

[ALR-bishop]

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/pizzaro897_zps2ef7bed9.jpg?t=1415562140

[ALR-bishop]

Some other 72s. I have dozens of print defects like these with my set.

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/1972898_zps0935dced.jpg?t=1415563282

[atx840]

Black star, found in my dads set he built as a kid.

http://i.imgur.com/mSlIUJh.jpg

[ALR-bishop]

So many fake father/grandfather finds on eBay, great to see a real deal, Chris,

[atx840]

So many fake father/grandfather finds on eBay, great to see a real deal, Chris,

Thanks Al,

When my father decided to sell the set to help fund building his retirement cottage this card was a welcoming find. It now belongs to a great board member. I kept about half of the commons and his pack pulled Mantle.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Have not seen this print variation previously mentioned. Found this 66 Topps #51 Richardson card with a print line on the back....only 2 of the 20 or so copies on COMC have this line. It appears this line continues onto the card located above it on the sheet, which on the one uncut 66 sheet I located, is the #32 Phillips card. None of the Phillips cards I either have in my collection or have viewed show a continuation of this print line...does anyone out there have a Phillips card with this line??

[Bigb13]

167836

[brightair]

Sammy,
I found one of those Richardson cards on COMC and also a similar card for Phillips on ebay.
Richard D

[savedfrommyspokes]

Sammy,
I found one of those Richardson cards on COMC and also a similar card for Phillips on ebay.
Richard D

Richard, is the item number for the Phillips you found on ebay #281489727725? Glad to see your web page with the variations is already updated( I had checked there before posting).

[Cliff Bowman]

Found one.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Found one.


Nice find Cliff....how many copies did you go through to find the one?

Based on going through my own cards, COMC, and ebay listings showing backs, IMO, examples of these two cards with the print line on the back appear on approximately 1 of every 10-12 copies of each of these cards.

[brightair]

Richard, is the item number for the Phillips you found on ebay #281489727725? Glad to see your web page with the variations is already updated( I had checked there before posting).

That's right. It takes some patience to go through the listings one-by-one to see which ones put pictures of the back in the listing, but I was able to find one fairly quickly.

Wish they would make it more obvious how many photos are in a listing without having to open it up...

It was the only one I found of all for sale yesterday.

Thanks for pointing out this oddity, I updated my webpage listings right away!
Richard

[Cliff Bowman]

Nice find Cliff....how many copies did you go through to find the one?

Based on going through my own cards, COMC, and ebay listings showing backs, IMO, examples of these two cards with the print line on the back appear on approximately 1 of every 10-12 copies of each of these cards.

I had to go to everyones favorite seller's site, Dean's Cards, to find a couple of copies of them. It looks like there are two different versions, here's one where the line stops before it reachs the edge.

[brightair]

I had to go to everyones favorite seller's site, Dean's Cards, to find a couple of copies of them. It looks like there are two different versions, here's one where the line stops before it reachs the edge.

Uh-oh.

[savedfrommyspokes]

I had to go to everyones favorite seller's site, Dean's Cards, to find a couple of copies of them. It looks like there are two different versions, here's one where the line stops before it reachs the edge.
Nice find on the second version Cliff.....hopefully you bought before the prices get raised. I will have to remember Dean's site when looking for these print variants(as there are backs shown)....after looking through that site, the examples with line on across both cards might be 1 in 20 copies, while the Phillips with the partial line must be even tougher.

[ALR-bishop]

You guys are all crazy ;)

[bnorth]

Got these 6 in the mail today.:D

[brightair]

Hi Ben,
What's the variation on the 1961 Alou?
Richard
brightair

[bnorth]

Hi Ben,
What's the variation on the 1961 Alou?
Richard
brightair

No print error, it is cut way off center.

[1963Topps Set]

Here is an out of register card from my collection:

[1963Topps Set]

Here are some 1951 Bowman overprints

[1963Topps Set]

A couple of '56 overprints...

[bnorth]

Nice cards Tom and welcome to the forum.

[1963Topps Set]

Thanks, I have so much to share!

[TAVG]

not pre 1980s but i forgot i had this, was going through some of my older cardinals cards


looks like the red was just ran over the entire card

http://i1366.photobucket.com/albums/r770/stlcardinalsfan09/img916_zps44838b92.jpg (http://s1366.photobucket.com/user/stlcardinalsfan09/media/img916_zps44838b92.jpg.html)

[Bigb13]

Hope you guys like this one168407

[ALR-bishop]

I do like it. Can you tell if the Woodling has the lower border break, which would make it a print defect within a print defect :)

[JollyElm]

A couple of '56 overprints...

Looks like ole Donnie and his ears met a couple of heavily lipsticked ladies the night before.

