:)

The Fisk IA is not included in the traditional checklist, although it did appear briefly in an early SCD Catalog checklist, which is maybe why PSA slabs it.

I do not know if all the D sheet cards can be found with some black missing. An ebay seller that was promoting blackless D sheet cards coined the term, blacklessing. As seen in my first post in this thread, the A,C and C sheet cards can be found with "blacklessing" gray features ( transition cards where some black was still present )

I have one of the Fisk IA cards where some black ink is missing. Use the links to see bigger photos

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...120c31f2_m.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...d5b94891_m.jpg
https://www.flickr.com/photos/170999...posted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/170999...posted-public/

Wow, I do remember Tom Galik who back in the day had one of the best shops I had ever been in (he also did shows in the Northeast). He had one heck of a Pete Rose collection and specialized in "odd ball" items, so I'm not surprised he had this set.

Stars like Ryan and Henderson and Bret are usually pricey but one of the more expensive cards for me in putting the set together was Jack Morris. I think because it was difficult to find in all blackless without any gray traces

Awesome! Thanks for the insight.

Thanks for the info Al. This is the Morris and a few others from the set.

Al,

Thanks for the pics from the Fisk post above too. Similar to that Fisk, what do you know about the Ripken? I had never seen one like this until someone posted it on social media. I guess it would be blackless-ing since you can see a shadow of their names...

Blacklessing was a term invented by a long time seller of Blackless cards on eBay. He was the author of the description of the Fisk card in the 2nd link above. To me it is a term to describe transition cards where the black ink was running low or out. Fred, his name, would say if traces of the black or gray appears, it is not a "true" Blackless card, but a Blacklessing card. I guess it is up to each individual collector whether to make such distinctions in collecting such cards

https://huntauctions.com/phone/image...173&lot_num=64

Wow. Maybe blackless-ing cards are more sought after than I thought.

Wow!

Anyone know which Catalog this list came from? This was included with the set when originally sold. And why would 342 George Foster ($275) and 780 Pete Rose ($375) be the most expensive by far as listed in this catalog? Odd to me...

I don't recognize that one, but there were a couple one offs or briefly produced that had imaginative pricing.

If it was close to 82, Pete Rose was a big deal, and a high price on a card considered rare wouldn't be unusual.

The Foster originally had a "signature" it shouldn't have and was later corrected. That was also a bit of a big deal for a while. Not quite that big of a deal, but a fairly expensive card for 1982-3. Now? I don't even recall which one they said was harder to find.

Thanks for the info Steve. Any idea when hobby publications first wrote about the printing error? I heard that Baseball Card Magazine had an article about the no black ink variation in 82/83?

Were some of these other print defects common in the set? I have two Babcock's that have red dots/smearing on them. Curious if others are the same or different. The Corbett is the only one I have in the set that doesn’t complete the brown line on the border.

I haven't really looked at loads of 82s. I bought all three sets that year instead of trying to make them up myself.

But, as a close second, I have looked at loads of 1981 Topps. I bought something like 20,000 of them at a store closing auction.
Years later I went through them looking for differences. *
Some were really prone to ink spatter, and way more than half had some sort of consistent difference, usually trivial spots etc that had been fixed.
I doubt Topps did things much differently in 82.
I made a list, I still need to find it and get it typed up so it's more understandable.


*I was, and am still considering doing a catalog that lists all that stuff, possibly with images if digital, or loose-leaf if it's printed, so people can just get the part of the catalog they really want. Since I had so many, 81T was going to be the test for the format etc.

Sounds like that would be an awesome resource to variation collectors Steve. I would be curious if the splatters and missing ink were similar on the regular 82 vs. blackless too.

It probably will be for most Topps issues.

The spatter is probably related to the position on the sheet. I just haven't quite figured out the where and why - I haven't really worked on it.

