|
Strange Green Tint Tidbit...
1 Attachment(s)
It's weird, but a number of times over the years I've purchased 1962 Topps #171 Dave Sisler Green Tint cards, and much more often than not these cards appear to be trimmed. They are markedly thinner than a regular version of the card and it's very obvious when you look at the hair thin wood borders to the sides of the white frame. But since this anomaly is so prevalent, I don't believe for a minute they were actually trimmed by their former owners and I'm convinced it is much more likely that they came out of the factory looking this way and are the result of some type of production error.
Since this came to mind today, I decided to jump on COMC and see what they had on hand there. And sure enough, a bunch of them are much thinner than they should be. This isn't scientific or anything, but the red line approximates how wide the cards should be. The top card has the correct and expected amount of woodgrain border on both sides (I know, I know, some people will argue that maybe the top card is just wider than it should be, making the cards below it 'normal,' but I'll ignore that), so look how thin the other cards are compared to the one on top. It is a drastic difference... Attachment 239712 The top left side of the bottomost card is cut on an angle, which just adds to the wonderment of what the heck was happening during the production of the GT's. And if these cards were cut too thin at the factory, then I assume that others printed on the same sheet must have the same problem, although nothing has jumped out at me as much as Mr. Sisler always has. If you have a minute, check out your version(s) of this card and see if they suffer from this same cardboard anorexia. |
Checked mine Darren, my Sisler GT is barely smaller, than the regular card. I also checked it against three other cards and it is the same as one and barely smaller than the two others. I've noticed very small size differences throughout many cards in the set. Most not on cards I'd think anyone would trim due to the player and overall condition. Perhaps this is a quality control issue with this set. As I type I'm wondering if this could be something due to the other printing company that produced the GT's. Don't have time now to check other GT's but will later.
|
Darren checking the two Sisler cards from my 62 set, both seem to be the same size. (scans below)
http://photos.imageevent.com/threetw...2sislerreg.jpg http://photos.imageevent.com/threetw...islergreen.jpg |
Sisler
My two are the same size as well
|
1 Attachment(s)
Here are a few more to add to the tally after a quick scan of ebay. I definitely think this persistent problem was a QC issue on the part of the printers of the infamous green tints…
Attachment 239773 Compare these guys to the first card I posted. They are drastically thinner side to side. |
1 Attachment(s)
And then there's this card which is listed as 'trimmed' (actually "1962 Topps 171 Dave Sisler Green Tint Reds-Trim-EM") on ebay. I am sure this seller simply measured the card out and it came up short side to side, because it looks identical to all of the other cards I have posted in this thread…
Attachment 239774 |
I checked my Sisler green tint and it is noticeably shorter than the normal card. Checked a few other player's green tint cards and they all are normal size.
|
Separate 62 Q
This is off topic, but Darren what do you think this seller is referring to in this and his other listings by "gray curl" variation. You think it means he is pointing out the shades of gray on the curl in the bottom right front can be lighter or darker ? I sent him a Q
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1962-Topps-B...sAAOSwepZXS1ID |
2 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Check these cards out: Attachment 239832 Attachment 239833 If you look at the area of the curl where the black emerges from the white, the card at left has a grayish squared area there, while the card at right sorta doesn't. It's there, but more drowned out by the black. Some people consider these two separate variations. |
Fascinating thread.
|
1 Attachment(s)
A bit more evidence for the theory that a lot of these GT's came directly out of the factory cut too thin. I have a picture of a 'normal' 1962 series 2 uncut sheet. On it, the card directly above Sisler is #117 Gary Geiger. My assumption is the green tint printers most likely followed the same basic sheet layout. With that said, after a quick look-see around ebay and COMC, I found a number of Geiger's GT cards to be much thinner than they should be.
The top card is what a standard sized GT Geiger looks like. The ones below it have much thinner woodgrain borders on the sides. For full disclosure, most of these pictures/scans came from different sources, so the sizing, etc., wasn't exactly the same. I had to enlarge or decrease the cards a bit to make them relatively consistent with each other. But you can readily look at the combined thickness of the woodgrained sides to see how truly off they are. Of course, there is no way to know whether or not the people who owned these cards actually trimmed them themselves, but I'm guessing that's probably not the case. And one of the Geiger GT's I have here in my doubles box is gravely thin, too. Attachment 239992 As a weird side note, Sisler is #171 and Geiger is #117. Seems perhaps the GT printers had a real problem with numerical combinations containing two 1's and a 7. Too bad the set had no card #711. I would've like to have seen what that one looked like. |
I wanted to give this thread a bump, because while gathering cards to send off to Bobby for his bulk submission to PSA, I found that a few of my green tints were short side to side. When I checked the scan I have of an uncut 1962 Topps sheet (non GT version), I found the three cards I wanted to include were situated in the same column on the printing sheet as the Sisler and Geiger cards already discussed here. The cards I'm referring to are Dick Stuart, Julian Javier and Dean Chance. I also checked a couple of my lower grade Dallas Green cards (that also reside in said column) that I had on hand, and they, too, were short side to side.
