Looks like Don got superimposed over this shot... :D

Attachment 490467

The "missing position" version of this 75 Topps '71 MVP card, in varying degrees no less.

I stumbled across this one on eBay, I don't know whether to call it the Flying Saucer, UFO, or Comet version.

Snagged an Aker for $1. I swear this thread provides 20% of my total mail. Thank you all for sharing

All of those Jack Aker cards will disappear once the men in black see them. But it's okay because you'll never remember that it existed.

I just picked one up too before the bright red flash thankfully.

It also looks like there is a white dot variation too. One of the autographed ones looks to show a white dot in the same area.

Edit: It is a print mark, but there are a couple do have them.

It the spirit of Ozzy Osborne: "I think it's ball lightning."

As a Cardinals team set collector why do I check this thread? Now I've got to go find that Joe Torre MVP variation!

��

Shane---since most of the defect occurs on the non Torre side maybe you can pass on this one:)

Even if you avoid this thread in the future one of us will let you know if another Cardinal pops up

https://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/1954...&size=original
1954 Bowman - [Base] #72 - Eddie Yost
Courtesy of COMC.com

Yellow sun at top border of this Yost is a recurring print defect.

Not sure if these have been mentioned previously but went through a stack of ‘55 Topps I rescued from a local seller and found two print variations.

1) Lou Limmer #54 can be found with a broken team logo box and a full complete box. On ebay, out of about 100 examples, I saw about four broken box examples.

2) Bob Purkey #118 can be found with and without a distinct blue dot next to his armpit. On ebay, this variation is pretty close to 60/40 with the blue dot variation having a slight edge.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...3838150c14.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...a7ac6fb6db.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...b01b2055a3.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Check out this '72 Brock with the back of the card bleeding through to the front. I've had this card in my collection for 49 years and never noticed it before now. This thread has changed the way I look at cards!

Yep, most people usually call those "wet sheet transfers" and they're sometimes found on T206 cards.

Here's a fun one. This defect is recurring, though the exact placement of the black splotch over Hamilton's face changes. I though it was a one off for awhile, but I've seen a few, and seen this black ink splotch problem on 0 other cards in the set.

On the Purkey, I don't think there is a no dot version. It looks like it is either this big bold blue dot, or a fainter greenish dot in the same location (attached). Anyone have a true 'no dot'?

I have the blue and green/yellow dot versions. No dotless

Wonder if card was originally printed with the blue defect and there was later intervention to mask it some. No way to know I guess

Recurring pink on right side of the 'NY" logo on Alou's cap......

Good one Larry

Thank you Al...nice McBride, Pizarro combo.

Here is apparently one of two versions of this card in which the stats in the 3B column are obscured....does anyone have a copy of the "other" version of this obscuration?

Pm me if anyone want to pick up this “ghost” off of me.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...d851834170.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This 1970 Topps #670 Ron Santo shall forevermore be known as 'Ron Splotcho.' Check out the lower left corner of the white bordered box. The first card is the 'normal' version and the other three have a large, dark splotch in that grey area, running into "Ron." It doesn't affect the white outline of the box at all, but it seems to go hand in hand with the darkened area of dirt in that same area...

Attachment 497280

Here's a better/larger representation...

Attachment 497428


They're very easy to find, so not much of a rarity.

I had come across this example a while ago.
Someone spilled the blue ink on Bruce's card. Front, top left. No bleed through on the back. And it is interesting to me that it is contained to the picture and no bleed over onto the white border.

The card was printed that way, it’s one of my favorite types of print errors and I grab them if they are priced fairly.

Not a true variation but nonetheless a magnificent specimen this group may enjoy.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...b471a51b10.jpg

Well, I must have gotten it from a pack then. I did not buy it and it was in my 1970 cards that I have lugged all over the nation between then and now.

Cheers,

B. T.

Great card Jason

#698 Tom Tresh is the counterpart to the Santo, they were side by side on the sheet.

1970 Topps Football Tommy Nobis
 

Here's a recurring defect I found looking through my dad's cards, where the text is repeated. I also found a Harmon Wages (also a Falcon) with a similar variation, though not as pronounced.

Neat one John. You would have to be sober to see it 😊

You are spot on as I did a cloud of my two and see a goldish dot that replaced the blue one. It is likely an attempt to get rid of the blue one.