[Cliff Bowman]

The 1980 Topps Greg Pryor "no name" now has a cohort, 1980 Topps Doug Bair. I tried to show a 1980 Topps uncut A* sheet with Greg Pryor and Doug Bair on the top row, but I am unable to download it here. The Pryor is the first card on the top row, the Bair is the sixth card. My theory is that like the other 1980 Topps sheets that had the top row missing red ink and leaving names in yellow, this sheet ran out of blue ink but left almost no name rather than just a yellow name. Mike LaCoss is the eighth card on the row, so there should be a nameless 1980 Topps Mike LaCoss out there somewhere.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Cliff, does the Fred Stanley card appear on the same row as the Bair and Pryor?


Also, in an attempt to keep Richard busy (updating his variation list), I found this 58 Topps 278 Burk card with not just one, but two different print variations. I have not found a single card with both variations though.

The two cards pictured on the left (courtesy of DC), show a red print spot on the lower edge of the card's image. With a quick glance, I found only 3 copies with this red print spot between COMC, DC, & ebay. The second variation on this card is the red factory mark on the left edge....it is much more plentiful than the red print spot.

[Cliff Bowman]

Cliff, does the Fred Stanley card appear on the same row as the Bair and Pryor?

Different sheets, the Pryor and the Bair are on the top row of the A* sheet, the Stanley and the Wathan are on the top row of the E* sheet, the Poquette, Braun, and Washington are on the top row of the F* sheet.

[ALR-bishop]

Saved---nice find on the Burk.

Cliff--interesting on the Bair. The Pryor can also be found with white of yellow position

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/Cardvariations.jpg

[savedfrommyspokes]

Thank you Cliff and Al...

Here is another print variation I found buried in my collection today(it has been previously documented as lipstick on the shoulder), but I had never seen it before. I guess Gil and Mossi have similiar tastes in women??

[Cliff Bowman]

Couldn't pass up a very reasonable Buy-It-Now 1981 Topps Art Howe infamous "witch's hat" printing flaw card on eBay.

[ALR-bishop]

Very cool, Cliff

[Cliff Bowman]

A certain whale here has been holding out on us of the existence of this variation. Not that I would ever do that, though :D.

[ALR-bishop]

I posted this one on page 11 :)

[brightair]

Saved - thanks for the Burks.
Al - I think I forgot to update the '64 Mathews on my list, so I will do it today along with the Burks.
Richard

[savedfrommyspokes]

Your welcome Richard...I noticed your list was missing this specific variation on the 63 Topps 102 White on Red Checklist. There is a print defect/variation on the front...the # "112" on the front of the two copies I located is partially obscured. I looked through a good number of copies between ebay/DCs and these were the only two I found.

[Cliff Bowman]

Your welcome Richard...I noticed your list was missing this specific variation on the 63 Topps 102 White on Red Checklist. There is a print defect/variation on the front...the # "112" on the front of the two copies I located is partially obscured. I looked through a good number of copies between ebay/DCs and these were the only two I found.

The #112 is obscured on this one, too :D. Edited to add this is recurring. I have two and have seen another.

[savedfrommyspokes]

The #112 is obscured on this one, too :D. Edited to add this is recurring. I have two and have seen another.


Nice Cliff....."obscured" is a kind descriptor in your example's case.

[brightair]

Good find, Saved. I have it updated.
Most ones I can see have the small white blob after Cisco.
I also found another with the small white blob after Cisco but with 112 completely intact.
There seem to be some with the white in the check squares somewhat misaligned, but I saw none that struck me as significant enough to note.
Probably people will find more.
Richard
Happy holiday!

[4reals]

This is a current card on ebay...a little to pricey for me to add to my print variation collection but perhaps one that someone here would like to add. It appears that the overprint is of the same card. I haven't contacted the seller to ask any more about it.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1953-Topps-255-Dixie-Howell-GOOD-N8622-/271686519232?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item3f41c749c0

[bnorth]

This is a current card on ebay...a little to pricey for me to add to my print variation collection but perhaps one that someone here would like to add. It appears that the overprint is of the same card. I haven't contacted the seller to ask any more about it.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1953-Topps-255-Dixie-Howell-GOOD-N8622-/271686519232?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item3f41c749c0

It is a wet sheet transfer and I think it is a bit overpriced also.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Saw this first card end yesterday on ebay ....but could not find another example of this print defect anywhere. That is until today....already had a copy in a stack of some of my doubles. Had never seen this print variation before these two copies.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1961-Topps-Rare-Variation-377-Ruben-Gomez-White-Splotch-NR-MINT-F24940-/131359754880?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item1e95a6ca80&nma=true&si=WPFjS0tzWZpXdFxx%252ByyO6ilrvjE%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

[savedfrommyspokes]

Next card in my stack of 61 Topps doubles was the 381 Wickersham card with a border break(similiar to the 73s) along the top border. Found another copy on ebay....http://www.ebay.com/itm/1961-Topps-Baseball-381-Dave-Wickersham-RC-NM-5355-/181073801424?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item2a28d6f0d0

[moeson]

http://i1089.photobucket.com/albums/i349/mirhow/e732dd60-bdba-4d12-9809-e4e759ef9895_zpsb32db3a8.jpg

[moeson]

http://i1089.photobucket.com/albums/i349/mirhow/557ed55f-a86b-45bb-99d5-623300adab44_zps7e09f56f.jpg

[savedfrommyspokes]

Noticed this 67 Roznovsky card today in some of my dupes....not sure if this is the same print variation noted on Richard's list or not. Anyone else have a similar copy of this card??

