Question About 52 Topps Printing.

[Cardboard Junkie]

Hey mates! Aloha! My question is.....how were the backs of 52 topps printed? Was it one plate for the red ink and another for the black? How would it be physically possible to print a black star over a red star on the famous Campos card. Would TGP be able to tell if a small black star were stamped on top of a normal red star campos? Once I saw a Campos with a black over red star on the left star not the right? WTF? Please explain. Thanks.

[Brianruns10]

Yes, two separate plates. If you compare several of the same card, it is possible to slight variances in the alignment, especially the stitches on the baseball which can be a bit all over the place!

The Campos especially, if you compare different examples on ebay and google images, you can make out some where the two layers didn't quite line up, and the correct red star is slightly visible beneath the black overlay.

As for how this occurred, there is a lot of speculation, and I cannot offer much more than that, being not too knowledgeable on the actual process of printing these cards. I think it is safe to say that somehow, on the plate for the black devices, a star was inadvertently added, leading to the black overlay. It would make sense, then, that there are so few Campos black stars...an error like that, I think, would've been caught fairly quickly. A black star where there shouldn't have been any would've probably leaped out on a spot check, and the error would've been corrected.

[Cardboard Junkie]

good hypothosis but i don't think there was much checking done at any level. For example the glaring error of the sain/page cards was easily spotted, and probably brought to topps attention by the players. However the Zernial #31 position is listed as "ontfield" on all versions black (both printings) and red back.(Also the newly discover house yellow tiger error was never caught) I just suspect that under extreme microscopic and scientific examination that the black star Campos's might all be faked? Just thinking out loud. dave.

[ALR-bishop]

If it was faked, or could easily be faked, I wonder why there are not a lot more of them. On the House, there do not seem to be many of these either, do you think it was an initial error that was corrected, or a later error/print defect that was corrected. In any even, I am glad I have both of them already. I also have the Campos were the upper left front border, top and side, are missing. That was discussed in SCD not long back. It may be more scarce than the black star

It is interesting the Zernial was never fixed, maybe people were too transfixed by those balls

[Volod]

Not having given these anomalies much thought, I hope this isn't an irrelevant or naive question, but I wonder if any uncut sheets of 1952 Topps surfaced over the years that happened to include the Campos card. That is, if such a sheet contained a Campos with any of the errors, it would seem extremely strange indeed that no other cards on the sheet were printed with the same error.

[Brianruns10]

Originally Posted by Volod

That is, if such a sheet contained a Campos with any of the errors, it would seem extremely strange indeed that no other cards on the sheet were printed with the same error.

I think it makes perfect sense it would only happen on the Campos. After all, that's the nature of an error: a one time thing, a mistake that made it past initial quality control. If there was more than one instance, than it would suggest intent, which would be very odd.

As is, I think it's a matter of when they were creating the printing plate, the star device from the red layer somehow made it onto the black as well. I'm not sure how...I'll leave that to someone who knows more about the whole printing process.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Brianruns10

I think it makes perfect sense it would only happen on the Campos. After all, that's the nature of an error: a one time thing, a mistake that made it past initial quality control. If there was more than one instance, than it would suggest intent, which would be very odd.

As is, I think it's a matter of when they were creating the printing plate, the star device from the red layer somehow made it onto the black as well. I'm not sure how...I'll leave that to someone who knows more about the whole printing process.

Masking error?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by toppcat

Masking error?

Most likely.

There would be original art, probably a pasteup for the whole sheet.
That would have been photographed by a very large camera that made a sheet size negative.
Then opaque paper would be used to make a mask to block out the parts not desired in a particular color.
Those would be used to expose the plates.

So if the mask was torn a bit or made wrong, the star would have been exposed and the plate would print a black star.

Repairing that error would be as simple as applying a bit of opaque tape over the star, or taping down the torn bit. It could even be corrected directly on the plate with a special limestone crayon.

Correcting the Zernial woud require at the least a small portion of new original art, a new negative -Either complete or a small piece spliced in, a new mask if it wasn't spliced, and a new plate. Lots of work.

Steve B

[ALR-bishop]

Thanks for the input Steve

[Republicaninmass]

Just found this Campos, where the top left of the star is black, I might be able to get a tighter scan, but it is definately there

[con40]

Steve is dead-on regarding the production of the press plates and how an unintended element could print on the wrong plate. Removing unwanted elements on spot printing (like all pre-1992 Topps backs) is as easy as "stoning it off the plate". Often, the pressman will miss bits of the element that is why there could be a few (dozens at most) of a Campos card that shows a bit of the star...

