Originally Posted by ALR-bishop (Post 1973400)

Good analysis Steve. The intentional change definition sounds simple but can be complicated in practice. It Topps adds a option or traded line that is easy, but it is often impossible to tell if a defect was discovered and intentionally changed or not

Another good example are DPs. In the last printed Standard Catalog Lemke listed variations for the 52 Mantle, Thompson and Robinson. PSA does not recognize them. The differences can be found on the front and back. The differences were likely not intended but did result from an intentional decision to DP those 3 cards

George Vrecheck has written articles on DP differences in the 63 and 55 (56?) sets. Green tint non pose differences from 62 are another example. Probably not intended but did result from an intentional change in the printing process. Variations ?

Bet a lot of 52 Master collectors are praying PSA does not adopt the 52 Mantle as a variation ;)

It would be tough to come up with a hobby definition that all would buy into or that would cover all past and future official variations

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop (Post 1973634)

Greatly appreciate all your work Richard

Originally Posted by steve B (Post 1973997)

I'll add a "me too" on all the work Richard has done. Everyone who has made a major effort to document this stuff should get some hobby recognition of some kind.

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman (Post 1974158)

For the nearly twenty years since I bought the Rick Reuschel on eBay I have kept an eye out for the other half, a Art Howe underneath it on the sheet. He finally showed up last week. Both cards are cut identically so I thought maybe they were both off of the same exact sheet, but it looks like the blue ink flaw doesn't line up perfectly when they are placed together. Now if I could find the Bill Atkinson that was under the Bob Boone...

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman (Post 1972702)

Nice work! The card on the end of the top row can also be found with the print error of green in the ball, Russ Kemmerer. Personally, I'm not a fan at all of considering these 1961 cards with dashes of green in the ball as variations, even the Fairly that fills up three quarters of the ball. They are just interesting print anomalies. ETA: There are a few of the 61 Moryn on COMC.

Originally Posted by e6phillips (Post 1974980)

Here's a variation of the 1956 Haddix - red line in the upper right corner.

I've seen a lot of posts about 1956 variations but have not seen this one mentioned.


Attachment 396721

Attachment 396722

Attachment 396723

Originally Posted by timber09 (Post 1975649)

Pretty happy I found this thread - well sort of, now it looks like I have about a weeks worth of digging through boxes ahead of me.

I stumbled upon these blank backs - I imagine they are pretty standard issue but I haven't been able to find any information on them or similar cards. Any help is appreciated.

Keep up the great work - love the content here!

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes (Post 1975670)

Nice finds Joe....not sure how common these 1960s blanked backed cards are, however, in many years of going through cards I have come across just this one blank backed Sullivan card. Recently I came across this Harris card with the Essegian back upside down.

Originally Posted by Sliphorn (Post 1976223)

This is #14 Fenian and #30 Power. Notice the lack of a top line on the logos. You can see on the Fenian that the bat in the Athletics logo touches to the top margin on one version.

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes (Post 1984693)

My question is that since he seems to infer that there is more than one white letter in the name on front, does anyone have a copy of this card with multiple white letters in the name?

Originally Posted by joejo20 (Post 1986343)

Found these years ago together and held onto them. No name on back and missing yellow. Joe

Originally Posted by Sliphorn (Post 1993042)

We are all familiar with the copyright vs. NO copyright on this one. A late discovery is the card with a blue slash at the lower left side. I just bought an extra version of it and found that the blue slash was on a COPYRIGHT PRESENT version while the others were on the NO copyright version. Therefore, this is a mystery as to how the slash, an obvious error, appears on both versions of the copyright.

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman (Post 1990088)

I saw a 1978 Topps Bump Wills Black Circle error card a few years ago with that stamp on it, it was off grade otherwise it would have been a shame. This is the only stamped card that I own, a real neat 1977 Topps Pete LaCock print error ruined by the stamp.

Originally Posted by Collectorsince62 (Post 1993932)

I was pleasantly surprised to see the "asterisk Life" version of the '55T Wehmeier in my set. I wish it had better centering, but certainly not unusual for that set. I don't look for this variation since I only recently became aware of it, but a quick check of recent auction results doesn't show it coming up very often. For those of you who follow variations closer than me, how tough is this one?

Originally Posted by Sliphorn (Post 1995649)

I have scanned all versions of this. In the obverse photo, the NO copyright versions are on the right. In the reverse photo, the slap present versions are on the right. I have seen at least five of these for sale on eBay at some point. A few have now started going for lower prices, perhaps since more are there.

Originally Posted by swarmee (Post 2009380)

You can see the yellow in the blue fields behind the name. All look intentionally sun-bleached to me.

Compare to:
https://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/1969...&size=original
1969 Topps - [Base] #461.2 - Mike Epstein (White Last Name) [Good*to*VG‑EX]
Courtesy of COMC.com

Entirety of circle is green, since it got the yellow and blue color passes (as we know from the old Ziploc commercials)...

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop (Post 2011749)

Not sure if Cliff does 54 Bowmans but if so could probably trace it all out :-)

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop (Post 2011937)

So not rare. Scarce? If not a DP how did the Erskine and Rowe occur ?

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop (Post 2011937)

So not rare. Scarce? If not a DP how did the Erskine and Rowe occur ?

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop (Post 2011969)

It was a chore collecting all the error and correction cards, if only because many were so minor. Maybe John is right it was detected and corrected early with the other errors. But I would guess the error and corrected cards are both more plentiful than these, right ?

Originally Posted by aronbenabe (Post 2013439)

Giant sized 1968 Topps card of Orlando Pena

Originally Posted by aronbenabe (Post 2013448)

The first name is supposed to be in black, as it is on all cards in this set.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes (Post 2013484)

Light printing of a specific color, in this case black, is common .... if there was missing print versus light print, than that would be uncommon, IMO.

Originally Posted by aronbenabe (Post 2013988)

Saved From My Spokes,

Thanks for your response, but i beg to differ. Firstly, this is a sliver color, not an expert but it seems to be at the opposite spectrum of black. Second, I’ve probably seen over 10,000 Topps 1968 cards in my adulthood and never came across another one from that set....it seems indeed quite rare.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk