Show...me...your print variations!
 

A wise man on these boards once said, "if one looks hard enough, a print variation could probably be found for every card ever made". I would agree with that, and finding interesting print variations/variants/anomalies intrigues many of us. If you have recently found an interesting one share it here for the rest of us to admire!

I'll kick it off with this one I recently found...

A 1960 Charlie Neal A.S. with a solid black shadow and a transparent shadow.

My weird, 'whiteback' '69 Frisella…

Attachment 144096

Print Variants
 

I am at the stage where I wish I had limited myself to collecting variations recognized by some combination of SCD, Becketts or the Registry master lists. Of course ,once recognized they get instantly expensive unless you foresaw something you felt would get recognized later. The 61 Fairly cured me of that notion.

Some print defects I think may be unique, and therefore very rare, but, for that reason, not very collectible ( not enough of them to get hobby into them). Other print defects may be recurring but not very notable.

This Yount variant is recurring, but not very interesting ( to me)

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...psb4b2b100.jpg

This King variant is, to me, interesting, but apparently too scarce to be very collectible. At one time it was listed in SCD, but I think it was removed in later editions due to the fact it was viewed as mostly non recurring, or maybe not recurring enough
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...ps938c32ea.jpg

http://s1267.photobucket.com/user/Bi...ml?sort=3&o=36

One of the reasons I enjoy this forum so much is that there are so many other variant collectors, like Darren, Ben, Doug and Joe here

That Frisella is cool Darren

Joe, love that transparent shadow Neal. Looks better than the "regular" issue.

I agree, very neat!

Not a major print variation, but on this 61 Hoak card there is a green spot on his belt and then another green spot near the left border also. In a very quick look through ebay and COMC, out of 60+ copies I found two with the green spots.

Variants
 

Saved---I see the border irregularity but not the belt.

I also like cards where there are different defects on the same card

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...psdbdc0839.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...ps3a531688.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...ps63f29a91.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...f31.jpghttp://
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...ps54e4f17d.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...psa2a2b3eb.jpg

Al, just above Hoak's right hip, on his belt line (just to the left of where his black belt becomes covered by the uniform pants), there is a green print anomaly that appears on both cards. On my copy of this card, the green on the belt line is much more apparent than it appears in either of these scans.

Green spots
 

Got it thanks.

Note the 3 different sky backgrounds in the 53 Schultz and Shea cards

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...g?t=1400003562

Al, the 53s are neat....what caused the difference as these cards were produced from original artwork, were they not?


Here are a few more I have found ....

The 59 McDaniel has the white streak on the lower left area of the card. The 59 Singleton has the missing print(in the word "Chicago")...the guy I sold this card to told me he had been looking for years for a second copy to compliment his other copy with the missing print. The 63 Menke has the yellow area along the right edge...have not found a second copy of the Menke card with the yellow.

Elmer and Lindy
 

Had not seen or heard of those 3. I do have an Elmer with a yellow streak in the bottom border. That same defect exists in various forms on the Hank Sauer card. And there are 3 version of Lindy's 61 card

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...g?t=1400009700
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...g?t=1400096001

Love those 56 Pepper's Al, good eye on those!

Spokes: The yellow overprint on your 63 Topps Menke reminded me of these...

seems 63 had a problem with the yellow staying trapped in cards with the green strip on the bottom, my Fairly's are somewhat similar.

http://i773.photobucket.com/albums/y...sc444a75a.jpeg
http://i773.photobucket.com/albums/y...sdc49e9bf.jpeg

63 Zimmer
 

Joe---I believe, based on this article by George Vrechek, that the Zimmer qualifies as a true variation. Like the 52 Mantle, printing/cropping differences on a DP. Running down all 11 was not that hard on ebay


http://www.oldbaseball.com/refs/1963_New_Variations.pdf

Salada coins print variations
 

There is a very rare subset of a very early printing of the 1962 Salada coins that most collectors are not aware of.

