Trading Card Database Photoshopping Shenanigans

[Cliff Bowman]

Out of respect to the OP in the other thread, I will make my own thread on this. In his thread he asked about a 1968 Topps Checklist variation on the Trading Card Database that he had never seen. I told him to be wary because I have seen nonexistent variations and photoshopped cards there. I will go into detail with scans to show that there are photoshopped cards there. I will show a 1975 Hostess and two 1979 Kellogg's cards. I know some will say who gives a sh*t about Hostess and Kellogg's cards and I wouldn't disagree. My point is to show that there are photoshopped cards and nonexistent variations listed there. The first one I will do is 1975 Hostess Burt Hooton. The 1975 Hostess Burt Hooton card was originally printed with the incorrect Bert Hooten on the front of the card. It was corrected late in the press run to Burt Hooton and the corrected card is much rarer. On the Trading Card Database they recognize the variation and someone sent in the scan for the correct one. The problem is that it is not a real card. That person photoshopped the error card in an attempt to make it the correct card but they only got half of it right. They replaced the E in Hooten with an O but they didn't replace the E in Bert with a U. The first card is the bogus card from TCD, the second card is the actual error, and the third card is the actual corrected card. The Bert Hooton card does not exist.

[bnorth]

When I was doing the 55 Bowman set they had a nonexistent error card listed. Can't remember what one, there was a thread about it on here.

[Rich Klein]

When I was doing the 55 Bowman set they had a nonexistent error card listed. Can't remember what one, there was a thread about it on here.

It was a 1955 Bowman Harvey Kuenn

[Cliff Bowman]

The next card is 1979 Kellogg's Pete Rose. There were three printings of the 1979 Kellogg's cards but 22 of them were unchanged from the second printing to the third printing, Pete Rose is one of those 22. The first printing has the copyright printed in Tony the Tiger's scarf and is plagued with statistical errors, The second printing corrected all of those statistical errors, changed some player bios, and moved the copyright to the right of Tony the Tiger. The third printing did not change any stats or bios, it only changed some team logos or just put a copyright next to a team logo. 38 cards were changed from the second to the third printing while 22 cards were unaffected by the third printing and are indiscernible to either printing. On the Trading Card Database they have three variations for the 1979 Kellogg's Pete Rose card. The first printing with the copyright in Tony the Tiger's scarf, the Phillies team logo with Phillies spelled out and two Quaker kids on top of Phillies, and the error 33 triples in the stats for the 1978 season. Then they have a variation for the second printing that still has 33 triples for the 1978 season but also has the copyright to the right of Tony the Tiger and has the updated team logo of just a P. The third variation they have is the 1978 season has the correct 3 triples, Tony the Tiger has the copyright to the right of him, and the team logo is the updated P. The card that they have for the second variation does not exist. There are no second print cards of the Pete Rose with the 33 triples for 1978 error. Someone photoshopped it and sent in the scan to have an nonexistent variation created. There are only two 1979 Kellogg's Pete Rose cards, the first printing with the 33 triples error and the second printing with the correct 3 triples. There is no third version of the 1979 Kellogg's Pete Rose card. The first scan is of the bogus card on TCD, the second scan is of a genuine first printing with the 33 triples error, the third scan is of a genuine second printing card with the correct 3 triples.

[ALR-bishop]

I looked for that Kuenn card

Thanks for the info Cliff

[BaltOrioles]

There were three printings of the 1979 Kellogg's cards but 22 of them were unchanged from the second printing to the third printing. The first printing has the copyright printed in Tony the Tiger's scarf and is plagued with statistical errors, The second printing corrected all of those statistical errors, changed some player bios, and moved the copyright to the right of Tony the Tiger. The third printing did not change any stats or bios, it only changed some team logos or just put a copyright next to a team logo. 38 cards were changed from the second to the third printing while 22 cards were unaffected by the third printing and are indiscernible to either printing.

Cliff,

Thanks for the info on the 1979 Kelloggs set. Can you confirm for me that there are 3 different Jim Palmer cards, but only 2 different Mike Flanagan cards?

[Cliff Bowman]

Cliff,

Thanks for the info on the 1979 Kelloggs set. Can you confirm for me that there are 3 different Jim Palmer cards, but only 2 different Mike Flanagan cards?

There are three of each. First printing with the copyright inside of Tony the Tiger's scarf with Palmer error .649 pct and Flanagan error 57 strikeouts. Second printing with the copyright to the right of Tony the Tiger and both cards corrected to Palmer .650 pct and Flanagan 56 strikeouts BUT no copyright next to Orioles team emblem. Third printing is identical to second printing but has copyright next to Orioles team logo. Let me know which ones you have and which ones you need and I will see if I have doubles.