[ALR-bishop]

That card also has zit/blemish versus no zit /blemish versions

[brightair]

Saved,
the card I list in my variations page is one I have never seen. I have looked for a couple years but never seen anything that I think would qualify specifically as "red eye and cheek".
many of these cards vary a fair bit on amount of red, but still I am stumped. Don't recall where I heard of the variation, but I believe Al or someone may have one...
meanwhile, this card of yours is a new one on me.
Richard

[ALR-bishop]

Zit on chin at right. Maybe looks more reddish too

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/1967roz899_zps3df47f03.jpg?t=1417880517

[brightair]

Sorry Al, only his forehead comes through...
Looking forward to the chin.
Richard

[savedfrommyspokes]

Saved,
the card I list in my variations page is one I have never seen. I have looked for a couple years but never seen anything that I think would qualify specifically as "red eye and cheek".
many of these cards vary a fair bit on amount of red, but still I am stumped. Don't recall where I heard of the variation, but I believe Al or someone may have one...
meanwhile, this card of yours is a new one on me.
Richard

Richard, this print defect on the Rox card may be one that is not as clearly defined or as consistent as other similar defects because it appears that there are multiple variations of this defect.

[ALR-bishop]

For some reason Photobucket will not let me properly crop and size the Roz cards

[brightair]

Saved,
You are correct, there are lots of small variations. No one has yet mentioned the light bluish circle in middle of hair above forehead, nor the short red/white lines at top of forehead at hairline. Both are fairly common, more so than the chin zits, I think.
Al, thanks, now I can see the chin!
richard

[savedfrommyspokes]

Noticed today that this 61 242 Hal Smith card has a limited, but recurring print mark near the upper right corner. I have seen many copies of this card, but until today, I had not noticed this.

[porkchops]

http://i807.photobucket.com/albums/yy352/alienporkchopscards/004_zps335d6860.jpg
.
http://i807.photobucket.com/albums/yy352/alienporkchopscards/005_zpsfadaa965.jpg

[Northviewcats]

Hello Everyone,

I found this color variation on this 1976 Brooks Robinson card. The blue banner and white print at the bottom of the card is unusual. I scrolled through the listings on eBay and didn't see anything like it.

Thought it might be of interest here.

Best regards,

Joe

[bnorth]

Hello Everyone,

I found this color variation on this 1976 Brooks Robinson card. The blue banner and white print at the bottom of the card is unusual. I scrolled through the listings on eBay and didn't see anything like it.

Thought it might be of interest here.

Best regards,

Joe

Very cool card. Looks to be missing the yellow from the printing process.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Very cool card. Looks to be missing the yellow from the printing process.

I agree that it appears that the yellow-less card is missing the yellow most likely due to it's omission during the printing process, but only on that card's bottom portion. To me it appears that the green border around BRobby's image is the same green on both cards (the border does not appear to be missing the yellow). In addition, on the yellow-less card, the green border does not appear to match the bottom banner(which is a greenish-blue due to missing the yellow?). Could be my bad eyesight though. Nice find either way Joe!

[Northviewcats]

I agree that it appears that the yellow-less card is missing the yellow most likely due to it's omission during the printing process, but only on that card's bottom portion. To me it appears that the green border around BRobby's image is the same green on both cards (the border does not appear to be missing the yellow). In addition, on the yellow-less card, the green border does not appear to match the bottom banner(which is a greenish-blue due to missing the yellow?). Could be my bad eyesight though. Nice find either way Joe!

Your eye sight is fine. The green in the border does not match the blueish color in the bottom banner. Its weird that the yellow would be omitted only at the bottom of the card.

Does anybody have an idea of how that could happen?

Thanks,

Joe

[bnorth]

I agree that it appears that the yellow-less card is missing the yellow most likely due to it's omission during the printing process, but only on that card's bottom portion. To me it appears that the green border around BRobby's image is the same green on both cards (the border does not appear to be missing the yellow). In addition, on the yellow-less card, the green border does not appear to match the bottom banner(which is a greenish-blue due to missing the yellow?). Could be my bad eyesight though. Nice find either way Joe!

Yes Larry your description is much better than mine. After looking through some notes the yellow ink is very cheap on the 76 set and is easily removed. This card could be easily made(altered). I am not saying the one pictured is altered because I have not seen it in hand, just saying they can easily be made.

[Northviewcats]

Yes Larry your description is much better than mine. After looking through some notes the yellow ink is very cheap on the 76 set and is easily removed. This card could be easily made(altered). I am not saying the one pictured is altered because I have not seen it in hand, just saying they can easily be made.