The ultra rare Bailey, Brandt and Williams are a part of this printing. Every Salada collector knows that the rare Brandt comes with an S on the end of Orioles while the common one lists his team as Oriole. However the rare Brandt also has his name farther away from his face. See below.

There are others with this same name farther away from the face or other printing moved on the coin.

And there are the ever popular print blubs.

There's lots more too.

whitey - looks like the team name is also closer or further away from the body (in some cases touching the body), not just the player's name...thanks for sharing!

Back in the mid '80's I bought a complete set of '72's from a friend back home, along w/ alot of other stuff he wanted to get rid of.

I went thru the box card by card to be sure they were all there and as I got to the end of the box I found this Dusty Baker card.

Only 1972 I have ever seen w/ a yellow back. Normal card also shown.

1972
 

Good one Fred. A lot of front oddities in that set. Here are just a few

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...psd14329d8.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...ps302500cf.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...ps2c565124.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...psa4142ce3.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...pse7e4a206.jpg

One day while looking for interesting variations on ebay I stumbled upon this listing:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1963-TOPPS-5...item23297e6ae2

Note, the black ink missing on the left side. Obviously I was never going to pay the ridiculous asking price but I was interested in the variation so I put the card down as a saved search and 6 months later I finally found one for only $5! Pretty cool variation to add to the other three I have shown previously in this thread. Here it is...

63 topps fairly
 

Found a new Fairly variation to go with the others I posted. This one has a blue strip on the lower left.

http://i773.photobucket.com/albums/y...s8d2d197c.jpeg

print variation
 

I found this looking though my dup box. It is not a marker, I looked with my loop. It looks like the black just bled into the Philadelphia Phillies.

Attachment 145912

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Topps did not mean to send this out this way:

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...nk%20front.jpg

1975 Topps Mini Steve Garvey; I will call him "Mini Miscut."

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...y%20miscut.jpg

Garvey
 

Adam-- is that top border uneven ?

We are all familiar with the 1966 Bob Heffner 'purple tree' variation, but take a look at the extreme craziness of this sucker…
Attachment 146853

Hef
 

Good one Darren. Had not seen that version

I was unaware of the purple tree variation, nice!

Going thru my 61 Post Cereal cards, card #153 Andre Rodgers (Traded Line), which has 2 different background colors. Not sure exactly if a color ran out during the printing process of the one or the other. One card has a beige background and the other has a sky blue color. Found also that some facial details are better on some cards vs. others.
Attachment 147371

Attachment 147372

In building my 61 Post set, I found a quite a few of these background color variations. These background color variations seem to be equally plentiful no matter the background, so I have opted to keep just the best looking example of each card with out regards to the background.

It is not just different color in the back ground. The photo is also cropped different.

No it is the black ink framing the bottom of the next card image.

62 Post
 

Forgive me if I am about to mention a dead horse that has been repeatedly beaten, but I noticed that no one has mentioned the 62 Post set in this thread. I've found 2-3 color background variations of several of the NL players, so I hung on to them in my "master set." Is there any known shortage of blue vs. white vs. in between background colors?

More 61s
 

Seems like the 61 set is a haven for these small print variations. On the 257 Hardy card, along the upper left edge a small streak can be seen within the image. This appears on a seemingly small percent of the copies I viewed. More interesting is that on one of my MC copies of this card, the Gene Green card next to this card on the sheet also has the same small streak, although shorter. The Gene Green card already has a noted variation with the amount of space between the title and name varying. The last Hardy I posted is a copy that has some interesting print defects including a much bluer sky and an ink smudge near the team name.

great post on the Hardy, thanks for sharing!

