Net54baseball.com Forums

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Show...me...your print variations! (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=187722)

butchie_t 12-08-2022 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2291505)
I would like to take this moment to apologize to Shane for my past behavior and conduct in discussing variations on cards of players who played for the Cardinals. It is with a heavy heart and great regret for my past conduct that I stand here today, taking responsibility for my cruel and thoughtless actions. Not only did I participate in discussions about variants on Cardinals cards, I went even further into transgression and occasionally shared a new one. I hope that I may some day be forgiven, if not in my time on Earth, then in the next life, but forgiveness is not needed for me to take ownership and admit to the shameful sin I have committed. It will never, ever happen again, maybe. Shane, definitely don’t look at post #2,397.

ROFL.....big time. ROFL.

Honorable man that Greg for owning up to his past transgressions. That is a heartfelt apology too.

And now I gotta go find another 72 variation.

:D


Butch

ALR-bishop 12-08-2022 11:25 AM

Greg is just applying lessons learned from ErikV's pre war thread

G1911 12-08-2022 11:31 AM

Applying lessons learned, since there is no honor to be found in my actions that have contributed to the suffering of a fellow board member's collection. My apology is heartfelt though, and I hope will be taken into consideration at my sentencing. While I have brought shame and disgrace to the variations community, it has been a pleasure, gentlemen :o

butchie_t 12-08-2022 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop (Post 2291524)
Greg is just applying lessons learned from ErikV's pre war thread

Ohhh, it was not lost on me. An excellent example for sure.

Butch

butchie_t 12-08-2022 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2291526)
Applying lessons learned, since there is no honor to be found in my actions that have contributed to the suffering of a fellow board member's collection. My apology is heartfelt though, and I hope will be taken into consideration at my sentencing. While I have brought shame and disgrace to the variations community, it has been a pleasure, gentlemen :o

I for one am quick to forgive.

Regards,

I found 2 Bob's. Not easy to come by either, but the are out there for sure.

Butch

G1911 12-08-2022 11:40 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by butchie_t (Post 2291531)
I for one am quick to forgive.

Regards,

I found 2 Bob's. Not easy to come by either, but the are out there for sure.

Butch

Thank goodness, for I may need forgiveness very quick here! Shane, look away man :(

There's a lot of sub variants of the Gibson, one more common one that really only has a white slash through the "I" in "MINOR" and then there's what I think is a tougher one where most of the white streaking is focused over the cartoon's text.

butchie_t 12-08-2022 11:52 AM

2 Attachment(s)
I just picked up these two.

Shane, the new guy started it. I am just providing these for historical reference...cough.

Butch

frankhardy 12-08-2022 01:01 PM

I will have to go to my chamber and think this one over. When I come back I will have my decision.

(I've seen too much Judge Wopner as a kid!)

I have to say, Greg..... That cracked me up!

frankhardy 12-08-2022 01:20 PM

In review of this case....

I see that I need to get caught up on finding....

1959 Topps Alex Grammas (light transitional blob)

1953 Topps Wilmer Mizell ("runs" partially missing)

1972 Topps Bob Gibson (missing ink on back; multiple versions)

G1911 12-08-2022 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frankhardy (Post 2291576)
In review of this case....

I see that I need to get caught up on finding....

1959 Topps Alex Grammas (light transitional blob)

1953 Topps Wilmer Mizell ("runs" partially missing)

1972 Topps Bob Gibson (missing ink on back; 2 versions)

I really shouldn't say this as you're considering sentencing, but the Gibson is one of those variants that has tons of different versions of it. Whatever exactly happened here, the white slashing comes in tons of different patterns, and you could probably get a couple dozen different versions of it. :)

Tedwilliams1918 12-08-2022 08:34 PM

I think for 1972 Gibson a piece of dirt or something got stuck on the print plate and moved around which is why there are soo many different varieties or the variation

Tedwilliams1918 12-09-2022 09:43 AM

All my 1953 Jim fridleys
 
2 Attachment(s)
.

Tedwilliams1918 12-09-2022 09:46 AM

Sandy Koufax
 
1 Attachment(s)
Just wondering, do any of you guys have sandy with extra sand behind his ear?

G1911 12-09-2022 11:28 AM

I’ve ignored the Koufax sand, because I don’t want to buy another expensive Koufax or two lol. So he sits on my list unchecked off

Cliff Bowman 12-09-2022 02:39 PM

1 Attachment(s)
I have no clue on this one, but it is recurring https://www.ebay.com/itm/23224222556...Bk9SR4L6koyfYQ and although the other one is better centered it's priced just a wee bit too steep for me. It looks like the green wasn't printed on the bottom half of the card for some reason, causing the no name error. If the surrounding cards on the uncut sheet were also affected it would seem they would have also shown up by now.