Thanks Ben. Your explanation does makes sense and would answer the question of why only the banner at the bottom of the card seems to be missing yellow ink.

I did examine the card with a loupe, and I don't see any evidence of tampering. Under magnification I can see no trace of yellow color in the bottom banner at all. The white in the Orioles name is identical with the white in the border of the card. The gloss of the card is also consistent top to bottom. I don't see any evidence of a chemical alteration.

Is there any way that I can test to see if the card has been altered?

Best regards,

Joe

[bnorth]

Thanks Ben. Your explanation does makes sense and would answer the question of why only the banner at the bottom of the card seems to be missing yellow ink.

I did examine the card with a loupe, and I don't see any evidence of tampering. Under magnification I can see no trace of yellow color in the bottom banner at all. The white in the Orioles name is identical with the white in the border of the card. The gloss of the card is also consistent top to bottom. I don't see any evidence of a chemical alteration.

Is there any way that I can test to see if the card has been altered?

Best regards,

Joe

With your card use the best loupe you have and make sure the blue in the banner is consistant with the blue on the upper part of the card. I use a 60-100X top lighted microscope.

At high magnification the card will just be made up of blue, red, yellow, and black dots. Make sure the blue dots look exactly the same color/tint on bottom and top of card. Without any magnification you could compare the blue banner on your card to another card from the 76 set that has the blue border normally.

This 76 Topps card has had the yellow removed. 2nd card is what it should look like. They are not the same card.

[tedzan]

Tough to find Red cap variation

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1949LeafKentPetersonBxR.jpg


TED Z
.

[tedzan]

I've been searching for another 1969 blue Mantle since 1987 when I acquired this one.

Does anyone here have a blue one, or have seen blue one ?


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1969TgrayMantle50xx.jpg.http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1969TblueMantle50x.jpg



TED Z
.

[bnorth]

I've been searching for another 1969 blue Mantle since 1987 when I acquired this one.

Does anyone here have a blue one, or have seen blue one ?


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1969TgrayMantle50xx.jpg.http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1969TblueMantle50x.jpg



TED Z
.

I have seen them with a blue tint but never as blue as yours Ted. That one is very nice looking.

[steve B]

Your eye sight is fine. The green in the border does not match the blueish color in the bottom banner. Its weird that the yellow would be omitted only at the bottom of the card.

Does anybody have an idea of how that could happen?

Thanks,

Joe

It can happen a few ways. Some printing errors, some not.

On the printing side -
A misfeed can cause one sheet to overlap another blocking a color.

A piece of debris can get into the press. Scrap of paper, bit of cloth, plastic, pretty much anything. Good practices prevent a lot of that, but if the press operators are sloppy it happens.

Paper jam, can cause either a foldover to block part of the sheet or a chunk of leftover to become debris within the press affecting the next sheet.

A very bad jam just might damage the plate. I saw it once, but I've never seen a card that I felt was from something like that. It has to be a really bad jam, and the press has to be stopped to clear all the wreckage out and make sure it's ok to keep going. A missing portion of the plate should be obvious.

The plate can be made wrong. An obstruction when It's exposed like what made the 90T Thomas NNOF.

The ink to that portion of the plate can be blocked or shut off or run out.

The water to that portion of the plate can be way overdone.

Solvent can spill on the plate. It's usually more confined since it's usually just drips, but it IS a 70's Topps card...........


On the non- printing side-

If it sat in the sun with another card on top of it the yellow could fade in only the exposed area. You can usually rule this out if there's red in the same area as red is often the first to fade. Ben has done some really great work on fading and which colors from which years are worse than others. If he found the 76 yellow to be particularly bad it just might fade before the red.

Steve B

[ALR-bishop]

We have discussed the blue/green issue before. I have not seen multiple Mays but have seen multiple blue Aarons with differing levels of green. I think my Mays is faded from sun. I think on the many Aarons, many are sun or light faded, possibly some intentionally after some high dollar blue sales. It could be some of the Aarons are legit, but if so, we should probably be seeing some bluish 58 common cards around. Agree that Ben's experiments on fading have been very revealing


http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/img369.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/img366.jpg

[savedfrommyspokes]

In going through some 59's, I noticed this fairly frequently recurring print variaition on the 59 Hal Brown card....there is a print spot on the "r" in "brown".

[savedfrommyspokes]

Flipping through some 71s, I found two more print variations...first, the 71 173 Garrido can be found with the position partially obliterated. Besides my copy, I found just this one other copy(pictured). Second, I noticed a "bouncing" red doughnut on the 71 #207 Foster card. This recurring print spot is "bouncing" as it seems to move right to left on the few cards I found it on (on my copy, that is not pictured, the doughnut is more to the left).