1961
 

...and the Green too :)

edited---I was able to find one of the Hardy and Green variants without much trouble. But on Green, another seller convinced me there are cropping differences on several of the 1961 cards, similar to minor cropping differences in the 1963 set written about by Vrechek in this article

http://www.oldbaseball.com/refs/1963_New_Variations.pdf


I know it is a stretch, but does nay one see any spacing differences on these Green cards between the name and position in the yellow box

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...g?t=1403029446

Nice photos, thanks for sharing these!
I see the difference Al, also the picture is cropped slightly differently.
Richard D

67 Topps McNally
 

Here's a run of variations on the '67 Topps McNally card, see the sign in the upper right corner and the bleeding magenta.

http://i773.photobucket.com/albums/y...s7de562f3.jpeg

Nice observation Joe, I like how the bleeding progresses in the last two copies you posted.


I found this 68 Wine with the border break along the left edge.... similar to the 73 border break cards.

Thank you for pointing out this error version. I picked up the card on the left as the other was already sold.

While there I also picked up the far right version of the 67 Topps McNally card.

Variants
 

Was aware of the Wise but not the Mcnally(s)

1963 Cropping Variations
 

Here are four more 1963 Cropping Variations.

Best regards,

Joe

1948 Leaf Mickey Harris w/turd-brown BG

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...f%20Harris.jpg

1963 DP Variation
 

Joe D --Have you noticed the back variation on the McBean ? As I recall I rounded up all of these, 13 as I think, using a great article by George Vrechek that described, explained and pictured all of them. If you google Topps 1963 variations the article turns up

McBean back variation
 

Hi Al,

Thanks for the link to Vrechek's article. For anyone who is interested, I scanned the backs of the McBean card to show the two different variations.

The "A" in the cartoon has two different colors. I have over a dozen cards of each variation and all of the McBeans with one strip showing on the front also have a yellow "A" on the back. All of my cards with the second stripe visible on the shoulder on the front of the card have a white "A' on the back.

Interesting.

I also included a scan of the Oldis variation as well.

Best regards,

Joe

1970
 

Recurring defect/difference on Carlton card over his cap

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...g?t=1405190072

1960
 

I recently updated my 1959 and 1960 Topps sets to include both the gray and white back variants...1958 ( 199-286)....1960 (375-440). In doing that I noticed this print defect. Not sure if it is recurring. This is a white back

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...g?t=1405442599

I know not pre 1980 but this one perplexed me. 2012 Topps as they had in past years had a number of "Error" or Short Print cards in both series one and Two. But this #328 John Lackey "Rainbow" error has never gotten a listing. I had a nephew born that year so like many relatives before I put together a master set of cards for him to give when he get older. I saw some early posts for the lackey card but held off until about April then I purchased 3 of the cards one from Alabama one from Ohio and one from California. So I know it had wide distribution was only in the very first print run from that year and was told by folks that broke down many cases of Product that they only got one "rainbow lackey card each. They had held them saw no traction and sold them in April for a couple bucks each. I had them Graded last year and despite clear printing error you can see flip is the same for both cards. I did notice that about 20 2012 lackeys were graded so I would think there is a small population of the cards that has been graded and Look forward to your learned opinions.

2012 Lackey
 

Neat item Jonathan. To the best of my knowledge PSA normally only notes variations/variants/differences on their flips after hobby recognition in some way, such as recognition in a catalog like SCD or Becketts. On the other hand, as far as I know PSA recognized the 61 Fairly on their own.

I know some collectors on CU got some variations recognized by PSA through persistent efforts that included sending them hobby articles about the cards they were trying to get recognized. Others worked to get SCD to recognize their variant cards as a first step

Thank you for the input. What I really do not understand is clearly this card is a "variation" but in this day of company produced "variations" real ones need a champion or group of champions to hound a TPG in order to receive recognition. And I know that quality control is much much better now that in the 50's thru 1990's so real factory error cards are much scarcer but it seems to me a TPG would have enough experts especially in modern cards to recognize an error card when it is siting in their hand. I also know if stuff like this is my biggest problem I have NO problems. Great thread love variations.

