1989 Fleer Randy Johnson #381 Marlboro Errors - 30 Years Later

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Statfreak101

Yes, I have heard this as well - that he didn't like the sign, or being in a picture with that sign.

With that said - the million dollar question. Why the heck wasn't the black box/corrected version just done right away?

As someone who was collecting back then the answer in my opinion was cash. Error cards were a big thing at that time and sold for huge premiums. Higher sale price on individual cards leads to more new unopened product selling.

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by bnorth

As someone who was collecting back then the answer in my opinion was cash. Error cards were a big thing at that time and sold for huge premiums. Higher sale price on individual cards leads to more new unopened product selling.

I don’t know if this one was an intentional variation. Virtually zero publicity for this card until a tiny blurb in the annual Beckett stating its “discovery” in 1999. Ten years later! And I believe this note wasn’t even added to the books until the 2002 annual.

As for the why...From a production standpoint, could Randy have seen the card and complained about it post production? We know that Fleer was printing and distributing cards by mid-November 1988. Maybe earlier, but unverified, if so. We know that by mid-November the card had seen multiple cover-up attempts. Did Randy somehow see one of the few clear examples immediately upon release and object to the ad? How did he see it so quickly? I’ve never heard of a card company sending proofs to players before production. I don’t believe that is a thing. Very odd but I’m doubtful that Randy’s objection is the cause for it.

What’s really surprising to me is that nobody has managed to track down someone in the know. No Fleer people on the record even sharing conjecture, questionable memories.

[jp1216]

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

I don’t know if this one was an intentional variation. Virtually zero publicity for this card until a tiny blurb in the annual Beckett stating its “discovery” in 1999. Ten years later! And I believe this note wasn’t even added to the books until the 2002 annual.

I collected A LOT of '89 Fleer and was shocked to hear about the RJ versions over 10 years later. How did it take so long for someone to discover this? RJ was a notable rookie. To be corrected so early and only on the RJ cards is puzzling.

[Statfreak101]

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

I don’t know if this one was an intentional variation. Virtually zero publicity for this card until a tiny blurb in the annual Beckett stating its “discovery” in 1999. Ten years later! And I believe this note wasn’t even added to the books until the 2002 annual.

As for the why...From a production standpoint, could Randy have seen the card and complained about it post production? We know that Fleer was printing and distributing cards by mid-November 1988. Maybe earlier, but unverified, if so. We know that by mid-November the card had seen multiple cover-up attempts. Did Randy somehow see one of the few clear examples immediately upon release and object to the ad? How did he see it so quickly? I’ve never heard of a card company sending proofs to players before production. I don’t believe that is a thing. Very odd but I’m doubtful that Randy’s objection is the cause for it.

What’s really surprising to me is that nobody has managed to track down someone in the know. No Fleer people on the record even sharing conjecture, questionable memories.

That might be the most frustrating part - from a collectors standpoint. The fact that no one has gone on record from Fleer about this whole thing. It isn't like they need to stay secretive or protect themselves, given they are now a defunct company.

Just weird, really.

[Hatorade]

Originally Posted by jp1216

I'm sure it's been discussed - but why was only the Johnson card targeted for correction? Is there a story behind it?

The other cards in the set with Marlboro ads either show small portions of the sign or the sign in the background is out of focus. I think Fleer’s biggest concern was running afoul of The Comprehensive Smoking Education Act that was implemented a couple years earlier. The ad on the RJ card is in the middle of the image, perfectly in focus with the Marlboro lettering and the Marlboro Man being almost on display.

Originally Posted by Statfreak101

With that said - the million dollar question. Why the heck wasn't the black box/corrected version just done right away?

It seems that the method Fleer used to cover the ad for the common cards wasn’t an immediate solution that was available to them. I think they wanted to at least show some due diligence and obscure the tobacco advertising as best as they could while the more permanent fix was in the works.

Was the Ripken FF immediately corrected or is anyone willing to share how long it took Fleer for the common version of that card to come out after the discovery?

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

What’s really surprising to me is that nobody has managed to track down someone in the know. No Fleer people on the record even sharing conjecture, questionable memories.

I sent an email to Ted Taylor, who was a former spokesman or VP for Fleer, a few years ago inquiring about the Marlboro variations. He replied to me with this:
“Sorry I cannot help. I joined Fleer in January, 1992. In fact I never heard
anyone speak of any variations there except the Billy Ripken. As for
pointing you in another direction I'm afraid I can't help there either.
Fleer is dead and gone and the employees are spread all over the place.”

