|
Topps 1952 Campos..new variation
|
'52 Campos
...and it's only $50,000. What a deal.:)
Z Wheat |
I'm no idiot. I wouldn't pay a dollar over $49,999:eek:
|
Pricing
I think the price is just meant to draw attention to the card. PSA has now recognized it as a variant . It also apparently is listed as such in Beckett. If it makes it's way into the Registry master set list, graded or ungraded master set collectors are going to want/need one.
I picked up mine on ebay after an article on it appeared in SCD a long time back. I got it for $25 or so. It is more dramatic than my black star and I think scarcer. I collect lots of unlisted variant cards hoping one day they get hobby recognition It will be interesting to see what they actually go for as they get more hobby recognition What will be even more interesting to see is if PSA ever recognizes the Topps 1952 variations for the Mantle, Robinson and Thompson DP cards listed now in the last edition of the SCD Standard Catalog |
Meanwhile...How did Topps FUBAR this card so badly?
|
I actually think there are two variations of the Campos frame break. I have one where there is a partial black star visible to the naked eye--in the same place the black line is in the "regular" partial black star. I have a second frame break card that has two red stars, although under magnification I could be talked into seeing the faintest of black lines.
Looking for confirming or negating evidence from others. Bill |
Campos Partial
|
Is this a frame break card, or a "regular" card?
|
Campos
"Regular"
|
Thanks! Do your frame breaks have this feature, or are they without the black line?
Bill |
Campos
All red
|
Quote:
I would compare the "black star" phenomenon on the 1952 Topps Frank Campos to the printing errors on the 1958 Topps Pancho Herrera. Just like the Herrera where there are various amounts of his name missing (I think I've seen five different varieties), there are also varying degrees to which the black star is printed on some 1952 Campos cards. It does not surprise me that a "partial top border" variant exists where there is some/slight evidence of the black printing since I have seen this same partial "black star" on a number of the "regular" Campos cards. |
Campos
I tend to think of the black stars and the border irregularities as print defects like the 58 Herrer and 57 Bakep. Such defects can be found in virtually every Topps set, more so in these days of internet access to more scans of more cards. I tend to distinguish them from variations that were intentionally created by a manufacturer to correct or update a card ( such as the 59 Spahn DOBs or trade/option card variations).
I have corresponded with some who think the black star is a variation rather than a print defect based on their knowledge of the printing processes used. I guess I will never know for sure, but for whatever reason the hobby recognizes some print defects as variations. The Herrer and Bakep have long historical roots in the hobby that precede grading, but the 61 Fairly shows print defects can still be elevated to variation status today. |
Quote:
Some good points. In my mind, I separate variations from other types of printing anomalies using the following standards of evaluation: Stray print lines and print spots do not constitute a legitimate variation. A little extra green or red here or there was a normal part of the printing process in the 1950s and 1960s and should not be noted separately in price guides or online databases of sports cards. One example of this would be the 1957 Gene Bakep "error." To me, this card is no different from any of the 1952 Topps cards that possess a degree of excess red ink on their reverse side, partially or completely obscuring some of the text. A noticeable change in the structural elements of a card (e.g., the border of a card, the player's name, a color change that affects one of the major print or design elements on front or back, etc.) DO constitute a legitimate variation. Examples would be the T206 Magie, the 1952 Campos (both types), the DPs in the 1952 Topps series, the 1958 Herrera, the 1957 Sherman (in football), and the 1990 Frank Thomas, to name a few. Within this category would be both major and minor variations. |
Variants
Michael--I know other collectors who would agree with your broader view. The many 63 and 56 cropping differences are similar to the 52 DP differences you mention.