Jonathan

A Beckett dealer told them about the 61 Fairly and then it was listed in Beckett. PSA did not do that one independently.

Fairly
 

Thanks for that info Rich, I had not realized that. In your view how can it be distinguished from other 61s with the green in the baseball on the back ? Or other front and back print defects that are recurring and even more prominent ? I kind of understood Bob Lemke's SCD criteria before he retired. Does Beckett have some known criteria or is it ad hoc depending on who is recommending it or their persistence ?

By the way I have no interested in trying to get anything recognized myself, this is just curiosity

I found this 58 Korcheck card....I was not able to locate another copy, so this "variation" must be "extremely rare"( LOL).

Notice the yellow line above the black box(does not appear on other copies of this card), and then the word "Catcher" in the black box has a small bit of yellow on the bottom while it looks like a red marker was used to color the upper part of the word "catcher" all while the red appears to overlap (more obviously on this card than on other copies) the black print.

Looks like a case of the sheet shifting during part of the printing process when either the red or yellow were supposed to print, as evidenced by the extra yellow on the top of the "W" in the Sentors logo. But what I do not understand is why the yellow line above the black box exists without any offsetting print errors on the upper edge and why the red overlapping the black print is so obvious(as this is not obvious on other copies). .

Korcheck 58 Topps
 

Cool. There was another one similar to it on ebay


http://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/e11400...xe=exe,ext=ext

Looks like the ebay Korcheck slipped in the opposite direction during printing.

Nice pair of print offset cards Al. Down ward red on one and up ward red on the other one. EDIT: After looking at the first card shown by savedfrommyspokes it looks like the black is what is printed offset(down ward) compared to the other 3 colors.

I have noticed that darker red blob showing in the black over the around the player position on some 58's I have.

86 topps blue streak
 

I know everyone is aware of the 86 Topps Clemens blue streak variation and the Seaver blue streak variation from the same year but I just saw this card end on ebay tonight. It sold for $15 at auction. As a Dodgers collector I had no interest in it but thought I'd share its existence for those of you who might want to track one down. From a previous thread I know the layout of these cards on the sheet was discussed and based on those findings I think it would be safe to assume there is a fourth card floating around out there that has a similar blue streak.

http://i773.photobucket.com/albums/y...ps926e63e5.jpg

1986
 

There was some speculation that the Puhl card might have a simialr defect

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...ps2e6b4dae.jpg

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img311.jpg

There is blue on this one....among other issues

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...ps2b74f3b7.jpg

I have been looking for that Terry Puhl card with no luck. The Clemens, Seaver, and Puhl card are extra cool to me because they are all the same exact printing error.

Strangely Al's Winfield and the Flanagan do not interest me and I have paid huge premiums for print spots on a card.:eek:

would love to see an uncut sheet image containing the Winfield and Flanagan cards to see who they butt up against...perhaps each other?

I won the 1986 Topps Mike Flanagan printing error card and a 1986 Topps Alan Wiggins printing error card that fit together like a puzzle, I will show them when I receive them. The 1986 Topps Dave Winfield is from the C* sheet, the 1986 Topps Mike Flanagan is from the F* sheet. There should be a 1986 Topps Dwayne Murphy printing error card missing some of his name floating around out there somewhere.

1986 oddities
 

Congrats Cliff and thanks for the info

Thanks Cliff, appreciate the pic. Does the Puhl actually exist? I've never seen one.