1. Art director sees the extra black star on the card and asks for its removal.
2. Pressman stops the press, stones the star off the black plate, then restarts the press.
3. After running a few sheets, the pressman pulls a sheet to show the AD. The sheet still shows trace bits of the black star.
4. Pressman stops the press again and repeats step 2.
5. Start the press again to pull a clean sheet for approval.

Topps being a frugal company in those days, would likely have kept the error sheets in the print run to make the full sheet count knowing that the error would be corrected in the vast majority of the sheets.

If it happened like in the scenario above, the scarcity might be...

1. Red star only most common
2. Black over red scarce
3. Partial black over red very scarce

Depending on how many times the pressman had to stone the plate, there could multiple versions of Campos with varying degrees of the star visible.

[ALR-bishop]

Thanks to Keith and Steve both

[Republicaninmass]

Thanks again to all of the knowledgeable people on this board!

[Volod]

Yes, fascinating info, indeed. But, does this now mean that a master set is not complete without a Campos with - what - a black line at upper left point of the star, black line at upper right of the star...at what point (pun) does it become silly?

[ALR-bishop]

Print defects, variations, errors and variants of all kinds are endless. I only worry about them once they are listed somewhere like SCD, Beckett or the Registry. With Bob L retired SCD may now be a closed book. Would a grading company recognize a variant in slabbing a card if it did not first have hobby recognition from some source ? I am not a graded guy but would think maybe not

[Republicaninmass]

I personally would ask for it to be labeled "partial black star" if it is any less than 100% visible, I wouldnt think a master set would need to have this included, but if they consider a t205 Matty Hassan back error a variation, anything is possible

[ALR-bishop]

If you use SCD, or Beckett, or the Registry checklist for your master set ( which is what I do) you at least have a finite parameter. If all variants, listed or not, are included in what one considers to constitute a master set, then no master set will ever be complete. It may only matter from a Registry standpoint since for the rest of us we can always define a master set anyway we want

Ted--- I would think if you can get PSA to grade it with some special designation and add it to their Registry checklist, it would not only be part of the definition used by many or most for inclusion in master sets, but also a lot more valuable .

I mentioned that I have a 52 Campos with a portion of the front top border missing, and that card ( not mine) was written up and pictured in an SCD article. Yet it is still not included in any master lists I know about , and for that reason just another oddity without much recognition or value...except to me and whoever has one

[Republicaninmass]

Ther are many throughout the 52 set, as there are other sets. Recently it appears the 52 Frank House Yellow tongue has been going for huge money, however just not being included in a checklist, doesnt mean people dont want it...BUT the registry is a powerful drug!

[ALR-bishop]

I have that one, as well as the 52 Woodling and Scheib border breaks, but the run on those, and the price increases ( particularly on the House), happened only after Bob Lemke wrote them up in SCD articles. The Woodling and Scheib are just print defects, and he so labeled them. But I think Bob was leaning towards categorizing the House as a variation therefore making it a bigger deal. It would help if you can get it written up somewhere. Maybe Bob or Dave Hornish would take an interest in their blogs

I wish you the best on your Campos. I's a neat item, and if Keith is right maybe a missing link between the regular and black star Campos

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

I have that one, as well as the 52 Woodling and Scheib border breaks, but the run on those, and the price increases ( particularly on the House), happened only after Bob Lemke wrote them up in SCD articles. The Woodling and Scheib are just print defects, and he so labeled them. But I think Bob was leaning towards categorizing the House as a variation therefore making it a bigger deal. It would help if you can get it written up somewhere. Maybe Bob or Dave Hornish would take an interest in their blogs

I wish you the best on your Campos. I's a neat item, and if Keith is right maybe a missing link between the regular and black star Campos

I'm not sure I have it in me to tackle Topps printing variations

[ALR-bishop]

I guess I did sort of throw you under the bus

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

I guess I did sort of throw you under the bus

Too bad Dick Gilkeson can't (won't?) do a consolidation of all his E&V work. Although I admit it does get a bit daunting keeping track of everything and can't blame him one bit.

(I think I am burning out on the research a little-might be time for a short break)

[ALR-bishop]

I have his publications through 1995. Great stuff. i wonder if he still collects ?