Tedwilliams1918 12-09-2022 04:51 PM

This was topps trial run on 1990 frank Thomas nnof 🤣

G1911 12-09-2022 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman (Post 2292046)
I have no clue on this one, but it is recurring https://www.ebay.com/itm/23224222556...Bk9SR4L6koyfYQ and although the other one is better centered it's priced just a wee bit too steep for me. It looks like the green wasn't printed on the bottom half of the card for some reason, causing the no name error. If the surrounding cards on the uncut sheet were also affected it would seem they would have also shown up by now.

This is a really cool one. “A wee bit too steep”, but maybe it’s something not too bad and I could make an offer on. So I click the link. Lol. Lmao.

savedfrommyspokes 12-09-2022 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman (Post 2292046)
It looks like the green wasn't printed on the bottom half of the card for some reason, causing the no name error.

Nice find, I am thinking you meant blue rather than green:)

MikeGarcia 12-09-2022 05:27 PM

1952 Topps Gum
 
..you may have to squint a little to make it out but I think I've found out the exact size of the 1952 Topps gum piece in the packs. These things bought Buick Roadmasters and Chrysler Imperials for a lot of dentists back in the fifties.

http://imagehost.vendio.com/a/204295...ACKGUM_NEW.JPG

Tedwilliams1918 12-09-2022 06:28 PM

1953 mike sandlock
 
1 Attachment(s)
On this card the more ted the better I believed he touches sid Hudson who also has a similar problem, unfortunately some kid Carried this one in his pocket lol

Cliff Bowman 12-09-2022 06:46 PM

2 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes (Post 2292110)
Nice find, I am thinking you meant blue rather than green:)

The top of the error card obviously has a blue tint, but what I was going by is the long rectangle where his name should be, on the regular card it is green with yellow letters, on the error card it is just yellow.

JollyElm 12-09-2022 07:13 PM

The blue and yellow combine to make green.

Cliff Bowman 12-09-2022 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyElm (Post 2292158)
The blue and yellow combine to make green.

Whoops, brain fart on my part.

JollyElm 12-09-2022 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman (Post 2292166)
Whoops, brain fart on my part.

We can both edit out our posts so no one will the the wiser. :rolleyes:

frankhardy 12-09-2022 07:39 PM

As I was pondering the case of the wanton posting of Cardinals variations in violation of the new law....and I was considering what kind of punishment should be passed down....

...I was in the process of searching my extras in my collection (in which I found none), and also in the process of scouring the internetwebs to fill the voids in which certain posters shed light on...

...I too have discovered a variation. Yes....it is a Cardinals variation. I have found ANOTHER variation on the 1959 Topps Alex Grammas. There is a reoccurring white donut print defect in the bottom left blue area very close to the photo and directly above the "NA" in CARDINALS. I have purchased this one and it is on it's way to my humble collection.

Also, while doing this I discovered that my "plain ole' regular Grammas was actually the "light transitional blob" version. Therefore I had to purchase a "regular plain" one. It is also on the way.

Having said all of that....since I am now guilty of the same crime of bringing to light further Cardinals variations....I hereby deem the new law null and void. It is now repealed! Isn't that how it's done in real life?

Carry on!

G1911 12-09-2022 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frankhardy (Post 2292176)
As I was pondering the case of the wanton posting of Cardinals variations in violation of the new law....and I was considering what kind of punishment should be passed down....

...I was in the process of searching my extras in my collection (in which I found none), and also in the process of scouring the internetwebs to fill the voids in which certain posters shed light on...

...I too have discovered a variation. Yes....it is a Cardinals variation. I have found ANOTHER variation on the 1959 Topps Alex Grammas. There is a reoccurring white donut print defect in the bottom left blue area very close to the photo and directly above the "NA" in CARDINALS. I have purchased this one and it is on it's way to my humble collection.

Also, while doing this I discovered that my "plain ole' regular Grammas was actually the "light transitional blob" version. Therefore I had to purchase a "regular plain" one. It is also on the way.

Having said all of that....since I am now guilty of the same crime of bringing to light further Cardinals variations....I hereby deem the new law null and void. It is now repealed! Isn't that how it's done in real life?

Carry on!

I am absolutely outraged that the Judge has committed the same crime. I am so mad that it is distracting my attention from my other tab where I’m shopping for said new recurring defect.