This isn't definitive by any means, but if I were Columbo, I'd say whoever did the green tints printing for Topps that year is guilty of producing an overwhelming number of 'trimmed' cards. I guess it's important to note that the column I'm referring to was on the far right edge of the sheet. A contrarian would say that these cards were all trimmed after market, but that just seems ridiculous at this point. Such a huge concentration of specific, non-star, 'meaningless' cards shortened by a wide variety of different people all across the country?? What the heck would be the reason for that?? That dog don't hunt. I think in the mass production rush at the print shop, a huge number of cuts to the rightmost column were short, producing the results we see today. Like the Zodiac's 340-character cipher, the green tint puzzle remains unsolved. |
1 Attachment(s)
Did a quick #117 Geiger check and found a bunch of 'trimmed' cards on ebay. The top one looks to be the correct size, while the ones below it look like the 'after' pictures from a Jenny Craig ad:
Attachment 284053 If you're thinking of buying a GT off of ebay, take my advice. Make sure you ask the seller to measure it out for you. |
The thing is, Topps would have the uncut sheets shipped to Brooklyn from the printer, where they were cut and then the gum inserted during packaging. Perhaps they also did this elsewhere? Does anyone know if the Green Tints only (or also) came in cello's and vending? If so, that could mean they were cut elsewhere since no gum had to be put into the packs for those. Even the stamps had to be inserted in the cellos so that could impact where they were cut and packed as well.
|
I don't know the answers to those questions, but if I had to guess, I'd say whoever printed them, chopped them. Since there are untold numbers of problems with the GT's, like all the green images, the out of focus pictures, the pose variations, overly red inked photos/printing, etc., etc., it seems that the horrible trimming of the sheets fits right in. A logical conclusion would be Topps handed over the duties to a print shop and, man, did they mess up all around.
|
I was asked what other cards are in the far right column on the print sheet, so I'll post them here:
111 Dallas Green 117 Gary Geiger 171 Dave Sisler 164 Hal Naragon 165 Jackie Brandt 118 Julian Javier 160 Dick Stuart 194 Dean Chance If you have a moment, please check out the green tints you have of these guys and post whether or not they measure up correctly. |
A while back, a green tint hoarder sold me 25 complete runs of the green tint set. By far and away the Geiger card is the most consistently seen card that is short l/r. Naragon, 164, and Javier, 118, are both also routinely seen short, but nowhere near as often as the 117. The Ruth 139 card is also a frequently short card. Over the last few runs I went through, here are the card #s of cards I found to be short l/r: 111, 115, 117, 118, 131, 132, 135, 139, 145, 155, 157, 164, 171, 173, 175, 180, 182, 194..
This list is not intended to be all inclusive, as it is only based on 3-4 runs total. There may be other frequently short measuring cards missing from the list due to the fact that the copies in the runs I went through all measured up. When I have more time, I can go through the remaining 15 or so runs and provide more detail. Based on Darren's list, I have also encountered the 165 card short multiple times, however, have maybe only seen one or so of the 160 cards short. |
25 ? Larry-- you and Darren would turn Kermit green with envy.
|
Quote:
About 10 years ago, before all of the hoopla with the 62 GTs arose, I finished my run.....minus the image variations, it was quite easy as most people did not actively collect them. |
Quote:
111 Dallas Green - normal 117 Gary Geiger - 1 small and 1 normal 171 Dave Sisler - small 164 Hal Naragon - small 165 Jackie Brandt - normal 118 Julian Javier - small 160 Dick Stuart - small 194 Dean Chance - small Mike |
Nice!!!!
|
Show off!!! ;)
|
Quote:
|
Darren,
Here's my findings in within my set. 111 - equal 117 GT smaller 118 GT smaller 160 - equal 164 - GT very slightly smaller 165 - equal 171 - GT slightly smaller 194 - equal No consistency in my group. |
4 Attachment(s)
It's been a long time, but since most of us have a lot of time to waste while we await the end of the world, I thought I'd bump this thread to show a pickup I'm exceptionally psyched about -- a high grade, 'fat' 1962 Topps #117 Gary Geiger green tint card (the main star of this old thread)...
