In my defense, I posted the Phillips card before we set the no Cardinals rule!

I've kept myself to only the one smear copy, this seems like one of a number of such defects that have essentially unlimited manifestations of the basic printing problem.

:D

I agree with Phillips. You could go on forever with different variations. I only expanded it because they are inexpensive and easily gotten, with the exception of a clean one. That was quite a chore to find a clean one.

It's nice when they are cheap, I hate when some schmuck posts a superstar variant :D

Some of these I just settle for one copy, others I obsessively hoard all the different manifestations I can find. I've got to be up to 20+ different copies of the 1959 Hank Sauer yellow smearing now.

I looked for a clean Phillips and thought I found some, but after getting 2 of them they have turned out not to really be actually clean. I think I'm calling it a day lol

I am sure that my "clean" one will actually not be clean when I get it. It should be the cleanest of the bunch so it will be ok.

I received this sweet little specimen in the mail today.

That one used to go for a fair amount of money at one time

I paid more to have it shipped than I did for the card. I’ll chalk it up to luck.

Depending on the seller is still does.:rolleyes::D

These two cards have a different team name in black over the silver application of the team name. Many cards have issues with missing silver or smearing, but this is different. I got these out of a factory set. 2006.

187 Ryan Klesko (not sure what the word is)
234 Luis Rivas ("Royals" over the silver Twins)

Are those reoccurring? With my Cardinals collection that is always the key for me.

I don't know, I was hoping someone here might know. Unlike a 50's or 60's common, there are not many 2006 Luis Rivas cards online to look at to ID others. It's somehow harder to match defects with high print run more recent cards...

86 Topp Cal Ripken blank and Tom Foley finger print
 

1986 Topps Cal Ripken Blank back and Tom Foley Finger Print.
Thought they were cool.
Both came from rack packs.

That Foley is awesome. I have a few fingerprint cards.

ya i think it's kinda neat.
now that i'm getting into cards again,
i kinda like the weird misprint cards more than the non.
i can see how you could get whole sections of finger print, double print, less ink etc. in a collection.

I do think that Cal Ripken is pretty unique. Too bad no back, it is pretty well centered.

There are some Cardinals players with clear finger prints on the front posted in the long post war pre 1980s variations thread. But no doubt Shane has all of those ;)

1972 Topps Jerry McNertney? Yep! I got 'em. I don't have the "big yeller blob" version, though.

That yellow blob has proven to be real elusive too.

It might not be recurring. Probably not a candidate for the top 100 thread ;):)

kirby puckett , greg maddux, benny santiago, others
 

Here are a few 1990's I got a mess of theses I'll post a few more wally joyner randy johnson etc later.
I like the blue splotch ones.
Not sure if they are double print or what but they are interesting.
Thanks

Oh, really!?!? I understood it from the other thread to be reoccurring. If it is not reoccurring, then it doesn't exist to me!

:p :D

Those are a real puzzle.

Usually that sort of thing is from the foil roll not advancing and the foiling equipment trying to apply foil that isn't there anymore.

You can sort of see where the foil panels on the sides are incomplete too.

The question though is what card the foil was put on. I'm not familiar enough with 2006 Topps to know, but the font is different, and it doesn't affetct the bottom half of the card.

Foil problems are pretty common in 2006, where the foil is a little incomplete in a small spot, or slightly goes outside the lines. This is pretty unusual, but so few common cards are online, unlike vintage base, that it might be recurring and even fairly common. I did expect to find two more cards from this sheet misprinted wherever this stray text came from, but everything else on the sheet was printed right (since it came from a factory set, all the cards on that sheet is in this box). Odd.

1980 Topps Fred Stanley
 

I found this in a box of 1980 Topps. I haven't seen anything like it on any other cards from the set.

There are a number of different versions of the name color variants in the 80 set.

Nice find.

Cheers,

Butch

You just aren't looking hard enough then. Many cards in 1980 Topps can be found with this exact type of printing error in their names. Poquette, Braun, Wathan, McEnany, etc.