Perhaps we should instill a new blanket rule. Anyone who has the temerity to discuss a new card has to buy everyone else in the thread a copy of it too.

ejstel 12-09-2022 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman (Post 2292146)
The top of the error card obviously has a blue tint, but what I was going by is the long rectangle where his name should be, on the regular card it is green with yellow letters, on the error card it is just yellow.

Same Seller also has this 1980 nettles no name for 48$ ...isnt that a deal or is the no position version that is expensive....

https://www.ebay.com/itm/23402491540...mis&media=COPY



Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Cliff Bowman 12-09-2022 10:47 PM

3 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by ejstel (Post 2292212)
Same Seller also has this 1980 nettles no name for 48$ ...isnt that a deal or is the no position version that is expensive....

https://www.ebay.com/itm/23402491540...mis&media=COPY



Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

He has a BUNCH of 1980 Topps cards with no names that I am very skeptical of. I can't think of any logical reason why all of those cards would be printed without names when the same ink is not missing from the rest of the card. I might be opening myself up to a libel case :eek: but I suspect that someone either removed the names with an eraser or used chemicals to remove the names. Here are scans of a few of them.

G1911 12-09-2022 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman (Post 2292217)
He has a BUNCH of 1980 Topps cards with no names that I am very skeptical of. I can't think of any logical reason why all of those cards would be printed without names when the same ink is not missing from the rest of the card. I might be opening myself up to a libel case :eek: but I suspect that someone either removed the names with an eraser or used chemicals to remove the names. Here are scans of a few of them.

You nailed it. You can see the names are actually still there in these pictures, just very very faint.

The seller can get in line and sue me. :)

frankhardy 12-10-2022 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2292177)
I am absolutely outraged that the Judge has committed the same crime. I am so mad that it is distracting my attention from my other tab where I’m shopping for said new recurring defect.

Perhaps we should instill a new blanket rule. Anyone who has the temerity to discuss a new card has to buy everyone else in the thread a copy of it too.

LOL!

As I spent about 2 hours last night, and most of this morning searching for these variations, I am reminded - I have a disease.

However, it helps to know that we all have this thread as a support group because....we're all nuts!

butchie_t 12-10-2022 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2292218)
You nailed it. You can see the names are actually still there in these pictures, just very very faint.

The seller can get in line and sue me. :)

The removals look too neat too. All the ones I see are not that clean.

savedfrommyspokes 12-10-2022 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman (Post 2292217)
He has a BUNCH of 1980 Topps cards with no names that I am very skeptical of. I can't think of any logical reason why all of those cards would be printed without names when the same ink is not missing from the rest of the card. I might be opening myself up to a libel case :eek: but I suspect that someone either removed the names with an eraser or used chemicals to remove the names. Here are scans of a few of them.

Looked through those 1980s no name cards last night, have one word for them: ALTERED

The Rice is the most obvious one, Rice's missing name should be in red ink, so if the red ink was missing from the top edge of the card, then the position banner just to the left of the name would not be purple but would be blue. Also the red is present in the "All-Star" banner just below. Highly unlikely the red run was missed side to side AND up and down effecting just the area where the name is. Spread this across so many of these 1980 cards, they are clearly altered...my guess by sun light. I'll add a red letter 1980 card to my window.

savedfrommyspokes 12-10-2022 01:30 PM

2 Attachment(s)
In follow-up, I tried an eraser on a red letter card and (you can see the results below), I feel sun light was used to fade out most the red. Sun light does give a "neat and clean" appearance, not so much with the eraser I used. Most of his missing name cards are missing red names, but a few orange also (83T) . Yellow and then red are typically the two easiest colors to fade via sun light. IMO, using sun light would fade the yellow to white and the red would likely fade to what you see on his cards. Since he is not offering any cards with either a blue or black name (outside of the 80 Pryor) only names printed in red and yellow, it is fairly obvious these are not legit.

I added a 1980 RL card to my window.....

ALR-bishop 12-10-2022 02:02 PM

Multi Peppers. There are more

https://hosting.photobucket.com/albu...ps54e4f17d.jpg

frankhardy 12-10-2022 04:01 PM

I have been going through my team set spreadsheet to try and look again for those that I haven't been able to find in the past. I also have noted those that I am not sure are reoccurring.

My first question - is the 1957 Topps Murry Dickson (red ball/blob in stats) reoccurring?

If it is and someone has one, could you post a scan or at least describe it? I may have found one, but I am not sure of what I am looking for.

= = =

I AM REALLY TIRE OF LOOKING AT THE BACKS OF 1957 Topps Murry Dickson CARDS!!!!!!!

frankhardy 12-10-2022 06:41 PM

Also...