[JollyElm]

I had started a thread about this card, but realized it would fit in nicely here, so I cut and pasted it:

If you look at 1972 Topps #209, Joe Rudi, some of his cards appear with varying lengths of a line (hair? crack in the printing plate?) emanating from the left of his name at bottom. (These are all ebay screen grabs.) In the first, there is just a bit of a line apparent. The second shows a much longer line, and the third features this anomaly crossing through Joe and eventually reaching the top white border. It's a little tough to see in the lo-res pic, but just follow the curving line from the bottom on up and you'll see what I mean. It is also worth noting that the first and third cards also feature what I would call an 'iron burn' on the front of the card. It's a triangular dark area and looks as if someone burnt the card while ironing it. It's most prominent in the third card, where the line intersects it below Rudi's elbow.

171523

[savedfrommyspokes]

I had started a thread about this card, but realized it would fit in nicely here, so I cut and pasted it:

If you look at 1972 Topps #209, Joe Rudi, some of his cards appear with varying lengths of a line (hair? crack in the printing plate?) emanating from the left of his name at bottom. (These are all ebay screen grabs.) In the first, there is just a bit of a line apparent. The second shows a much longer line, and the third features this anomaly crossing through Joe and eventually reaching the top white border. It's a little tough to see in the lo-res pic, but just follow the curving line from the bottom on up and you'll see what I mean. It is also worth noting that the first and third cards also feature what I would call an 'iron burn' on the front of the card. It's a triangular dark area and looks as if someone burnt the card while ironing it. It's most prominent in the third card, where the line intersects it below Rudi's elbow.

171523

Nice find Darren....any idea if the card below Rudi on the original full sheet has the continuation of this line along it's top edge, as it looks as though on the 3rd image you posted that the line would continue onto the card below?

[JollyElm]

It's funny. I have no idea whether or not the line goes anywhere else on the Rudi sheet, but I looked through the few pics of 1972 Topps uncut sheets that I've downloaded over the years and found a very interesting tidbit.

Card #607 Frank Duffy is called the 'yellow letter' version (similar to #534 Jim Hickman), but the card really just has less green in it than the 'normal' version. It's not, by any means, devoid of green. It's just much, much lighter (in some cases, verging on being non-existent). Well, on the sheet shown here, the 'normal' version is at top and the 'yellow letter' version is three cards below it. Since all of the colors of the cards seem correct, maybe the balance of green to yellow on that card was due to the actual layout of the cards and wasn't due to a lack of yellow or cyan (blue) during the printing process? But, then again, perhaps something else was at play that caused the dearth of color? Either way, pretty cool.

171527

[savedfrommyspokes]

Never noticed the Duffy before...nice.


This 63 Topps #32 card has a unique "glowing" green spot near the left edge of the card...it is very green in hand, unlike the scan. Could not find another example though.

[savedfrommyspokes]

While flipping through some of my new arrivals, I found a copy of a 65 #596 card with a pink spot on the neck area. Found two other copies (PSA 7 on ebay) that have the pink spot on the neck.

[Cliff Bowman]

Hmmm...in 1965 Topps had to airbrush out a pink t-shirt that Landrum had on underneath his uniform, in 1966 they had to airbrush out a button in his pants. It's a good thing he didn't have a 1967 Topps card.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Cliff, any ideas on why there is also pink above Don's right ear on his 65 pinkie??

Found two copies of this 69 Wert with a break in the black border of the yellow player name/position circle (right side). Had not seen this one before.

[swarmee]

My fingerprint collection. The McNertney cards have varying amounts of the print shown, I have found 3 main variations with the print showing.
Just saw this mentioned on the PSA boards. I picked up this copy for 85 cents:
http://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/1972/Topps/584/Jerry-McNertney.jpg?id=5a3763d2-10b5-41e7-ab28-9eec3c4b6393&size=zoom.

But I also noticed the sales information on COMC. Since Oct 1, there have been 11 sales of this card. Previous quarters ranged from 0-4 copies.
https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10420121_10155003762345243_3213886994717683631_n.j pg?oh=b6dc92ff0d71ba231bd48db69ecd9f84&oe=54FCB6BB

Interesting? I bought mine since my father was a crime scene analyst for 30+ years for the state of Florida before he retired last year. Just reminds me of the AFIS computer and latent prints.

[bnorth]

Just saw this mentioned on the PSA boards. I picked up this copy for 85 cents:
http://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/1972/Topps/584/Jerry-McNertney.jpg?id=5a3763d2-10b5-41e7-ab28-9eec3c4b6393&size=zoom.

But I also noticed the sales information on COMC. Since Oct 1, there have been 11 sales of this card. Previous quarters ranged from 0-4 copies.
https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10420121_10155003762345243_3213886994717683631_n.j pg?oh=b6dc92ff0d71ba231bd48db69ecd9f84&oe=54FCB6BB

Interesting? I bought mine since my father was a crime scene analyst for 30+ years for the state of Florida before he retired last year. Just reminds me of the AFIS computer and latent prints.

