Blue version of '58 Topps Aaron?

[MilBraves]

Is this card legit? http://cgi.ebay.com/1958-TOPPS-HANK-...item35afc93a0b

I have been collecting Braves cards for a while, mainly Bowman's, Spic and Spans, Johnson cookies etc. I have recently been building sets of Topps and have gotten to the '58 set and am familiar with the white letter/yellow letter Hank but I have never seen a blue background Aaron.

[ChiefBenderForever]

Yeah its good someone else had one not to long ago maybe it's the same card. I have had a couple commons with red and orange backs. Are you questioning the wisdom of PSA, if they say it's good it's good right ???????

[MilBraves]

Are you saying you have seen cards from the same player with different background colors? Because from what I've seen of the 58's, the background color should be the same for a given player. If this card is an oddball, wouldn't PSA make note of it on the holder?

The team letters on the Aaron card should be yellow not white as well.

[SMPEP]

So others will be more expert on this than I am ... but they used to print these cards with a series of colors. This appears to be one that someone forgot to add the yellow print run to (blue plus yellow = green; also explains the name and the logo being off).

Wow, I finally was able to contribute an answer to this board. My first ever!

[mrmantlecollector]

I posted a 58 blue back aaron a few months ago.I picked up at a card show this summer. Was wondering if was legit and now seeing another i feel better about it. Thanks for posting
heres mine

[Exhibitman]

It is a printing error. PSA's grader that day apparently was is too stupid to realize it.

[ChiefBenderForever]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

It is a printing error. PSA's grader that day apparently was is too stupid to realize it.

Come on now they could be colorblind ! And to answer yes I have had the same player with an orange back and a red back and nobody I showed them to was very impressed but I kept thinking what if I had a red back Mantle then eyes would pop out !!!!!!!!

[doug.goodman]

That card is nothing more than a glorified print dot. If every goofy error made by a company that produced billions (trillions?) of cards was thought of as a variation, then there would be billions (trillions?) of variations. I can't wait to hold THAT catalog.

Having said that, it is a HOF player, and it is kind of cool, far more cool than the Herrera.

I was pleasantly surprised at how low it went for.

And, I'm happy to now own it.

Insert smiley face here.

Doug

[ALR-bishop]

It is glorious Doug.

[the Rock]

Why is this different than a 1969 white letter Mantle as far as how it is looked at in the collecting world? A WL Mantle carries a considreable premium.

[doug.goodman]

Because it's not listed in the book, and it really is just a glorified print dot.

By that I mean it is a mistake with a very (very) limited run.

The Aaron was in the first series, if the missing yellow was on the whole sheet, then seven other green background cards should also exist with a blue variation :

Burdette
Mantilla
Rice
Johnson
Tanner
Logan
Torre

Not to mention the other background colors and what the lack of yellow ink would do to them.

Clemente has a yellow background.

Fun,
Doug

[ALR-bishop]

Doug---you have to stop clouding the issues with facts

[ls7plus]

From the perspective of a hall-of-famer collector, it is a pretty neat variation, mere printing error or not (and it appears pretty obvious that the entire card is simply missing the yellow ink). If ever in doubt as to whether it's legit, check the print dot pattern with a loupe.

Larry

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

From the perspective of a hall-of-famer collector, it is a pretty neat variation, mere printing error or not (and it appears pretty obvious that the entire card is simply missing the yellow ink). If ever in doubt as to whether it's legit, check the print dot pattern with a loupe.

Larry

I own the specific card that started this thread, the ebay auction ended with a price that was considerably less than I had expected it to go for, which is good because my high bid wasn't much more than what I paid. I used my handy dandy kitchen knife to remove the plastic jail it had been confined to. It is real.

I still think it's a glorified print dot, but agree with Larry that it's a pretty neat variation, especially because of it's subject.

I am very intrigued by the probable existence of the other blue background variations, and I'm betting that Al (ALR-Bishop) and myself aren't the only ones who have looked thru their own collections...