How about a 1963 Topps Bobby Shantz with a red stain on his face. I've never seen one. Is it the main picture or the inset picture? Is it reoccurring?

frankhardy 12-10-2022 07:18 PM

Got another one that is reoccurring -

1964 Topps #24 Carl Sawatski with the green bleeding up into the bottom of his name and also bleeding up into his neck.

Can anyone confirm is there is a reoccurring one of a white letter first "S" in his last name? I can't even find one.

frankhardy 12-10-2022 08:04 PM

Got a couple of more reoccurring -

1964 Topps #183 Ron Taylor (print donut between name & position)

1964 Topps #211 Jim Coker (two yellow donuts; before and after name)

1964 Topps #211 Jim Coker (yellow donut after last name)

= = =

Can someone confirm as reoccurring a 1964 Topps Jim Coker with a yellow swirly blob under and on his last name?

Tedwilliams1918 12-10-2022 08:34 PM

eBay chart
 
2 Attachment(s)
A chart I made from all my favorites on eBay

Tedwilliams1918 12-10-2022 10:23 PM

1960 zombie koufax
 
2 Attachment(s)
Missing black stamp on his characters face

Sliphorn 12-12-2022 09:52 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by frankhardy (Post 2292593)
Also...

How about a 1963 Topps Bobby Shantz with a red stain on his face. I've never seen one. Is it the main picture or the inset picture? Is it reoccurring?

Here is the scan of the normal and red stained face versions.

frankhardy 12-12-2022 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sliphorn (Post 2293158)
Here is the scan of the normal and red stained face versions.

Thanks. Now I know what to look for.

Reoccurring, right?

Tedwilliams1918 12-12-2022 01:02 PM

He probably was running late and did his make up wrong 🤣

I’m gonna have to try and find 1!

ALR-bishop 12-12-2022 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tedwilliams1918 (Post 2292143)
On this card the more ted the better I believed he touches sid Hudson who also has a similar problem, unfortunately some kid Carried this one in his pocket lol

I saw the Hudson you posted earlier, is that what you are referring to as similar to the Sandlock, or something else

https://hosting.photobucket.com/imag...-01_190539.jpg

Tedwilliams1918 12-12-2022 08:04 PM

Yea on Hudson but it get confusing from there….some of Hudson have a lot more black than that and sandlock has varrying red…..sandlock is a triple print and Hudson is maybe a double print so I believe there might of been another card that matches up to them…..also did you see my 1954 Sid Hudson with the black face impossible to obtain one shows up like every 3 years or so

Tedwilliams1918 12-12-2022 08:06 PM

https://vintagebaseballcardvariation...ibextid=Zxz2cZ

Tedwilliams1918 12-12-2022 08:18 PM

1954
 
3 Attachment(s)
Black face

Tedwilliams1918 12-12-2022 09:19 PM

1960 hank Aaron purple logo
 
1 Attachment(s)
Just bought this on my Facebook group….has the logo in purple and has the white bulge in the yellow rectangle

Tedwilliams1918 12-13-2022 06:28 AM

Here’s one I grabbed off my fb page
 
1 Attachment(s)
Really helps explain hudson/sandlock

Sliphorn 12-13-2022 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frankhardy (Post 2293221)
Thanks. Now I know what to look for.

Reoccurring, right?

I am not sure as I bought from a seller who had it. I had a search on eBay that never turned any up.

ALR-bishop 12-13-2022 09:48 AM

That Hudson/Sandlock bottom connection was discussed in and SCD article. Can not recall if by Lemke or George Vrechek

savedfrommyspokes 12-13-2022 04:52 PM

Another faded 71:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/18569743668...8AAOSw9oJjmQhE

Sliphorn 12-14-2022 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tedwilliams1918 (Post 2293505)
Really helps explain hudson/sandlock

Was Sandlock double-printed? The card on the right in your scan shows some black all the way down the left margin but Hudson has blue skies on the right side of his. Interesting.

Tedwilliams1918 12-16-2022 07:11 AM

1958 dick groat
 
1 Attachment(s)
Here’s a creepy one guys, 1958 dick groat wearing lipstick💄……I think it’s just the difference in brand new ink but really looks like he’s wearing lipstick

ALR-bishop 12-16-2022 07:48 AM

That is a tad creepy

frankhardy 12-16-2022 12:01 PM

Some today would say that is perfectly normal. It will ALWAYS be creepy!

Tedwilliams1918 12-16-2022 08:00 PM

Big thanks to cliff
 
2 Attachment(s)
I got some 1958s in the mail today that I am obsessed with, big thanks to cliff bowman on giving them to me….what a great guy I wanna return the favor….. do you like ted Williams or hank Aaron better?

frankhardy 12-18-2022 03:27 PM

Is Richard Dingman on Net54? Is he part of this thread?