Cool card. There are 3 distinct different McNertney variations. In post #89 of this thread they are pictured along with another fingerprint card. I also picked up a 61 Fleer Al Simmons with a nice fingerprint from the B/S/T section a few months ago.

[brightair]

Hmm... I wonder if your dad could identify the culprit.

[swarmee]

Cool card. There are 3 distinct different McNertney variations. In post #89 of this thread they are pictured along with another fingerprint card. I also picked up a 61 Fleer Al Simmons with a nice fingerprint from the B/S/T section a few months ago.
Yeah, I quoted your post. ;-)
I was showing that because of that post a few months ago, it probably led to a buying spree of this variation of the card on comc. See, Net54 drives sales...

[swarmee]

Hmm... I wonder if your dad could identify the culprit.
He probably could have, but that would be against the rules (unless it was for training new hires?...). Sadly, he passed away this summer. And the print will only match something if an exemplar is in the national database. So hopefully it won't match anyone, or they would have been accused of a serious crime.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Hmm... I wonder if your dad could identify the culprit.
I have always figured it was Sy Berger's finger print........tough to tell if it matches the print on Ben's 61 McCovey.

[ALR-bishop]

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/1959924_zps8efb4de6.jpg?t=1419889134

[bnorth]

Wow, Al that one with the big yellow print error is super cool.

[SMPEP]

I'd bet it's not Sy Bergwer on the McNelty or McCovey cards. In my correspondence with him, he said that he did not get involved with the production of the cards. Now, Woody Gelman would be a possibility.

But in reality, it is probably an unknown printer, as Gelman was in the art department,not production effort.

Cheers,
Patrick

[ALR-bishop]

I bet both those guys would look at this thread and say all of us need to get a life. Baseball cards to them was just a token to sell gum

[savedfrommyspokes]

A long time collector (have not seen him post here though) recently pointed this print variation out to me. On the back of the 67 Topps #15 Battey card the bottom most line below the stats is either unbroken or has a small break on it. In quickly looking through DC and COMC at the backs it appears that about for every copy with the line unbroken, there are three copies with the small break.

[steve B]

That's a really cool line break. Not so much for the break, but for the unbroken line being a repair. You can see where the break was the line is a bit thick and uneven. That's probably from the press operator fixing it by scratching the missing section into the plate. There just might be normal ones with a nice even line if more than one plate was used.

Steve B

[savedfrommyspokes]

Steve, to me the unevenness of the repair is more obvious in hand than in the scan....out of the 20+ copies I viewed with the "repaired" line, they all appear quite similar, a bit thick and uneven. It would be nice to have a "more cleanly repaired line" variation to chase also.

[ALR-bishop]

I heard about this one some time back. I bought one from someone selling it as a variant on ebay

[savedfrommyspokes]

Not sure if I have seen this variation mentioned here before or not, but I came across two 66 522 Linz cards on ebay that have a white slash that runs from his upper back to the right edge of card. Appears to be a low pct of cards that have the white slash. Anyone else have one?

Update: as I typed this, a third copy with the white slash was just listed on ebay.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Found this 67 #195 card with a border break on the right edge....have not seen this print variation before.

[brightair]

saved,
I have one of those '67 Jacksons and the reverse is an upside down #178 Buzhardt, wonder if yours is likewise.
brightair

[brightair]

have been adding some 1967 common variations lately on my lists and will be adding several more next week.
brightair

https://sites.google.com/site/richarddingmancards/home/topps-variations-1960---1969

[savedfrommyspokes]

saved,
I have one of those '67 Jacksons and the reverse is an upside down #178 Buzhardt, wonder if yours is likewise.
brightair

Hi Richard, that incorrect, reversed back would be a nice additional twist to this print variation....unfortunately, my copy has the correct back. Also, thank you for maintaining your (ever growing) list....I look through it daily it seems.

[savedfrommyspokes]

I have not seen this HOF print variation mentioned before....72 Cepeda has a recurring break in the inner right border. There are at least 10 (of a 100 or so) copies on ebay with this border break.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Have not seen too many of these 60 Averill's with the yellow print fading out on the card's bottom, right side, but here are two. With these images from DC, it is not as obvious as when this card is in hand, but the yellow box (with name, pos etc) does not extend all of the way to the right border of the above image and with the streaks of missing yellow, the "green" grass in the picture blue streaks. Possible that the cards above or below on the sheet could be missing some of the yellow too.

[Exhibitman]

Guess what's different about this one:

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/freaksandgeeks/websize/1970%20Aaron%20AS%20blank%20back%201.jpeg

[savedfrommyspokes]

Probably completely off on this, but something looks different about the buttons on Aaron's jersey....what ever the difference is, is it something only seen on this proof?

[Exhibitman]

It's not a proof, just a blank back error.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Nice....was it hand cut?

[curtis-cards]

While looking through eBay for the Yellow cornered Ramos, I found this version on 2 or 3 listings. I picked this one up.

It has a full yellow line across the top border.

http://www.collectorfocus.com/images/show/curtis-cards/1959-topps-baseball-w-variations/25025/78-pedro-ramos

[brightair]

Nice catch Curt.