The Santo was the final card I needed 25 years ago when I completed my set - I always thought I had one with a unique stain on it, but I guess not - and it is interesting that it doesn't obscure the white border at all. I checked and sure enough my Tresh is similarly stained.

Well, I got two more to chase down to finish this set now! Thank you for these

I just noticed on your blown up images that there is a second smaller spot of blue, on both your copies, by his armpit area. I will have to pull mine and look at others to see if this is consistent on all cards.

Seems odd they would not just cover up the spot with white ink, instead of the yellowish greenish goldish color. Can't really think of another good explanation for it than what you propose.

Defect in the second degree?
 

I was checking for 1967 defects on eBay tonight, and this posting for #214 Dick Kelley gave me a good chuckle.

(The 3rd Series checklist #191 comes in two versions, with #214 as Dick Kelley or correctly as Tom Kelley.)

https://www.ebay.com/itm/38468818553...u&LH_Auction=1

Uncorrected error ? :)

Because the process doesn't use white ink.

If the defect is on both the blue plate and the yellow plate, that means it's from somewhere in the process of making the plates. And one that ended up on the mask for both colors.

If you redo the image to fix the blue mask, but not the yellow, the blue dot will go away, but you'll still have the yellow one. Which they may or may not have corrected since it's not as obvious, and the color separations were relatively expensive at the time.

More like an unerrored correction.

Looks like that the spread sheet they use to create their listings has an error....all of their offerings for this card are the 214 Dick Kelley variety. Several other sellers have the same mistake and probably downloaded the same on-line checklist that they are all using for their listing spread sheets.

I don’t know squat about printing so perhaps I phrased it wrong or used incorrect terminology. If they were able to make white in every card in the set, why could they not have simply made this spot white instead of the yellowish color to correct the error? Making an area of the card white does not seem to be difficult, as they were able to do it in every card in the set.

Following up to #1929 with John's Nobis cards, looks like it comes in a second variation where only the white in his name is impacted, and the club name is correct.

I've found a roughly even number of both versions of the misprint.

Typically white is made by just not printing an area like the borders.

The way the printed areas are made in a brief step by step

Original art/photos created
Color separations done, photographing the original through a filter to produce blue, magenta, yellow and black halftones. (On some cards, there are non- halftone areas like borders.)
Those generate large negatives known as the mask.
That is used to expose the plate which gets developed.

On the press, the plate gets wet, then inked with oil based ink.
That transfers to the "mat" which is a rubber roller (sort of)
Then transfers to the paper.

Yellow is usually printed first, followed by ... I forget if blue or magenta is next, then finally black (And glosscoat if you're making it at all glossy.)

There may be days between colors on a really big job unless a multi color press is used or multiple presses.

If there's a big colored spot, the two fixes are either making a new mask without the spot.
Or stoning off the spot on one of the darker colors, if you notice it early enough.

Color separations cost a LOT at the time, I wasn't involved in the pricing, but I think the place I worked got a couple hundred even on a small job in 1980-81

Stoning off the spot in the blue plate would give a yellowish spot since yellow would already be there. And you'd probably have to do it for red too if it was there.
A spot caused by debris could be on all 4 colors, or just on one.

Those Nobis cards are some of the more interesting printing problems I've seen.

Some recent pick ups based on prior posts by others

https://hosting.photobucket.com/imag...080&fit=bounds

1960 Topps proofs
 

Hi Gang:

Just picked up a big group of 60 Topps proofs/variations. Here are a few

Issued cards to the left.

Photo 1 note the color background on the small inset photo to the left

Second photo top three cards note the the photo on the inset photo extends over the border, the last card, Gonzalez note the blue bottom border extends over logo

The proofs with the action shot running over into the border look cooler than the issued cards. Very neat to see

Wow
..so cool to see these!
Was it a find or a special auction?

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Has anyone else seen a 75 Topps Hank Aaron 660 like the one pictured?

I have not seen one like this until about a week ago. And it is headed to my collection now.

Bad news, it's from the scanner setting used by the seller and will only be a normal 75 Topps Hank Aaron card when you receive it. We've had a few of these pop up here on this thread.

Bummer,

Oh well, still a Hank and it was cheap. Thanks!