From my standpoint no view is wrong. In every set there are variants where one card differs from another in some respect, whether intentional, a result of printing set up, or just defects in the process. I find them all interesting, and I am strictly a collector and not a seller, so the value associated with hobby recognition does not concern me much. But it is interesting to me seeing the hobby grab onto some variants over time that the small group of people who avidly collect them have been aware of for some time. Here are some more border line examples: Most know of the 3 Sullivan copyright back differences, but note the box in the lower left front border of most but not all Sullivan cards: http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...ps2c95bf31.jpg http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...ps54e4f17d.jpg http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...ps7edf810f.jpg http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...ps8d05a1a7.jpg http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...ps359e37a2.jpg http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...psa13ee72c.jpg http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...ps1aa38c2e.jpg http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...psa0a7d5b9.jpg http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...ps75660074.jpg [IMG]http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539 http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img388.jpg http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img384.jpg http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img366.jpg http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img344.jpg http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img311.jpg http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img252.jpg http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img022.jpg http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img244.jpg http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img134.jpg |
Still interested in whether anyone else has a Campos with both top left border break AND partial black star (or complete black star).
|
Campos
Sorry my partial red star black star has a complete border.
As a set collector (ie read not master set) I take note of the variations and pick some up when I can - but my goal is complete when I have all of the cards in the set. The 1952 Topps set is a little different as the major variations (Sage/Pain, Campos red star, black star) are such an integral part of the set I am compelled to acquire those as well. Interesting stuff though. Z Wheat |
Red & Black
You are forgiven Zach :)
|
Quote:
Bill |
Variants
And I thought I was obsessive :)
Bill-what sets do you collect and what do you use to determine your "master" list for such sets ? |
Quote:
Quote:
It is interesting to note the H & S auction for the '52 Super Set included only 1 variation of the partial border break Campos card. However, we knew the Super Set listing wasn't complete.....just more complete than the standard listing. However, the collector did spend a significant amount of time and $$ collecting most of the known variations. Z Wheat |
Not sure what I'm looking at/for with most of those cards shown above. Some are clearly printing errors, not variations, e.g., sloppy inking. Some are legitimately variations. I differentiate between the two as to whether there is evidence of a human intent in it. Like the 1969 Nettles RC with or without the loop. Someone had to go back and get rid of that loop. The same is true of the Campos star variations--someone had to go in there and repair the problem. I am not sure on the partial missing borderline as to whether I'd consider it a variation or a printing flub. The missing ink cards are definitely printing errors--desirable as such to the coterie of collectors who collect them--but are not variations from a master set perspective as I see it. Personally, I like the grotesque printing mistakes most of all.
http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...es%20error.jpg http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...te%20error.jpg http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...n%20miscut.jpg |
Variants
Adam---while I collect variants of any kind my personal definition of a true variations is similar to yours, a card intentionally changed by the manufacturer. I think Bob Lemke had moved to that sort of definition as well and as a result removed some previously listed variations from the Standard Catalog, for example several of the border break listings.
But the Campos card and some of the other scans above show that no one definition fits all. I think the border break Campos is a print defect, but I think the black star may be as well. I say that because I have now seen several partial black stars. But the hobby certainly has given it the status of a true variation, as well as the Herrer and Bakep. I posted the multiple scans above after the post above by Michael Wentz, who has the two Campos missing border cards up on ebay now, saying that he viewed both Campos cards as true variations along with any card in which there is a noticeable change in the structural elements of the card. Although my definition is more narrow, there is no recognized hobby wide definition that I am aware of. To each his own. I was attempting to show in the above scans that no matter what definition one adopts, there will be grey areas, it is not black and white. But I simply collect any variant, cards that differs for whatever reason, if it is interesting to me . Like your Zolio :) |
Al, I realize my word on it isn't worth a bucket of warm piss, but border breaks, missing inks, and misplaced blobs IMO are mechanical defects. Fun to collect but not 'variations' and that includes the partial border Campos. I mean who would intentionally omit a chunk of the outside border on the Campos card? Unlike say the Mantle with the variation on the Yankees logo box--that one looks like they made one of the DP versions slightly different than the others. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Campos multicolored star is probably another printing error where there was still some of the wrong ink on the plate for a part of the changed print run.
|
DPs
Some folks believe the differences in double print cards are variations because even if not intentional, they result from changes in the printing process and not a defect in it. The 52 Mantle is listed in SCD as a variation, along with the Thompson and Robinson DPs, because the stitching runs right or left on the back. But in addition to the logo box on the front which you mention, the e in the auto is either full or truncated and the top star line above his name is straight or wavy. These front differences in all cases correlate to the stitching difference on the back
|
The Campos black star is very unlikely to be a simple error that happened on the press. Different plates are used for each color, even in a multiple color press the colors are done with different plates and the ink comes from entirely different parts of the press.