Doug

[fkw]

I believe I was the underbidder on the last Blue '58 Aaron on eBay a couple months back. I didnt have much spare $$ when I made the bid and just threw out a snipe bid (if I remember right was a bit under $100). I rememeber thinking wow I almost won it even though I wasnt really trying and expecting it to go well over my bid.

I too thought it went for far lower $$ than expected, But I dont really collect Topps cards anymore. I dont even remember how I found the auction but do remember the earlier post mrmantlecollector showed his card, so knew what it was. I still have a search on eBay looking for other Blue '58 Aarons, but Ive only seen the 2 mentioned here.

[MilBraves]

I bid on it too. I would have liked to have gone higher but the decision was..the blue Aaron or money into a Spahn '55 Spic and Span die cut card I had an opportunity to obtain at a really great price. I chose the Spahn(see avatar).

[ls7plus]

See, it IS a pretty neat variation! And it might eventually have some premium value. The area of die varieties took quite awhile to catch on in coins, but when it did, values on those variations actually listed in the official guide book really took off. I just left a thread in the pre-war section, where Scott displayed a very neat '26-'29 Exhibit Gehrig in yellow (which I believe is quite a tough variation--Adam (Exhibitman) would be better qualified to comment) SGC graded "poor," and was a bit envious, even though I own the regular card in SGC 60 "excellent." This board is a pretty good test with regard to present and potential interest.

Thanks for posting!

Larry

[Allen]

With all due respect, In my opinion, if the '58 yellow letter variation is indeed a "variation", in this set, then the '58 Blue Background Aaron is a "variation" as well! An error card is caused by a group of cards, (more than one) that are the same, but being different than the other cards in a set, caused by either the machine's malfunction, or the human operator's error on a paticular run, on a paticular day, (A dripped "ink spot" does not apply here). This is true with many different collectibles from all over the world, including, mis-stamped coins, errors in printed currency, stamps, cards, and etc.
With the 1958 Topps yellow letter variation, a group of cards had a different color of ink from the standard cards in the set. Also, with the 1958 Topps Aaron card, a group of cards had a different collor of ink from the standard cards in the set. Plain and simple...the 1958 Topps Aaron card with the "Blue Background" is in fact an error card, and a variation within the set! As more collectors share their "Aaron Bluebacks", the industry will in fact one day, recognize this variation, as an error card! I am 54 years old, I hope it happens in my lifetime.
Congrats to those of you who have been lucky enough to find one of these Aaron "Blue Background" cards.

I was lucky enough to secure an OC example about 40 years ago in Atlanta, (shown below). I also saw another one about 10 years ago at a Charlotte card show., but it was very rough. After doing an on line search, and reading these two threads, I know that at least 8 of these cards existed at one time. I'm very sure more are out there although very rare, and I hope people will continue to post them.

http://i1350.photobucket.com/albums/...psfe1e83f7.jpg

It was never about the bubble gum...

[Allen]

Hope this photo shows up...

http://i1350.photobucket.com/albums/...psfe1e83f7.jpg


It was never about the bubble gum...

[Allen]

Because it's not listed in the book, and it really is just a glorified print dot.

By that I mean it is a mistake with a very (very) limited run.

Doug...I agree that this was a "mistake". Websters defines a mistake as an "ERROR". Would this make this card in fact, an error card?




It was never about the bubble gum...

[ALR-bishop]

There are a lot of uncorrected error cards. SCD list a bunch of them . If the error is corrected it is usually listed as a variation. Sometimes errors are unintentional but occur because of an intentional change in the printing process ( 62 greenies) and sometimes they are just defects in the print process ( 82 Topps Blackless). I think the blue Aaron is a recurring print defect, but it is a variant to the regular green background card.

On the other hand some mere print defects, the 52 Campos, the 57 Bakep, and the 58 Herrer have achieved superstar variation status in the hobby.

Everyone just has to collect what appeals to them. Variants of any kind appeal to me, even if they are just glorious print dots.