[Cliff Bowman]

If someone else has one of these, please let me know. It's the only one I have ever seen. If a previous owner erased the "P" or used chemicals to remove it they did a very good job. I have held it up to a bright light and didn't see any evidence of that.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Found this 68 Blefary with a "swipe" of missing print on the back...out of 35 copies on DC and COMC there were 3 copies I saw like this.

[savedfrommyspokes]

If someone else has one of these, please let me know. It's the only one I have ever seen. If a previous owner erased the "P" or used chemicals to remove it they did a very good job. I have held it up to a bright light and didn't see any evidence of that.

Cliff, from the scan is almost looks like the "ball" is brighter (less dull) white than the white border. Does it appear the same in hand?

[Cliff Bowman]

Cliff, from the scan is almost looks like the "ball" is brighter (less dull) white than the white border. Does it appear the same in hand?

I will have to find the card and look at it. I don't know why someone would painstakingly go through the trouble of very professionally eliminating the "P" in the ball and then just sell it on eBay as a common. I spotted it a few years ago and bought it for a dollar or so. But, until I see another one I will be skeptical of it.

[David W]

Nice blank back Hank Aaron.

[savedfrommyspokes]

For all of us patriotic variation collectors out there, you can't beat this print variation....found several copies (COMC/DC/ebay) of this 69 109 card that have varying degrees of extra red on the flag stripes and jersey. The upper left card seems to be the most typical example of this card with little to no extra red in the stripes, as the stripes are fairly faint. The top right and bottom left card appear to have slightly more red on the flag's stripes and some small spots of excess red on the jersey(below the "E" and above the "D"). The bottom right card(same amount of red as my copy has), the red is heavier on this copy than it is on any of the other copies....the red stripes are heavier and the excess red on the jersey is much more pronounced. Does anyone else have a copy of this extra patriotic card?

[bnorth]

I good friend just picked up this beauty.

[Cliff Bowman]

I good friend just picked up this beauty.

Damn, they got it for 99 cents on eBay. I used to look for that card religiously but eventually gave up because I figured it was a waste of time.

[bnorth]

Damn, they got it for 99 cents on eBay. I used to look for that card religiously but eventually gave up because I figured it was a waste of time.

Yes Jerry is a lucky SOB. It is amazing how that print dot hit in just the perfect spot. I am sure all us weirdo print error collectors have spent a lot of time searching for that card.

EDIT: I just went and looked and the eBay listing even listed it as #293. I can't believe so many people missed it.

[Cliff Bowman]

I was looking at sold items on eBay for Topps errors and variations when I came across a 1976-80 Topps lot of 15 blank back cards that sold for $104.50 back in November 2014. I was bewildered why the lot went for so high so I looked it over until I figured it out. 14 of the 15 cards are run of the mill blank backs from 1976, 1978, and 1980, but it contains a 1979 card that is obviously an early stage unissued proof card. It has a photo of Phillie Tug McGraw but is listed as Jim Essian of the A's. The card is also lacking black ink, and appears to be crudely cut off of a sheet. Anyone else ever see a 1979 Topps error proof card like that one?

[bnorth]

I have not seen that variation in that year before. I have a few of the sheet cut 79 Fronts with the 78 backs. Know I have a 79 fronted Willie Randolph but can't remember who the 78 player is on the back.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Found this 68 #101 Beckert with a right border break due to a white print streak... saw about 5 out of 50+ copies with this.

[bnorth]

I have not seen that variation in that year before. I have a few of the sheet cut 79 Fronts with the 78 backs. Know I have a 79 fronted Willie Randolph but can't remember who the 78 player is on the back.

Here is a front back picture of the 1979 Topps Willie Randolph front with the 1978 wrongback of Rick Burleson with just a sliver of the #200 Reggie Jackson card.

[Cliff Bowman]

Here is a front back picture of the 1979 Topps Willie Randolph front with the 1978 wrongback of Rick Burleson with just a sliver of the #200 Reggie Jackson card.

There are always some of those on eBay, the 1979 cards with the badly off center 1978 backs. I read before that leftover 1978 printed backs were used as a practice run for the new 1979 fronts, and some of them escaped the dumpster and made their way into the hands of collectors. It's possible that Keith Olbermann talked about some of the 1979 Topps proof error cards in his three part series, but I was never able to find the third part where he talks about 1977 and up. Correction, it was a four part series and Olbermann only talks about 1977 in the last part.

[bnorth]

There are always some of those on eBay, the 1979 cards with the badly off center 1978 backs. I read before that leftover 1978 printed backs were used as a practice run for the new 1979 fronts, and some of them escaped the dumpster and made their way into the hands of collectors. It's possible that Keith Olbermann talked about some of the 1979 Topps proof error cards in his three part series, but I was never able to find the third part where he talks about 1977 and up. Correction, it was a four part series and Olbermann only talks about 1977 in the last part.