Several others who only have blue printed names can be found with all or part of their name missing.

The Stanley was first up in SCD over 10 years ago but there are several similarly affected. Braun, Whathan, Poquette and Washington among them. Mr Bowman ( Cliff) I think has mapped them and the Pryor no name progeny in here in one thread or another

Good find

Got these two delivered in the mail today. The only one that counts for this thread is the 93 Russ Swan with the double print Major League Record line. Another variation checked off.

Jr. will adorn my binder edge for the 94 Stadium Club Members Only set.

Cheers,

Butch

I went through my 92 Topps recently looking for variations and I found dozens of the typical stray print mark and color shift type of variation but I also found one variation that was a catalog type variation.

The 92 Topps don't have the registration symbol above the Topps logo but I have a Carlos Quintana card that has one.

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...ale/img359.jpg[/IMG]


I also found different degrees of the variation in the cards that I have ranging from a clear symbol to where you can barely see a faint outline of the symbol
to no sign of it at all.

All of these except the bottom example came from packs that I opened 30 years ago.

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...20-%20Copy.jpg[/IMG]

A few of the more interesting 92 variations I found. There a lot of name shifts like the Palacios but most aren't as severe and the black letters aren't broken up like the Palacios.

Attachment 552494

Attachment 552495

Attachment 552496

Attachment 552497

Nice find. Definitely a legit variation.

I picked up a factory set a couple weeks ago at a local show. The Quintana in it is the one without a trace of the registration logo.

Pretty cool to see a new, true variation found

The best I could find with 1992 Topps is Geronimo Pena #116 which has a perfectly straight top border and one where there is a section of the line that is off kilter. Both are super plentiful however.

Found and purchased another variation of the Quintana registration mark. With this one the R is partially covered making it look more like an N.

Attachment 553085

Attachment 553086

I sure do not have much for 1992.Can not recall if Bachman is recurring. On card 126 at one time I thought print size varied, but maybe not.

Had not been aware of the Pena or Quintana

I'm just going through the cards I received today and have the 92 Backman that has a smidge missing at the top border of the card. The 92 Murphy #706 I got from a pack.

The 94 Watkins is missing the copyright information and the 94 DeShields is the Red team and position variation. Babe is the 95 with Topps variation.

The Watkins, DeShields and Ruth used to be listed in the SCD Standard Catalog when it still did post 1980 listings. There are at least 4 versions of the Ruth, logo, no logo, date of birth and a co brand Topps/Conlon

Watkins is a 1994 Topps card BTW

Fixed, thanks.

Al,

are you saying there is a version without his birthdate on front?

I know of:

Topps w/ logo
Topps w/o logo
Topps / Conlon

All have the birthdate on front. Which one can be found without it?

Dylan,

My guess is Al means this one for the birthdate.

Sorry Dylan, I was not very precise. This is what I have

Gotcha, relieved to hear it!

I have an extra of this one if anyone wants to buy...

thakns

Jim Gantner - Spider Webb
Attachment 553283

A different version of the Quintana registration mark is also found on some of the micro's. I have yet to see any on the gold or gold winners.

Attachment 553374

Attachment 553375

Is this yellow in Pitcher on the 1980 Don Stanhouse card a known variation? Just noticed this today looking through my set.

I don't know if it's well known or not but I bought one years ago on eBay that had the yellow in the listing description. I also have Putman and Wockenfuss which I believe are known. ETA, mine is a little different than yours.

Who was in charge of the yellow paint in 1980?

In my opinion 1980 Topps is the most screwed up Topps set print error wise, it has everything.

Looks like someone wiped mustard across the top half of your Stanhouse card :)

!980 is chuck full of oddities. 1991 may beat it out if backs are considered

I've had people tell me that there are more of these partial wrong back 2002 Fleer Traditions but I've never seen any.

Attachment 554760
Attachment 554761


Attachment 554762
Attachment 554763

Those are cool, odd kind of wrong back. I had a blast with those Fleer Traditions when they came out, Goudey’s at Target was perfect.

