Well known print defects. Do variations exist without?

[novakjr]

Been noticing all the talk of print defects on here, and it got me thinking about a few cards that always bugged me. Well, two cards that I've never seen without the flaw, so I figured I check with all of you.

First is the 1984 Topps Don Mattingly. Has anyone ever seen one of these without the print defect just over his back on the front of the card? And does it exist on all variations of the '84 Topps produced Mattinglys?

I've got the Nestle around somewhere, I'll check in a little bit to see if it's on that card. Can anyone confirm whether this flaw is also on the OPC and Tiffany as well?

Second is the 1987 Topps Barry Bonds. Every one I've ever seen has had the 3 in the card number 320 on the back partially obscured. Can anyone verify a version with a full 3? I know the OPC doesn't have this flaw, so I'm hoping that there's a few topps without it as well.

Any info, or any other cards like these that you could think of are welcome in this conversation...Baker(bakep), Herrer(a), both have know variations of both, so I'd hope this doesn't turn into a discussion about those. But basically any similar examples that fits this topic.

[ALR-bishop]

Can you give me the card #s of the Bonds and Mattingly. My cards are all by set.

And in virtually all my Topps sets I have accumulated several recurring print defects that do not appear on all of the issued cards. I would not know where to begin unless you have a set in mind.

I will check on what I have on these 2 if you give me the card #s

[novakjr]

The Bonds is 1987 Topps #320, Mattingly is 1984 Topps #8.

[ALR-bishop]

My Mattingly has the print defect and I do not have one with out it..

The 84 set does not have a lot of variations/errors but here is what I have:

a set of the 84 Encased proof cards (66) in which the inset photo is completely in the box ( there is a an error in that set in that the inset photos of Carlton and Mathews are switched)

Card 126, Braves Leaders, with and without errant blue swath under Murphy's name on front

Card 198 Doran, without any black ink on the front

Card 215 Hurst 634 Marshall and 654 Bailor with no Topps or trademark in upper right front

Cards 340 McCrae, 362 Green, with no red ink on back

494 Davis with team name brown or orange

Palmer 750...several versions with differing amount of stats missing on back ( listed in SCD). There is also a front difference, check mark above cap in insert, or not

The Darryl Palmer card # 801, same format front and back as regular issue but card created for movie The Sluggers Wife. Pictures actor Danny Noonan batting No 84 set is complete without it

[ALR-bishop]

My Bonds has the print defect you mention and I do not have a "clean" version.


For 1987 what I have is:

92 Lugo with and without trademark---in SCD

169 Piniella ( manager not rookie ) with excessive dark shading

226 Venable with green blotch to left of name on front or not

259 Greenwell with red mark is S on Jersey on front or not

313 Clemente TBTC...name in front in blue or black

344 Niekro...copyright differences on back...in SCD

393 Rose, with two different shading of green on back or all the same

512 Magadan, missing some color in "Future" on the front, or not

603 Gooden and 606 Mattingly , with or without trademark on front...in SCD . The Mattingly can also be found with various color issues in the eagles wings...as is true in several cards in this set

671 Soff, copyright difference on back...in SCD

[hangman62]

Wow,
I never thought to look so closely on such an overproduced/ low value set.
Thats a lot of mistakes in there.
Yes,many recall when that 1987 T set was being stockpiled and hoarded by smart collectors who were telling everybody they knew that due to the "wood border" like the 62T set..these will be hard to find in mint shape in a few years....and everyone was banking on ALL the rookies to become stars...then they did..but the cards went down instead of up !
I remember those days !

[novakjr]

Yeah, hangman, I like to consider that '87 set the most insignificantly-significant set of our lifetime. The only card that really concerns me is the Bonds(or maybe the Jackson if a defect is found). But it is cool to know what all variations or defects are out there, so to that extent, no matter how over-produced a set may be, there still could be a sleeper variation hiding in it somewhere, thus making it, at the very least, worth examining. After all, someone, somewhere might be interested in a variation of a player that is often written off by most.

[hangman62]

yea, In a way, its sad, the set had everything going for it..cool " old design" baseball cards at an all time high, the loads of rookies,and 2nd year guys, the tail end career cards of greats like Rose,Seaver,Ryan,.. the extended set..that appeared to be an incredible addition..if only they made a few million less sets !

[ALR-bishop]

When I was buying these sets it was to keep a run going and I never did think they would be a good "investment" If the set was nice looking, that was a bonus. There were some that were not. And "rookies" were just part of the set

[shimozukawa]

.