Just picked this one up. I've so seldom seen one come up for sale that I jumped on this one. Paid a pretty penny for it, but I think it'll pay dividends once this card gets recognized as a legit variety. And if my hunch is right, and this one is scarcer than the Campos black star...hoo boy :)

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTAyNFg3Mj...Tw0qr/$_57.JPG

1970 Oddities
 

Congrats on the House Brian

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...g?t=1406497459

Hank aaron 1958 blue background.
http://i765.photobucket.com/albums/x...IMG_0003-2.jpg

Blue Aaron
 

I have one of those, and I think a couple of other guys here have one. There has been some debate about whether these are being "manufactured". If they were recurring print defects you would think other cards like them from the Aaron sheet would show up. Here is a similar Mays that I think could be a fading due to light issue

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img369.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img366.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img367.jpg

Here is the aforementioned 1986 Topps Mike Flanagan printing error card and the card next to it on the printing sheet, 1986 Topps Alan Wiggins with the same flaw. Thank goodness for that mid eighties mass production and poor quality control. Oddly enough, both players met unfortunate and untimely demises after their careers were over.

1986
 

Neat combo Cliff

Yes Cliff, very nice!

I understand the excitement surrounding the 90 Thomas NNOF card (star RC) and the missing ink is in an important location of the card (name). However, when you simplify it down to the type of error it is (similar in nature to the 86's shown) it really shouldn't be recognized by the publications as a legit variation. In theory, they should then go and add all of the other examples we've found over the years and that just is never going to happen. It would be easier to strip the NNOF Thomas of its master set residence but I'm afraid the reaction at this point would not be positive. Logically it doesn't make sense to me but I don't see that it's ever going to change.

making sense of variation
 

We need to elect someone to be in charge of this hobby. We are in a sate of anarchy :)

The 90 Thomas and the Wiggins/Flanagan pair shown are entirely unrelated errors.

The Wiggins/Flanagan is from water or solvent dripping onto the plate or blanket in the press. It's a fairly common error for the era, but finding a matched pair is very cool. It's also the sort of error that is probably unique or nearly so.

The Thomas is from some debris, probably tape blocking some of the black plate from being exposed when it was being made. A printing error, but a recurring one. Probably uncommon since the plate would have been replaced pretty quickly. I'd call it a variation, since it's the result of a different plate. Others might not because of the unintentional nature of the error.

Steve B

1986
 

Steve---I have seen a few of the Seaver/Clemons blue defects, which are another matched pair. I am not sure what happened on the Winfield, which has a blue defect but also some missing ink similar to the 90 Thomas. I find it interesting because there seems to have been 2 defects in play.

Since the Seaver/Clemons did recur, at least for a few runs, is it likely the same would have happened on the Flanagan/ Wiggins ? Would these blue defects from 1986 have been self correcting without any intervention ?

There is a very good thread on CU about the Thomas card and the related cards around it that are also missing the black ink. Somewhere in that tread there is a scan of all the cards on an uncut sheet with a diagram of the fairly large piece of debris or tape that cause it.

Seaver/Clemens is more like the 90 Thomas. Probably not as severe, If I remember that thread right there's something like 15 cards affected by the same object that caused the Thomas.

I have some 77 Topps cloth checklists that have the same problem as the Flanagan/Wiggins.

It's possible that it recurred over a few sheets, but no more than a few.

When the operator adds water sometimes it drips onto either the plate or the offset blanket. If it drips on the plate it would probably only be on one sheet since the plate is wet and inked each rotation, and the pressure should squeeze out enough water to keep it to one sheet. I can see water getting on the rubber blanket maybe lasting a couple rotations under the right conditions.

If it was solvent, which is used occasionally to remove ink buildup on the rollers, then it might last a bit longer on the blanket. But again probably only one or two turns on the plate since the water would float it off and the pressure would push it out.

I do have one card showing where the ink floated on a very overwatered plate. Pretty odd effect.

Steve B

Steve B,

You're right in regards to the solvent/debris on plate difference...I suppose comparing the Thomas NNOF to the 86's was a mistake, however, there ARE many examples similar to the NNOF that are not recognized, like the '63 ERA Leaders card I showed earlier in the thread, and most notably, the other partial blackless '90 Topps cards from the same sheet like these:

I didn't explain that very well.

The group of 90T related to the Thomas are from something causing the plate to be made incorrectly.