I have his website saved and have been looking at his variations list. I would like to get in touch with him.

butchie_t 12-18-2022 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frankhardy (Post 2295535)
Is Richard Dingman on Net54? Is he part of this thread?

I have his website saved and have been looking at his variations list. I would like to get in touch with him.

The email address on his site works. He is a member here but has not posted much lately. I have been in contact with him recently via the brightair address.

Richard has many cards for sale on ebay as well.

Cheers,

Butch

butchie_t 12-18-2022 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tedwilliams1918 (Post 2294627)
Here’s a creepy one guys, 1958 dick groat wearing lipstick💄……I think it’s just the difference in brand new ink but really looks like he’s wearing lipstick

I posted these previously in this thread. Not as creepy though.

https://www.net54baseball.com/showpo...postcount=2222

Tedwilliams1918 12-18-2022 03:37 PM

You can contact him on Facebook

Elberson 12-18-2022 05:36 PM

3 Attachment(s)
Ok……here’s another 1967 Topps variation for you…..Jim king 509……it can be found with multiple color shifts in his name…..white (normal? Lol), rainbow, green, blue, yellow)….I have the rainbow….pictures are from eBay so good luck hunting them :)

Elberson 12-18-2022 05:40 PM

3 Attachment(s)
More pictures…..white name, yellow and green

Elberson 12-18-2022 05:55 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Ok just noticed that my blue was a tri color rainbow 🌈. Here’s a close up of the M in Jim

Tedwilliams1918 12-18-2022 09:10 PM

Mr king is very nice, but every 50s/60s topps cards should have similar print shifts

ALR-bishop 12-19-2022 09:12 AM

Shouldn't....but often do :)

Elberson 12-19-2022 12:43 PM

2 Attachment(s)
And my other 2 extras…….sooooooo pretty……almost Xmas like :)

Tedwilliams1918 12-20-2022 02:04 PM

1956 sandy Koufax sand patch
 
1 Attachment(s)
One of my Facebook friends is selling his sand patch error of anyone is interested

Tedwilliams1918 12-21-2022 07:23 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Paid a ton way more than a Regular 1958 but I won another! With missing text

swarmee 12-24-2022 02:53 PM

1972 Topps #92 AL ERA Leaders with Palmer, Blue, and Wood.

Variation 1: Blue line through yellow border next to Jim Palmer.
https://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/1972...de50&size=zoom

Variation 2: Blue line extends into the yellow above Palmer's name.
https://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/1972...c599&size=zoom

ALR-bishop 12-25-2022 05:01 PM

Good one John

swarmee 12-25-2022 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elberson (Post 2295577)
Ok……here’s another 1967 Topps variation for you…..Jim king 509……it can be found with multiple color shifts in his name…..white (normal? Lol), rainbow, green, blue, yellow)….I have the rainbow….pictures are from eBay so good luck hunting them :)

These don't really count. They're just non-repeating bad registration from poor alignment of the sheets being fed through the press during the different colors.

Elberson 12-26-2022 03:01 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Anybody see this over inked 1967 528 petrocelli before? I couldn’t find another one

Tedwilliams1918 12-26-2022 07:26 PM

Rico is too much water in the ink!….nice card I believe he does a podcast now

jbaskin 12-27-2022 02:46 PM

Rico underwater
 
I think I have one. Thus type of variation runs through a few of that series, especially Ribant, that I recall.

Cliff Bowman 12-27-2022 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbaskin (Post 2298161)
I think I have one. Thus type of variation runs through a few of that series, especially Ribant, that I recall.

I wonder if it has something to do with being on the right side of the printing sheet, Ribant is on the right edge of the sheet and I strongly suspect that Petrocelli is too.

ejstel 12-28-2022 06:05 AM

Check closely the right hash of the card on the left, I thought it was a pen mark but it continues 'under' the white border. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...1645fcfba7.jpg

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

swarmee 12-28-2022 07:28 AM

Recurring; here's a copy on COMC right now:
https://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/1970...&size=original
1970 Topps - [Base] #617 - Jim French
Courtesy of COMC.com

Nice find.

Elberson 12-28-2022 02:35 PM

2 Attachment(s)
Ok….we all know the 1967 Topps highs are really tuff but found another winner…….595 Rojas.

Here are two pictures. First one normal and second one print off set and blotched back in two different spots (large blotch has the snake skin or dots….which is in a few of the high numbers)

Tedwilliams1918 12-28-2022 09:29 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Similar 1967 I found last year


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:07 PM.