The stray dots etc are also a Topps thing, a byproduct of Producing a lot of cards to be essentially given away. Plates wear out, and need to be replaced, Or, you run multiple presses. The mask can pick up dust etc, the same for the glass that holds the mask to the plate while It's exposed. Stuff happens to the plates (I have a really nice example of a plate scratch on a 1981 fleer)
I don't track transient stuff, but the things that are from a difference in the plate or ink or cardboard I do try to at least make a note of.

We see less of it on newer cards, the really modern presses produce the plates directly on the press from digital files, so there's a lot less of that stuff to go wrong. And probably some new stuff I just haven't seen.

The Foster was a very hot card when the blackless cards were ID'd (possibly in CPU, can't quite recall) and Rose of course was going for the hits record in the early 80's. It was just as big a craze as the 81 Fleer errors a year earlier.

Interesting info back from Fred on Blackless cards. If anyone has any of these early 80's ads, articles, price guides that reference "No Black Ink" or "Blackless" I would love to see them.


"Hi Ben,

As best I can recall, the term "No Black Ink" Errors was used by variation-and-error columnist Ralph Nozaki (spelling?) in BASEBALL HOBBY NEWS during the 1980's BEFORE (and after?) I coined what I considered to be a much better term "BLACKLESS" Variations. Nozaki did not consider the 1982 Topps Blackless to be real variations but instead deemed these cards as merely "printing errors" (as did other writers in various baseball card hobby publications back in the 1980's). I find it interesting that time as proven my belief that the 82T Blackless are very much notable and significantly valuable variations and NOT the virtually worthless "printing errors" that Nozaki and other hobby writers back then denounced these great cards as being.

Ads by "JMB Trading Cards" (during 1982 and/or 1983?) represented the first published use of my coined term "Blackless" for the 1982 Topps variations. Again as best I can recall, those ads offering a number of the 82T Blackless in BASEBALL HOBBY NEWS and SPORTS COLLECTORS DIGEST (and BASEBALL CARD NEWS?). Unfortunately I do not have handy the identity of the specific issues in which the ads appeared.

The scan that you sent me of the page from a price guide appears to be from a 1980's issue of the monthly baseball card price guide which (as best as I recall) was entitled CURRENT CARD PRICES. That price guide was edited and published by a fellow here on Long Island (New York), Richie S. At least back then the card prices in that guide were regarded by dealers and collectors (at least locally, if not much more widely) to much more accurately reflect actual market prices at the time than the Beckett monthly baseball card guide.

- Fred/crystalentia(eBay)"

Fred really did battle with Nozaki and Lemke over what he perceived the value and classification that should be accorded to Blackless. Although I collected the set because Lemke did list it in SCD, I do not think they are variations.

Nozaki is involved in a project to update the Gilkeson variations publications. Here is the link to that effort in another thread. You may be able to contact Nozaki through that site. Also, in looking I have kept various treatises I received from Fred over the years on Blackless, Blueless, Autloless, Blacklessing. If you want to pm me a mailing address I can send you copies ( too much to scan and post)

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=277792

Interesting to see he's involved, and still in the hobby. I have his 1975 book, which along with the variations listed other places got me into variations.

I was looking at The Trading Card Database and noticed they don't call the Blackless cards variations either. They list them as a "Parallel" set :)

https://www.tradingcarddb.com/Insert.../89/1982-Topps

Yes, they get to decide whether a variation is an actual variation (which means they show up on the regular checklist) or is a parallel. I'm not sure I would consider it to be a parallel set, since not all cards are on the checklist.

The 68 Topps Milton Bradley set is viewed by some as a parallel set and by others as variations to the 68 set. It also is only a partial set. Interestingly two of the MB cards, Cox and Brinkman, have long been viewed as variations to the 68 set ( incorrectly in my view)

There are many views on what is or should be a "variation" but there is no real standard hobby definition or official arbiter of what should be on a set check list. The process has been mostly ad hoc

If the MB cards never came in 1968 Topps packs, I'm not sure how anyone can think they are a variation. Only makes sense to me to call them an independent reprint set, along with the football and car cards that came in the board game. A complete set would be all the cards from the board game; just the baseball would be a subset.