I came across some info on another fleer employee from around that time period, but I can’t locate it anymore. It sure would be cool to hear the true story about these cards from someone that was involved.

[Statfreak101]

Originally Posted by Hatorade

The other cards in the set with Marlboro ads either show small portions of the sign or the sign in the background is out of focus. I think Fleer’s biggest concern was running afoul of The Comprehensive Smoking Education Act that was implemented a couple years earlier. The ad on the RJ card is in the middle of the image, perfectly in focus with the Marlboro lettering and the Marlboro Man being almost on display.



It seems that the method Fleer used to cover the ad for the common cards wasn’t an immediate solution that was available to them. I think they wanted to at least show some due diligence and obscure the tobacco advertising as best as they could while the more permanent fix was in the works.

Was the Ripken FF immediately corrected or is anyone willing to share how long it took Fleer for the common version of that card to come out after the discovery?



I sent an email to Ted Taylor, who was a former spokesman or VP for Fleer, a few years ago inquiring about the Marlboro variations. He replied to me with this:
“Sorry I cannot help. I joined Fleer in January, 1992. In fact I never heard
anyone speak of any variations there except the Billy Ripken. As for
pointing you in another direction I'm afraid I can't help there either.
Fleer is dead and gone and the employees are spread all over the place.”

I came across some info on another fleer employee from around that time period, but I can’t locate it anymore. It sure would be cool to hear the true story about these cards from someone that was involved.

That might be the best way to get some more information on this whole thing - ex Fleer employees. They should have nothing holding them back from divulging information, other than their own personal benefit and knowledge.

I know Frank Mustin, who was the grandson and involved has since passed away.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Statfreak101

That might be the best way to get some more information on this whole thing - ex Fleer employees. They should have nothing holding them back from divulging information, other than their own personal benefit and knowledge.

I know Frank Mustin, who was the grandson and involved has since passed away.

I would guess it has been too long for them to remember much of anything. I know a ton of former Score employees. From the janitor to the guy running the plant and many in between. Not a one of them can remember anything from 30 years ago. To them it was just another crappy job that put food on the table.

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by bnorth

To them it was just another crappy job that put food on the table.

The sad but very understandable truth.

[jakeinge]

Originally Posted by Statfreak101

That might be the most frustrating part - from a collectors standpoint. The fact that no one has gone on record from Fleer about this whole thing. It isn't like they need to stay secretive or protect themselves, given they are now a defunct company.

Just weird, really.

Awesome, awesome thread!

I'm not nearly as knowledgeable as many of you, but I've always had this thought in the back of my mind that in the case of the Ripken, the variation depended on who did the printing. I would assume (maybe wrongly) that due to the sheer volume of cards that needed to be produced, there were multiple printers doing the work for Fleer. So perhaps the clear Marlboro came from one printer and all of the printers were using the same print codes. So in theory you could have the same print codes and get different variations depending on which printer the case came from.

I'd love to hear thoughts on this.

[Statfreak101]

Originally Posted by jakeinge

Awesome, awesome thread!

I'm not nearly as knowledgeable as many of you, but I've always had this thought in the back of my mind that in the case of the Ripken, the variation depended on who did the printing. I would assume (maybe wrongly) that due to the sheer volume of cards that needed to be produced, there were multiple printers doing the work for Fleer. So perhaps the clear Marlboro came from one printer and all of the printers were using the same print codes. So in theory you could have the same print codes and get different variations depending on which printer the case came from.

I'd love to hear thoughts on this.

Reasonable thought, but I am not sure.

You are more likely to find multiple variations of the Johnson card in the same case than you are the Ripken variations. Like, if you have a sealed case that you open and the first Ripken card is a black scribble, you are 99.9% going to find only that variation of Ripken throughout the remainder of the case.

However, in the case of the Johnson card...I have opened a sealed case before and gotten multiple variations out of the same case...SOMETIMES even the same box (although rare).

[Hatorade]

Steve B was kind enough to answer a few of my questions on the specifics of the printing process with these cards a few years ago. It seems that all the Johnson errors likely shared the same image on the negative for the black plates and that the common version cards were likely corrected by altering the original art for the negative used to make their black plates. The editing of the errors therefore likely took place in the negatives and plates for the three other colors. It would be great to hear more from Steve B or someone else with printing experience to discuss where/how exactly those changes happened. Would the fact that multiple versions were being produced at the same time point to the plates on each press producing their own “version”?

