Are there many variants among the 3 boys, Joe?

Speaking of boys and variations, I have two boys whose greatest variance is their age, one is in 3rd grade, the other 6th. However, as of last week they were the same height and within a pound of each other. When they play on the same team they are routinely mistaken for each other....to avoid this, my younger son decided to wear his socks high to differentiate himself from his brother. This year they will be on different teams, thankfully.

Great looking cards....and kids

Someone, I think Larry, back in 514 posted two variants of the 57 Del Crandall with what appears to be a spike mark through his cap. I looked for a log time before finding this one, that included a couple of extra oddities as well

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...psrtib1vwn.jpg

I'd heard of blue-flaming a fart but I thought it was an urban myth. Then I found this in a collection I bought:

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...ize/img250.jpg

Thank you Al, appreciate it. Neither of my spiked 57 Crandall cards have the blue haze(?) ...... can you post the different 60 Crandall variations you have?

Does that mean that the 58 Musial is a "triple print"?

I believe I read before that Topps celebrated that they finally signed Musial to a contract by triple printing his first card, the 58 All Star card. ETA, I think those are the also triple printed 1958 Mickey Mantle All Star cards under the three Musial triple printed cards in the scan.

Great looking cards, SFMS!

Thank you Irv, appreciate it.

Thank you Al for posting, I have 5 of the top copy, but none of the middle.....this variation appears to be similar to the 78 Wills variation, a reverse progressive, when Topps tried to remove the "mark" they didn't get all of it and subsequently created another variation.

I can never tell if such marks were intentionally addressed or simply were errant ink that faded away on it's own in the printing process.

I have a conspiracy theory on the 1978 Topps Bump Wills circle variation card that I don't believe I have read anywhere else and I could be wrong, but I have always thought that the first version of the card is the one with the noticeable print dot in that area, the second version is the card with the large circle drawn around the print dot that was done by a proofreader for the dot to be removed but was mistakenly also printed that way for quite a bit of the press run, and then finally the third corrected version where the proofreaders black circle and the errant print dot were both airbrushed out.

Here is something similar. The blue mark next to Murphy's 302BA dissipates in the 2nd card and then disappears on the 3d one. Intentional intervention or just a print defect that faded away ?



http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...pstfgelsr1.jpg

The Brave TL is a head scratcher because the Nestle version (at least all of the copies I have seen) have the green sliver. My "guess" is that the Nestle set was produced after the regular 1984 Topps production ended. You would have thought that the green sliver would not have appeared on the 84 Nestle copy as it was removed from the regular Topps version and did not appear on any of the Tiffany copies I have.

Cliff, I think your theory will hold water....it makes more sense than a proof reader wanting the trophy moved more to the left....as it never was. Until today, that was my conjecture. The irony is that the circle was far more detrimental to the appearance of the card than the tiny print dot. The likely 3rd of 4 variations, the one with the circle mostly removed and the print dot still present, indicates that the QC folks at Topps still did not remove the print dot until after they completely removed all signs of the circle.

Noticed this recurring, partially obscured "K" in "Hendricks". Seems to be a lower pop print variation.

Actually, yes, Al. All three were born within 32 months of each other. The first is a red head like mom, the second has dark brown hair like mine, and the third is a blondie. And yes, all with the same mother. We call them Neapolitan, lol.

Here is a HOFer print variation I have not seen before. This 70 Topps Juan Marichal has some sort of bluish print spot taking up most of his upper right arm. The blobs (each of blob appears unique) are themselves recurring but limited.

1948 Blue Tint VanderMeer
 

It appears that the numbers above #40 (of 48) mostly do NOT have the card number. The numbers 40 and below DO. I am not aware of lower numbered cards not having the number shown. A search for VanderMeers yields no other cards with the number. They obviously DO exist though.

Maybe someone already showed this. There appears to almost be a blacked out area on the right edge of this 1974 Rookie Shortstops card.Attachment 351311

Attachment 351313

That card was on the right edge of the sheet and undoubtedly the black area was a printers mark or a helping guide on sheet cutting, it was probably eliminated after someone noticed it showing up on the card in the early printings. A couple of other cards that had a similar problem that were later corrected with the outer sheet mark removed were 1960 Topps Ernie Banks and 1964 Topps Eddie Mathews.

Thanks for posting the 74 sheet. Is the Banks variation you are referring to where there is writing on the bottom of the card?

Yes, the 1960 Ernie Banks has ‘SECTION II’ on the edge of the card and is fairly common, the 1964 Eddie Mathews has a large blue bar on the edge of the card. The Mathews must have been caught early and is extremely rare, I have only ever seen two of them, one is on eBay for $900 and the other is owned by a very large fish member here. ETA: correction, I should have said a very large underwater mammal :D.