I actually did a lot of the pricing for the first couple years of CCP, guess I was accurate. Richie used to say I wasn't always LOL

I assume it is because everyone has there own notion of what is or should be a variation and they do not always agree, and there is no hobby standard.

I personally agree they are not variations, and am ok with calling them reprints or a parallel set, but I think the hobby has ruled otherwise on Cox and Brinkman, so I keep a second copy of their MB cards in my 68 set as well as in my MB set :)

I also agree that they are a subset, but SCD and Lemke have listed several Topps baseball subsets independent of the other non baseball subjects in such sets in The Standard Catalog. I have collected just the baseball subjects listed in the Catalog for the 48 Magic Photos, 55 and 56 Hocus Focus, the 54 Topps Scoops and Look and See, the 63 Great American Stamps and Valentine Foldees ( 63 and 66), the 65 Push Pulls and the 68 MBs.

And there is a variation of the MB checklist. There are 2 versions of the 107. Although Carlton Miller, our resident MB expert would disagree with me on that point. He would say the 2nd CL is card 77 in the set ( subset) and not a variation, I think because it is a DP. I tend to think of DP differences, although not necessarily intended but resulting from set up of the sheet layouts, as variations ( for example the 2 different 52 Mantles, Robinsons and Thompsons). I understand not all would agree, and that's ok with me. I am not sure anyone has a monopoly on what constitutes a real variation. Ultimately I guess the hobby as a whole decided over time

cloud
 

Picked up the Cecil Cooper - "Cloud" on back
I know they are just defects of defects but I will still try to track down the others :)
I have only seen the Madlock. If anyone has pics of any of the others I would love to see them. I asked Fred and he didn't save the scans. Thanks!

Would be interesting to know if these specific defects occurred on the typical non blackless cards too.

9 Ron Guidry with Gray “flying saucer”

60a Tony Armas small gray “egg” on back

137a George Cappuzello Purple George

365a Bill Madlock gray cloud on back

385a Ken Forsch Red strip on Cap

564a Doug Decinces gray cloud by ©

664a Dan Spillner Letters underlined

675a Cecil Cooper gray cloud on back

I have the 137 variant. My cards are on the move to a new location but will post a scan later. Also have at least 2 other cards not on Fred's list that also have defects not on the "regular" blackless cards in my set

Have never tried to run down if the defects can be found on non blackless cards but suspect they do

Wanted to see if my Madlock with and w/o a cloud match what Ben has seen previously....

I tried and tried to get them to recognize this as a variation, they refused.

Would love to see those too Al. Thanks!

Larry, yep that is it. You can send it to me for safekeeping if you wish :)

Unfortunately I couldn't find a scan of the 1982 Topps blackless George Cappuzzello with the print defect that changes the color of his name, but I have seen it before and if it is going to be considered a "variation" then the card below it on the uncut sheet should also be included on the list as it was also affected by the same print flaw, Hector Cruz. ETA, I did run across the Blackless George Cappuzzello purple name on WorthPoint. The 82 Blackless cards of Cappuzzello and Cruz are much more difficult to find without the print flaw than ones with it.

Hi guys, Here my Two Cappuzzellos:

It looks they’re both the normal version, not the one affected by the print flaw that makes his first name purple. When I looked for a blackless 1982 Hector Cruz a few years ago all I could find were ones that have the large print defect and gave up on trying to find one without it. I imagine all of the Hector Cruz cards without the defect are sitting in collections and are unavailable. The print defect that makes the Cappuzzello name purple is part of the same one that covers the Cruz card. ETA: The Cappuzzello I have scanned is poor quality but it shows the version with the purple GEORGE.

The only difference i note in my cards, additional for faint signature andother pure Blackless is one is a little soft image, and other is more color. All blackless cruz card i saw have this print defect, very interesting.

I believe there are 82 Hector Cruz blackless cards without the print flaw but I imagine the few that exist are sitting in whale collections.