Attachment 389748 Here's the cool stuff for people who like POP chat: Talk about a tough one to find. Yowza!!! There are only 4 straight PSA 9 cards in the pop report, and just one additional (this one) with a qualifier. Usually with GT's, that low number would be simply due to PSA not differentiating between GT's and regular cards for quite a long time (in other words, many GT's are unknowingly mixed in with the regular card totals). Also, you can add the fact that a large number of cards were labeled wrongly by the graders (I have personally pointed out tons of those cards over the years). But here's where it gets weird. There is only one regular Gary Geiger with a straight PSA 9 grade, and none with qualifiers, so the usual rules don't apply here. There have been no PSA 10's of either the regular or GT cards, so the highest graded #117s are PSA 9, and the total number between the two variations is only SIX (one regular and five GT's, including the PD here). That's a low POP!!!!! At the moment, I only see one PSA 8 GT available on ebay (at $350), and one PSA 9 (at $498 or BO). I wonder if Mr. Geiger ever knew what a pain in the butt he would become to collectors. :rolleyes: On a side note...three of the five straight PSA 8 cards shown in the 'auction prices realized' site all have a very similar (perhaps a touch less significant) swath of extraneous ink in the same upper right area as mine (the reason for the PD designation)... Attachment 389749 Attachment 389750 Attachment 389751 |
GT skinny cuts & SII checklist variations
Darren,
I've been following your posts regarding '62T & '62T GT over the years. I appreciate you sharing your insights and discoveries with the crowd. Here's some extra data points for your research. I agree with your thoughts on the "skinny" cuts coming from the same column on the sheet, makes sense. I have a Dallas Green #111 that I sent to PSA years ago to get graded and it came back "Evid Trim" and they would not grade it. It looks just as thin as your Giegers. I checked all my other GTs and they are fine. Here's their numbers: 110, 12, 16 (2), 21, 22, 26, 29, 36, 39, 47 (3), 50, 67, 70, 74, 76 (2) 83, 90, 92 (with comma). I only have about dozen non-GT from SII and they are all normal with the exception of Hoeft #134 that is slightly oversized top-bottom. Regarding your sleuthing on Checklist 2 (#98) being part of the SII print run. I agree. Not sure if you've investigated the reasoning behind why there are 3 variations of both checklists that got issued in the SII print runs. With the prominent theory on print runs being Topps did one print run and then shipped the business off to someone else to produce more SII cards (the genesis of the GTs) and that company probably did two different printings. One with the pose variations and one print run without. I imagine that could account for the 3 different print variations of the checklist # 98 and 192. My question is which version of #98 is from the GT sheets? Did you ever find a copy of a SII GT uncut sheet? Will post some more later. Scooby |
1 Attachment(s)
A couple of years ago, you asked for people to share any SII GT miscuts, so you could the woodgrain borders and figure who the ordering. Here are the only ones I have which spill over to the adjacent card frame:
|
Speaking of Checklists & Uncut sheets
In a thread years ago, someone mentioned that it was common practice for Topps to have a previous or future checklist in a different print run. I've seen a few uncut sheets over the years and can confirm that. I currently have a 1968T Series III uncut sheet. SIII was card #'s 197-283 (according to the checklist), but it includes Checklist #3, which is numbered #192, which is not really part of SIII and Checklist #4, card # 278, which is part of SIII. Go figure.
For the record, the sheet is 132 cards; 11 across by 12 rows. The 1st four rows are duplicated for a total of 44 DPs and 44 not DPs. I'm not sure if there is a reverse printing of that where the middle 4 rows are DPs to even out the numbers. Anyway, if anyone out there is a sleuth on '68T, I'd be happy to share image and details of that sheet and learn from you. Scooby |
Ok, I finished my 62 topps set in September with mantle being the last one needed to finish. I was thinking of doing the green tint set but never really started it. Is it worth it? It’s tough to tell them about. Anybody have a list of the green tint numbers?
|
This should be a good resource to tell the difference between the regular and the green tint cards (most are cropping differences, but some have entirely different poses. It's fun trying to get a 1962 Topps Master Set. It's takes about 695 cards at last count. I'm currently at 685, so need about 10 more !! Good Luck !!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/obctom...7602774575697/ |
1 Attachment(s)
I'm happy to say I was able to negotiate and grab up another one (a 'fat' PSA 8) at a decent price. Interestingly enough, it too has a similar 'stray ink in the sky' area that caused the PSA 9 to go all 'PD,' but it's no problem whatsoever...
Attachment 395678 |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:18 PM. |