Picture two presses welded together and you'll be really close. Getting black ink into the exact spot to only ink the star is nearly impossible. But the plates were made from negatives taped to an opaque mask. So mistakes in making that can cause odd stuff. Damage can happen as well. The easiest examples are 81 fleer. Many cards show the tape used to attach the picture negative to the mask. (Or maybe the picture to the original art - Either way it's a mistake in production.) The box at the lower left corner of the Sullivan shown above is probably also tape. So the Campos with the star must have had the star on the black plate. Possibly from a combination of a shortcut plus damage or error. sometimes it's simpler to photo the entire master at once, then mask off the bits that aren't wanted in whichever color. If the mask got torn, which isn't all that hard to do the star could have been exposed on the black negative. When the plate was made it got on like all the proper black print. The partial star is a bit more complex, there's a special pencil made to repair plate damage or to erase something unwanted. So either the partial is from the mask being repaired but maybe showing a bit through a tear, or from a partial erasure of the entire star from the black plate. If it was a partial reassure the operator could simply stop the press and finish the erasure once it was noticed to be incomplete. Border breaks are a bit more problematic for me. They can be from plates with flaws, like the Clemens/Seaver and the Thomas no name and the big strip of related cards. Or they can be from a random bit of debris getting into the press. Random debris usually makes one card without whatever color, then some with a patch of that color.(the debris is usually paper, and holds ink but doesn't transfer it as readily as the plate. ) The number of ones with the dark patch could be none, or hundreds, depending on how quickly the debris fell out, and if it didn't how quickly it was spotted. If there's more than one of the identical frame break, it's most likely a flaw on the plate. There are even varieties or variations that come from foolishness. 82 fleer again has a few cards from a late run that have a little pointing hand on them. Either there was an odd bit of wire or something in the platemaking process, or the press operator drew them in. Anything that will scratch the plate will do, just get through the water retaining layer and whatever you've drawn will print. I've suspected a press operator playing around since I first saw one. Steve B |
I should note that the comments above apply to offset lithography. And generally to most other commercial printing.
However, the BEP did/does have an intaglio (engraving) press capable of multiple colors from the same plate. It was used a lot in the late 60's for stamps. An impressive technical achievement, even if it seldom worked perfectly. Steve B |
Printing
Steve,
Interesting stuff. In one of the more unfortunate incidents in the '78 set, a number of cards for Molitor/Trammel are found with a thumb print at the bottom. Most of the cards I had, contained a red thumb print. I assume this most likely would have been caused by the press operators smudging the red layer so ink stuck to an area it shouldn't have been able to stick. Thanks for taking the time to post all of this information. Z Wheat |
Variants
Great post as usual Steve. Thanks for the input
|
Quote:
None of the guys I worked with wore gloves, so the plates must have had loads of prints and I never saw one print. I did see plenty from pranks:D The ink is really sticky. And a tiny bit will spread very well by almost any contact. So the typical prank was to take a tiny bit of some interesting color- purple, pink, orange .........and put the smallest dab of it on the side of something that's normally out of view. The backside of the levers on the press, the underside of the mens room doorknob, the handle of a broom, handle of the coffee pot. The target gets a bit of ink on his hand, and most people have itches or sweat to wipe away or long hair that needs brushing away from the eyes... And they end up looking like a sloppy reject from blue man group.:D:D They main culprit got me a couple times one day, and in return I inked his entire press with 7-8 colors while he was at lunch. The fun ended one day when he inked the press dept foremans desk. Steve B |
And since I went looking for Molitors with the fingerprint, I'm seeing plenty with a smudge at the bottom center.
If that's it, then it's just from careless handling before the sheets were dry. Steve B |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:31 AM. |