If them exist, is possible less of 5.

Cliff, thanks for posting the Cappuzzello and adding another one to the list with Cruz. What shall we call that one - orange sprinkles on chin? :) Curious if that same defect went to the Gossage below Cruz on the sheet.

I only have a couple of the partial blackless like that George. Would be quite a task to track a set of those down too.

I believe this is the 564 Doug Decinces gray cloud by ©

I had no luck finding any other images but i did find an image of a sealed cello Blackless pack. How cool is that! Would love to get my hands on one of those.

Very interesting Blackless Package ben!

I'll probably get reprimanded for outing this auction, but currently on eBay there is an E* sheet 1982 Topps Yankees Future Stars card that has just the faintest remnants of their names and positions in what is supposed to be black ink. It has a complete back. The seller describes it as blackless and I would have to agree with him. Are there any known E* or F* sheet 1982 Topps blackless cards and are they accepted as such? ETA: The seller doesn't refer to it as blackless, only as a print error.

Cliff, I saw that one too. Similar to the F sheet Ripken I posted on page 2 of this thread. I would call it by Fred’s term - Blacklessing. Minimal black names but not completely blackless. I’m not tracking the blacklessing but I’d be kidding myself if I said I didn’t at least want the Ripken.

Can you imagine finding one of those full cellos Christian? Wow!

Jajaja Ben, amazing a Package of full Blackless, insane.

Nice find a full Blackless Package!

Scanned the A, B, and C sheets today for reference. This is a thumbnail of the high res images.

How many cards were in here? Incredible! Think I may have bought a card or two from you. So incredibly hard to find.

Last message was for Ben
 

Thought I was replying to the post about the box you picked up.

Hey Rob, I thought it was an incredible find too :) The entire set was in the box - 396 cards.

I haven't sold any of those but I probably will end up selling or trading the 25% or so of the set that I have in addition to the full set.

Are you collecting the set, a specific team, or player?

Ben

Holy smokes. That is insane! Congratulations! That Ripken is so cool! I’ve been buying the All-Star Cards and any HOFers. If ever looking to part with any, please hit me up!

This was a Good luck, find the whole set, is posible only 10 sets in existence.

Christian, let’s see that Mint blackless Morris. Very Nice score!!!

Hi Ben, thanks to this post i note you saw my last add to my Blackless set. Was a big surprise for me receive the grades by email and note my Jack Morris is a 1/1 PSA 9, same my Reggie Jackson and Vida blue plus 1/1 Bill Buckner PSA 8(love this card)
1982 Topps Jack Morris Blackless

Very nice Christian!!! Your set is moving along fast! Some awesome quality additions.

That Morris, oh my!!

https://www.ebay.com/itm/203007917667

Another mislabel... $7 dollar base card at best.
Hope it doesn’t end too high for the buyers sake...

Edit: ended at $122...

Hi Ben,

I note The card and note is a mislabel card. I wrote to The seller one hour before the auction ended. He responde my Message:
I appreciate your feedback. I had several really great ebayer's that provided me with similar information. Much thanks to them and to you. I had no idea and just described the card as PSA labeled. I really hated that I caused any confusion in that listing even if unknowingly. It is not worth the frustration or the money to misrepresent something and never would knowingly. I updated the description once I was made aware, worked with a bidder to cancel a bid and will obviously let the winning bidder know the card was mislabeled by PSA. Thanks, take care and be safe. He's a nice guy, but he had the confussion because dont know about blackless variation.

Yea PSA labeled a lot of the in action and all stars as Blackless when they first started slabbing them as variations. Some of the highest graded cards are mislabeled. Hope the buyer figured out what he was getting.

One of the top two bidders on that Schmidt blackless is a big Schmidt registry person.

I often find myself having a lack of sympathy for collectors who don't do even the slightest amount of due diligence in researching an issue. How can two people both bid over $100- for a card that is clearly not even the variation? Hell, a five minute Google search can tell you more about what you should be expecting for this variation. <rolls eyes condescendingly>

More than likely he knew that it isn't an authentic blackless and just wanted it for his PSA Registry Set.