Originally Posted by Hatorade

Attachment 223184
PSA and BGS have a difficult time differentiating the error card from the common card in too many instances. One easy way for them to never make this mistake again is observe this small hair like object found on the bottom left of the card where the second vertical white line hits the lower blue line. I've termed the object a "short hair". The short hair is not on any of the common versions and is on every error variation I've seen. How can this same object have appeared on all the different error variations? What changed that it didn't show up on the common version?

Originally Posted by steve B

As far as how it got there it's pretty simple. Not easy to tell exactly what way but a few easy ones.
It was there when the original pasteups were photographed so it was on the negative used to produce the black plates.
or
It was a scratch on the black plate that made the errors.
or
It was a scratch on the negative used to make the black plates for the errors.
Whatever the exact reason, making any of the corrected versions meant making new plates from altered negatives, or from entirely new negatives from a corrected pasteup . And either the bit of fiber was gone from the pasteup, or the resulting negatives never got scratched.
Steve B
* It's "possible" there were transitional cards using a mix of old and new plates, but considering that removing the Ad was because of a federal law the whole set was probably redone all at once.

Originally Posted by Hatorade

Steve, thanks for the feedback. I have a very limited understanding of the process used to print the cards and very much appreciate your perspective. As I understand it, Fleer used 2 printing facilities to make the cards. Would that rule out that the scratch was on the black plate that made the errors, because there would have been more than one plate for 2 separate facilities? You mentioned that it’s possible that there are transitional cards using a mix of old and new plates and I believe that is what happened for all the cards that aren’t the final corrected version. Fleer wasn’t able to immediately cover the Marlboro sign completely and what they did was edit the cards in a way that they transitioned from the ad only being slightly obscured with tinting and still visible, to the ad being tinted so heavily that the ad is mostly unable to be seen and all these cards have the black hair. This editing was done in most part over the ad itself and at some point they changed the editing process to cover more than just the Ad, but the entire rectangular area on the upper right part of the card with a consistent blacking out that resulted in the final corrected version, and no more black hair. It seems that a similar situation occurred with the Billy Ripken errors from the set. The scribble, white out and double die edits where used by Fleer to edit the ad before they could produce the black box versions to cover the error, even though they had already begun producing the Johnson cards in their final edit form. Why couldn’t Fleer just edit out the ad more completely with their early attempts instead of having the cards slowly transition from lightly tinted to heavily tinted and why would they have so many unique attempts at covering the Marlboro sign?

Originally Posted by steve B

There would have been way more than even two plates.
That the line is on so many versions means it was most likely on the negative, so it got onto all the plates made during the transition from error to corrected. It goes away on the corrected versions? If that's always the case then the corrected ones were printed from a plate made from a new negative.
The transitional ones could have been done by altering the negatives for one or more of the other colors. Probably while they were waiting on the new negative for black to be done from altered original art.

It would be unusual for two different companies to share a negative. More likely is that one company started first. Maybe producing the cards for Wax boxes? I think those were released first with the other formats following a bit after. So company A does cards and has errors like the Johnson and maybe the Ripken that have to get fixed right away. Company B starts a bit later maybe doing the ones for cellos or vending or whatever. But they've been told about the problems and are either given corrected art to work from or do less obvious corrections. (Probably the first case)

Both companies probably ran multiple presses, and over a print run as large as 89 fleer they would have had to replace the plates a few times.

The Ripken corrections were probably a bit more of an emergency than the Johnson. Johnson ran up against a federal regulation (So did a lot of diecast cars) And the feds were probably ok with a simple "oops! we're fixing it, won't happen again" The Ripken was a bit of a thing in even mainstream media, and not the sort of PR they wanted. So they made a few different sorts of corrections. The knob area could have simply been erased from plates on the press to make the whiteout versions, the scribbles were probably scratched into the plates -also while the plates were still on the press.
The "double die" ones are just a result of bad registration. You'll find that sort of thing on lots of cards, it just got noticed on Ripken because everyone was looking at thin figures printed in multiple colors which makes them prone to that sort of "doubling".
Steve B

[Statfreak101]

Awesome stuff - really love the information and transparency on this topic!