[Cliff Bowman]

When I was doing the 55 Bowman set they had a nonexistent error card listed. Can't remember what one, there was a thread about it on here.

https://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=238632

[BaltOrioles]

There are three of each. First printing with the copyright inside of Tony the Tiger's scarf with Palmer error .649 pct and Flanagan error 57 strikeouts. Second printing with the copyright to the right of Tony the Tiger and both cards corrected to Palmer .650 pct and Flanagan 56 strikeouts BUT no copyright next to Orioles team emblem. Third printing is identical to second printing but has copyright next to Orioles team logo. Let me know which ones you have and which ones you need and I will see if I have doubles.

Thanks Cliff. I have all three Jim Palmers, but need the 1st and 2nd printing of the Mike Flanagan. I have the 56 strikeouts with the copyright next to the Orioles logo.

[Cliff Bowman]

The third card is 1979 Kellogg's Carl Yastrzemski. The Trading Card Database has it correct that there are two variations, the error with 9930 AB and the corrected card with 9929 AB. Someone sent in a scan of the 'error' card with 9930 AB but there is a problem with it. It is actually a second printing that was photoshopped to make the AB 9930. The error is only on the first printing card, all second printing cards have the correct 9929 AB. The first card is the photoshopped 'error' card which is actually a second printing card on Trading Card Database, the second card is a genuine first printing error card with the copyright inside Tony the Tiger's scarf and 9930 AB, and the third scan is a correct second printing with the copyright to the right of Tony the Tiger and the correct 9929 AB. There are only two 1979 Kellogg's Carl Yastrzemski cards, the first printing error card and the second printing correct card. A second printing error card does not exist.

[Cliff Bowman]

Thanks Cliff. I have all three Jim Palmers, but need the 1st and 2nd printing of the Mike Flanagan. I have the 56 strikeouts with the copyright next to the Orioles logo.

I'll see what I can find.

[Cliff Bowman]

Thanks Cliff. I have all three Jim Palmers, but need the 1st and 2nd printing of the Mike Flanagan. I have the 56 strikeouts with the copyright next to the Orioles logo.

I found six 2nd printing extra 1979 Kellogg’s Mike Flanagan cards but no extra 1st printings. Some first prints are next to impossible to find. ETA: Here is a scan of the first printing 1979 Kellogg's Mike Flanagan, it's the only one I have and it's still in the unopened pack.

[Cliff Bowman]

Update, the Trading Card Database deleted the scans for the bogus 1975 Hostess Burt Hooton and bogus 1979 Kellogg's Carl Yastrzemski, and also the incorrect scans for the 1966 Topps Bob Heffner Purple Trees and the 1979 Kellogg's Ron Guidry and are letting me send the correct scans. Getting them to add the 1966 Topps Bob Heffner Pink Trees variation and include the variations for the two Pirates in the 1971 OPC set and eliminate the 1979 Kellogg's second print 33 triples error variation will be the next step.

[swarmee]

Are they going to ban the original submitter of those images? ;-)

[JollyElm]

I always include the 'lens flare' (my term) card to the purple tree variation grouping. Is this what you mean by the pink trees version, or is it something else?

395343

I have a couple of them.

[Cliff Bowman]

Yes, the one on the left is the Purple Trees and the one on the right is the Pink Trees. I would have never tried to get these listed as bona fide variations but they already had a Purple Trees variation listed and the scan that someone sent in for it was just a normal 1966 Bob Heffner card.

[Cliff Bowman]

Here are the two 1971 OPC variations for anyone not familiar with them, they are the only OPC variations that I am aware of other than that 1969 card with the very subtle line shift on the back that was discovered here recently.

[JollyElm]

Yes, the one on the left is the Purple Trees and the one on the right is the Pink Trees. I would have never tried to get these listed as bona fide variations but they already had a Purple Trees variation listed and the scan that someone sent in for it was just a normal 1966 Bob Heffner card.

I have one of my 'lens flare' cards off in Bobby's group sub. I'm assuming it will get a PD qualifier, but I digress. Whereas the 'purple tree' version features the foliage itself colored wrongly, the pink version has extraneous white areas involved there too. I guess that's what really differentiates it. It's almost like there was a weird explosion of ink happening. To me, the 'problem' with calling it pink, is that arguments will start over whether or not the purple (in a particular card) is light enough to qualify as the pink version. Just my personal preference, I guess. Ha ha.

[Cliff Bowman]

I have one of my 'lens flare' cards off in Bobby's group sub. I'm assuming it will get a PD qualifier, but I digress. Whereas the 'purple tree' version features the foliage itself colored wrongly, the pink version has extraneous white areas involved there too. I guess that's what really differentiates it. It's almost like there was a weird explosion of ink happening. To me, the 'problem' with calling it pink, is that arguments will start over whether or not the purple (in a particular card) is light enough to qualify as the pink version. Just my personal preference, I guess. Ha ha.

Yeah, you're right, I will abandon the attempt to get TCD to recognize the pink version because they always want some sort of proof before they will recognize one of my variations. I got them to recognize the two 1971 OPC variations but only after they verified them on eBay and the PSA site.

[energyrater1]

You would not believe how many people contacted me if I have this "third" Rose card, the 33/3 with the P. I told them I didn't believe it existed.

Glad to see I was correct!