That is so foreign to me. I’m sure that happens a lot, but why would you want a card for your registry set if it wasn’t the actual card....To each their own I guess.

For the Blackless set the one that is part of the registry set but should not be and will probably always remain a mislabel. Fisk IA 111.
Would love to be proven wrong, but I’ve only seen faded ones.

Another mislabel, 1982 Topps Pete Rose in Action- Blackless. The PSA Blackless pop report is unreal, lot of mislabels https://www.ebay.com/itm/333655341424

Yea they seem to have screwed up a lot of the "In Action" examples. I don't think i have seen any with the newer lighthouse label so maybe they recognize the difference now? There is a Goosage In Action on eBay that is a "Blueless" example that was graded as a Blackless.

In action and all stars have a pair of mislabels.

I have had the 2010 Topps "Cards Your Mom Threw Out" Carlton for a while and pulled the Turner out of a Topps Archives retail box from Target a few years ago.

Anyone aware of other years/products where Topps has printed cards similar to the 82 Blackless?

Someone said Gypsy Queen had something, but I don't think I have seen those.

forgive me for my lack of knowledge on this, but were these found in boxes/packs or sealed sets? assume best way to get them is to buy them from current owners, but was curious about the possible alternate routes. thank you.

They did show up in packs. I bought many of my B and C cards from sellers in Michigan who got them from packs. Many of my A cards came from sellers in NY who also got them from packs

michigan always comes up with the quality errors :)

i just picked up a blackless card for about 10 bucks. look forward to checking it out up close.

Blackless cards apparently was found in cello packs. The B and C sheet Cards are the most scarcest. This Brett is from C Sheet and is Impossible to find, very desired for George Brett Collectors.

I have been contacted on occasion asking if I would sell certain cards from my set, Brett more than once.

It was my experience B and C cards were harder to find in building my set.

I only need 1 of the Bretts, #201 IA. IA from others Hofers #101 mike schmidt and #481 carlton. Hofers regular cards #475 Trammel, #610 Henderson, both Stargells and Gossage IA. Dale Murphy is not a Hofer, but the card is very tough. Blackless Cards looks lot better than regular set

I was lucky to finish the set while it was still pretty obscure. Those, the 84 Topps Encased, 85 Topps Minis, 88 Topps Cloth 89 Topps Big Head Suckers and Topps 89 Mets/Yankee proof DHs were the toughest 80s sets for me.

It would be interesting for someone to try to complete the 82 set in gray transition cards....but not me :)

Beautiful Brett Christian! I will keep an eye out for the Brett IA.

Don’t lie Al, I’m sure you already have the Blacklessing set :)
I do like the Trammell run that jimtb posted in this thread...would be cool to have that of the stars imo.
I have gotten interested in the Blueless, but not so interested that I feel the need to go after the entire checklist.

forgive my amateurish question, but is there a way to tell from that list which cards are A, B or C? all this stuff is fascinating. sadly i went through all of my old 1982 topps recently and found none of these.

I think it is incorrect to call it a parallel set. They are just print defects, no black or partial black. They got referred to as a set because SCD gave them a separate listing in their Catalog when they did post 80 listings.

In my mind they are less of a parallel set than even the Topps 1968 Milton Bradley or 62 green tint cards.


I do have a list for the 396 card broken down by sheet if you can not find it on line

Have not double checked it but here is list from prior thread. See post 23


https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=115843

I thought I would share a contact sheet of scanned HOF’s and stars from my completed Blackless set.

I could care less about the assigned grade, but I am glad they are all well protected now.

They look great in a binder too!

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...46e32c2336.jpg

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...6a32dce450.jpg
Superior fit sleeves and 4 pocket pages...

wow, those are awesome. thanks for sharing the pics.

Would love to see examples of these if anyone has any.

I have the Cooper and have seen the Madlock and Cappuzello.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...e363c5c456.jpg