Hate to say it but the one on the left looks like a reproduction of the one on the right. Look at the image quality.

I think 2 of the Mathews were posted in this thread earlier....somewhere

Double post

Picked up this super rare print variation from a fellow member. The reoccurring print error is the faint yellow line that goes from the top to bottom of the card. I added the black line, the yellow line is a little to the left of it. These don't carry a premium but are a super rare known reoccurring print error on a very famous card.:)

Picked up this Jennings 60 Fleer with Wheat on the back.

Neat card Kenny, too bad it was not another # 80 Martin back :)

Wet sheet transfer?https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...801146dacc.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Anyone know how common it is finding “SECTION 1” on a 1961 Topps card? https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...9eccda6972.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cool mis-cut. I looked at about 80 of them and found 2 with it on them. Yours has way more showing than those 2.

Odd Kaline
 

Hi Guys:

I am not much into variations, and hope this has not been mentioned before, but noted this Kaline going through my 60 Topps set.

After looking at others on ebay it appears the card with the two red lines in the upper left corner are harder to find than those without See:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1960-Topps-...AAAOSwvuNc4KNf

above with the red lines

and

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1960-Topps-...UAAOSwzTRc1Mf8

without red lines

Fred

The print lines on the 1960 Topps Kaline have been discussed here before, it can also be found on the 1960 Topps cards of Ernie Banks and Bobby Richardson.

I don't recall seeing this one mentioned before (and apologies if someone already has), a seller has one up on eBay and that's where I spotted it. The 1967 Topps #268 Johnny Briggs can be found with or without the dot above the i in his facsimile signature, the one without the dot is the rarer one but can be found. I can only guess which one is the error and which one is the correction, who knows if Topps added the missing dot later on or even eliminated the dot purposely because it was touching his arm. ETA: I also noticed that all of the copies missing the dot have a pink streak on his cap, the copies with the dot do not have the pink streak on the cap.

Cool catch. I did find a few that had the dot and pink streak so there is 3 versions.

I own two of them, having just picked one up on eBay. They are out there.

I've been collecting errors and variations from the 1990 Topps set for the past 7 years or so. Thought I'd share them here.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Xa...=w843-h1159-no

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Ty...=w825-h1159-no


https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pS...=w821-h1159-no


https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/DD...=w791-h1119-no


https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/fs...=w817-h1159-no


https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/x0...=w818-h1159-no

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/7w...3=w236-h321-no


https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Um...=w752-h1039-no


https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/4h...=w751-h1044-no

Thanks for sharing West

That Clemens is awesome.:)

Thanks! It has a PSA authentication (a 6, probably because of the missing black ink) - but they just labeled it a standard Clemens. It’s nice to have a third party grader verify it’s an authentic card, at the very least.

The Speier and other green sheet errors I found randomly in wax boxes. I saw another Speier on EBay a few years ago but haven’t seen any others.

1952 Topps Campanella
https://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/3/9/...30069144_o.jpg
Missing the R in "Major" League Batting Record plus some of the line above. Spotted by the guys on blowout.

The Campanella variant was included in the Huggins and Scott Super set a few years back. The checklist is in post 6

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=Awr9...2ULPJ6hPHVjo0-

Getting 2 of that card and the two Mantles, Thompsons and Robinsons was expensive :(

1950 Bowman
 

Here are a couple rare variations I picked up recently. If I was bidding against one of you for the Papai, Apologize.

On the Papai (#245), there is a blue slash along the bottom of the leftmost version. FYI, these are both the "no copyright" versions.

On the Frisch (#229), there is a little blue dash in the lower right margin of the right example. This is the common version so the left example, without the blue dash, is the variation and very rare, I am told. FYI, these are both the "copyright" versions.

I will soon also have another example showing a variation in the the sixth series of this set, so stayed tuned!

If it was the graded Papai auction on ebay I followed it and in the end was glad I stayed on the sideline :)

1950 Bowman
 

I was informed about a variation in the sixth (of seven) series of the 1950 Bowman Baseball set. Everyone is familiar with the last two series having been issued initially without the copyright at the bottom and then this was corrected in both sets. The bottom of these two scans shows the no copyright version. The middle version of the Hamner and top of the Stringer shows what is likely the first correction with the copyright being added. The middle version of Stringer and top of Hamner shows the probable second editing as they moved the name and logo up to avoid the collision that had resulted. I have purchased all 36 variations of this set and am awaiting their arrival. I checked fairly thoroughly and found that this situation does NOT exist in the last series at all as all 36 have the name and logo properly positioned.

Great info and find Thomas

Unless the Papai was on the bottom row of the uncut sheet, wouldn't there be a card below it that also has part of the blue line?