The plates are made from a set of large negatives called the mask. It's usually a bunch of negatives taped to an opaque paper or plastic sheet. The plate is exposed much like a photograph would be, then developed. If something like a hunk of tape or strip of paper was between the mask and the plate that part wouldn't get exposed and that portion of that color wouldn't print.

I think the 90T and the Seaver/Clemens were both caused that way. The 90T is the most extreme example I've seen. Very sloppy work by the platemaker.

Other cards missing areas of color may be similar, but it's just one way of having missing color in an area.
Incorrect original
Incorrect mask
Bad plate
Solvent/water drips
Debris in the press.
Too much wetting of the plate
Underinking
Damaged/stained paper stock
Misfeed of a sheet
Partial print of the sheet - Impression cylinder not engaged for the whole rotation
Sheet not fed through at all

I think that's it, there could be others I missed.

And some of those have related errors.

Debris in the press can sometimes wrap around the plate, get inked and print what looks like faded solid color.

If there's too little water instead of too little the entire plate can get inked to varying degrees and will also print a light solid layer.


All are pretty cool, but the only one I'd call a variation is the incorrectly made plate.

Steve B

Variants
 

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img250.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...psbe3acf4f.jpg

1959 Don Zimmer #287. From what I've tracked, about 90% of printing has unbroken "O", 9.5% has broken "O", and 0.5% has a partially broken "O".

Unbroken "O" in Dodgers.
http://www.baseballcardstars.com/zim...ds/59TOPPS.jpg http://www.baseballcardstars.com/zim...59TOPPSBIG.jpg

Partially broken "O" in Dodgers.
http://www.baseballcardstars.com/zim...IALBROKENO.jpg http://www.baseballcardstars.com/zim...BROKENOBIG.jpg

Broken "O" in Dodgers.
http://www.baseballcardstars.com/zim...ULLBROKENO.jpg http://www.baseballcardstars.com/zim...BROKENOBIG.jpg

Zimmer
 

Good one Brad. Has Don ever looked better than on that card :)

Steve, thanks for the explanation, your reasoning makes sense to me. Do you think the other 90's from that sheet will ever be recognized like the Thomas?

Here's a Podres variant...some can be found with a section of pink in the top border where there should be orange. On ebay the pinks are about 20:1. Not too hard to find.

http://i773.photobucket.com/albums/y...s2b35b1e7.jpeg

I think the other 90's related to the Thomas should be recognized. Each is just as tough if not tougher because commons don't get much attention. (Took me more than 2 years to find an 88T Canseco to finish the set and he's not exactly a common)

But I don't think it will happen anytime soon. The Thomas was an obvious error on a really popular card and was in guides early on.
The first time I saw one the seller wasn't sure of it and to me it looked like a print error. So the others would have been treated the same way if they'd been noticed. And for better or worse, pricing and acceptance revolved around Beckett and they always downplayed print errors.

Obviously neither they or the standard catalog could list every difference, especially once the huge production of the late 80's began. And even now there are dealers that put minor print errors out there as "variations" often with what I'll politely call "imaginative pricing". If a major price guide began listing actual small differences to an audience with no understanding of the technical aspects that sort of thing would only be worse.

Especially for stuff in the questionable category. I have a couple 1991T partial wrong backs. Player cards with the underlying pink that's not a player card background but a manager background. Are they ones where they were printed on a sheet intended to be a different sheet? Like one printed with the pink from say the A sheet then finished with the blue and front from the C sheet? Or was the pink back plate made wrong. Eventually I'll compare the sheet layouts and see if any normal sheet matches up. If it does, they're probably the first, and "just" print errors - uncommon but errors. If none of the normal layouts match they're likely actual major variations that escaped notice for years.

Steve B

1961 topps hoeft variation
 

Broken borders in upper left corner, one with a single break and one with a double. The double is somewhat tough to find.

http://i773.photobucket.com/albums/y...ps1898b7e1.jpg