4 card print variation
 

Found one card.
Then found another and saw that it fit.
Then found the 3rd
and recalled the Deion Sanders and it fit.
Kinda cool to find all four, like a puzzle or error cards.

That is awesome that you found all 4 cards that fit together.

+ 1

I just picked up Bump Wills 79 Rangers variation (other one got lost in the move) and new for me, 84 Jim Palmer, missing losses on back (circled). Bump does not really fit this thread but one post verses two is good enough. There were more 84s than 79 so that won out. The McGee and Robertson were upgrades not variations.

Cheers,

B.T.

There are several different versions of the missing stats on the Palmer

Thanks Al,

I'll be on the lookout.

Cheers,

B.T.

I found a 5th card which I think is the final one.
Most fun I've had with error cards.

I have an offer, all five cards for $100.
The person really want's them, nice enough guy from what I can tell, but the push for the cards makes me think this print error might be more desirable than I thought.

I can't think of anything special except looks neat and the puzzle is put together.

I don't understand the values on printing errors, from big bucks to a few pennies.

I have no idea about value, but that’s really cool to piece together. Thanks for sharing the project.

They remind me of the Topps 1986 Seaver, Clemons and Puhl related variants. The Seaver and Clemens have star power but even the Puhl brings a good premium. Now that you have unveiled them maybe they will catch on too in terms of value. Hard to predict, as Greg noted

I could be wrong but I don't believe that is a recurring print defect, from what I understand that's from water drops being on the sheets as they are being printed and rolled and are randomly anywhere on any sheet. It seems like the late 80's-early 90's Topps sheets were the main culprits. I'm sure an expert will explain it better :D.

I think you've nailed it.

I got two of the Rijos cards no other repeats.

That means I was a little off on my theory then, apparently the water moisture is on the print roller and will probably cause the same flaw on a few sheets similarly until the water is gone from the roller at that spot.

Isn't that still a printing variation and recurring defect (assuming all do recur), as it happened during printing? Water on the roller being the cause, but all printing variants and defects have a cause. Or am I crazy for still thinking of that as a printing variant?

If I was offered $100 for those they would have been instantly sold. I consider myself crazy and think I highly overpay for print defects and I wouldn't pay more than $20 delivered. Just my novice opinion.

thank you.
I see sold crazy prices on the epay.
I don't get it why you would pay a grand or so for a dot missing?

Yes, I stand corrected, if he has two Rijo cards that are nearly identical then that is recurring, but there can't be more than a few of them.

The error card world is crazy and nothing in it makes sense and I have been collecting them for 35 years easily.

All of those completed sales are fake. Not a single "dot missing" type of "error" listing is a real sale.

What are examples of missing dot errors ?

I think he means the majority of these.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw...Sold=1&_sop=16

Those too, but referring to these, I believe:

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_fro...p=16&LH_Sold=1

All 1989-1992 Donruss cards have a INC. or INC version. Same with 1991-1992 Leaf. Similarly, 1990-1992 Fleer products all have U.S.A. or U.S.A versions. Neither version is in shorter supply. Since 2020, there have been very large sales showing for these cards. None of which have been substantiated and usually are from a zero feedback seller with a single starting bid win.

2000 Topps Magic Moments
 

Cal Ripken Jr. - 238 Streak Ends

Got this one today, it is missing foil mentioning his ROY award. Gotta be more out there somewhere. Regardless, this one is a keeper!

1988 Fleer Baseball MVP; one of their innumerable late 80's 44 card sets, this one for Toys R Us distribution. Mike Dunne comes with or without this blue line to the left of his name. Correct copy is the common one.

Jim Palmer's 1983 Fleer card comes with or without this white blotch over his birthplace. Both seem to be easy.

Cataloguing my 83 Fleers and noticed Nolan Ryan comes with a similar splotch, over his Height and Born lines. With or without the splotch are both easy.