Yes eBay is where I got mine several years ago. Also got some 79 Topps blank fronts that are sheet(hand) cut at the same time.

I will have to look and see if I can find Olbermans 4 part series.

[steve B]

Yes, the 79 fronts with 78 backs were rescued by someone, I forget the dealer who ended up with them. I bought a strip of them at the time, arrived poorly packed and a bit creased since the box got a bit crushed in the mail. I still have it somewhere.

That was my second experience with mail order for collectibles, neither went all that well. They've been ok over time of course, but at the time it put me off mail order for a long time.

The 78 backs were also used for Bazooka boxes. They also used cardboard from Black Hole cards for bazooka boxes.

Steve B

[SMPEP]

Dumb question - you frequently see the 1978 Topps baseball cards with Mork & minday stickers on the back - my question for any in the know, did someone just peel the sticker off the original Mork & Mindy card and then stick it on a 1978 Topps card?

I'm not even sure how these could have been created at the factory ... because you use different paper for the baseball cards than was used for teh peel off stickers.

Always seemed like a scam (that many people bought) to me.

[steve B]

Nope, just more use of scrap by Topps. I have one, and it's the sticker front printed onto the baseball card stock. Probably from using the leftover baseball stuff to adjust the presses.

Steve B

[SMPEP]

So, the "sticker" isn't a sticket in this case (i.e. you can't peel it off). It's just a printed version of teh sticker on baseball card stock. Right?

[batsballsbases]

Had these 1967s for a very long time. Came out of a vending box. Fronts are not badly centered but the backs were all off. You can see where some of them go together. Funny I have 2 Jim Hicks cards and both are off one a little more than the other. The cards are like NRMT! You can see the start of the Dodgers team card next to Alou..

[batsballsbases]

Some green and blue beards and some blurr boys!

[LuckyLarry]

The front of the single card is a perfectly centered '64 Topps #214 Ken McMullen. But the back includes parts of four cards none of which is McMullen.
<a href="http://s176.photobucket.com/user/larrytipton/media/64.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w185/larrytipton/64.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo 64.jpg"/></a>

[savedfrommyspokes]

Here is a HOF print variation...72 #300 Aaron, found only a few copies with the print line across his legs. This line is much more obvious in hand versus the images from DC. This line would be similar to red line that appears on some copies of the 306 Boswell card.

[shempdevil]

I haven't seen many of these, but does anyone know just how rare this variation is?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1988-Topps-RED-SLASH-ERROR-Wally-Joyner-Angels-Leaders-1990-Frank-Thomas-NNOF-/131435686510?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1e9a2d6a6e

[JollyElm]

For 1962 Checklist #367, the variation has always seemingly been defined as 'light wood' versus 'dark wood.' Well, in looking at all of the checklists as part of my green tints research, I stumbled upon something. Namely, a much simpler way to differentiate the two variations…

181503

a. The card on the left is the 'dark wood' variation. If you look in its upper left corner, you'll see that part of the white is completely missing. You can see it right away.

b. The card on the right is the 'light wood' variation. If you look at its bottom right corner, you'll see that a notch of the white is missing. This, too, is clearly visible.

So there you have it. A much easier way to spot the two different versions of this checklist.

[4reals]

Very keen observation on the 62 checklist Darren, great find!

[K-Nole]

Are these rare or pretty Common on the backs of 67 topps?

<a href="http://s209.photobucket.com/user/TopekaPalms/media/Dooley%20Color%20variation_zpsnphfrmy0.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb212/TopekaPalms/Dooley%20Color%20variation_zpsnphfrmy0.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo Dooley Color variation_zpsnphfrmy0.jpg"/></a>

[obctom]

I have two of the "green splotch on chin" print variations. I don't see them very often. In fact I didn't realize there was a non-splotch version until a few years ago; green-chin Carlos was in my binder with the '71 set until I re-discovered it & started looking for more. I always imagined the Sox made him paint the clubhouse before posing for his card.

Tom

[Cliff Bowman]

Stray yellow dots under the team name.

[Cliff Bowman]

Light green square on his glove.

[Cliff Bowman]

Large area of the right border is blue rather than green.

[Cliff Bowman]

1956 Topps Eddie Robinson missing the 2b and 3b stats and 1956 Topps Jim Konstanty with an incomplete green stat box line around his E.R.A.

[4reals]

Sweet finds, Cliff! You're on a roll!

Here's a couple I've found as of late...

72 Topps Santo IA with a "rainbow swirl"
This card can also be found with border breaks around in action without the swirl
http://i773.photobucket.com/albums/yy19/joeoneone/cards%20blog/72%20T%20Ron%20Santo%20IA_zps0ntjkmy0.jpeg

76 Topps Traded Jack Brohamer with "peeling" black background
http://i773.photobucket.com/albums/yy19/joeoneone/cards%20blog/76%20T%20Jack%20Brohamer_zps3uv9ooth.jpeg