Thoughts on 1971 Topps yellowless?
 

Been meaning to post this for about a year....

Several years ago a 71 Munson sold on ebay for a crazy price. Seller said it was a yellowless version. Then, a few years ago, another yellowless Munson surfaced and although it was kinda' beat, it sold for well over $1,000, if I remember correctly.

Since then I have been on a quest to find one of any player. Finally found it a year or two ago, in a Garvey Rookie...even better since he was by boyhood baseball hero.

Since I know of three, I don't think it's an isolated printing defect but a variation, such as the famed 82 blackless. They are definitely not faded.

Anyone have any thoughts? Other examples to show?

Kevin Saucier
.
.
.

Kevin--

Can we see your example?

Here is the 71 Topps yellowless compared to a normal card. It was eventually graded and labeled "no yellow". It's very much like any other series missing a color, with open pixels.

Since it's not an isolated print defect, I believe it may be a true variation. I would like to see others...they are out there.

<img src='http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/6095/garveycomp.jpg' border='0' '/><br/>

Kevin Saucier
.
.
.

1971 Topps yellowless
 

Here is a linke to a Clemente.

http://cgi.ebay.com/1971-TOPPS-630-B...item562fbc7977

Thanks Kevin---Now I know what to look for!

1971 Topps yellowless
 

Here is a link to a Clemente.http://cgi.ebay.com/1971-TOPPS-630-B...item562fbc7977

hmmm, it may be kevin, my only thing is the one you have without the yellow the whole card looks faded, the red is washed and so on, if you had a yellow-less with the same deep red and black border then it would be more conclusive. i am not sure on this one?

i just looked at cuddas clemente, looks like the same to me, a washed out card, could this account for the missing yellow? if i were you i would try the nonposrts board and ask todd riley, he seems to be very good with colors and the process.

The normal Garvey is a borrowed pic that has had it's contrast darkened. The no yellow version has a nice black background as well. The red looks faded because it actually has yellow mixed in (more a very dark orange)...without the yellow it's a shade of pink. It's without a doubt not faded in the least. I'll try and get some close up scans to show the missing pixels (or white) where the yellow should be.

Thanks for the Clemente link. It's exactly what I was looking for. I've seen them called "white letter" version before but in reality it's not the case....it is yellowless.


Kevin
.
.
.

Again, using the Garvey, here is the close up comparing a normal card to the missing yellow variation. Although this is just a small portion, the entire card is yellowless giving it washed-out or faded look at first glance. I believe many collectors have simply overlooked these for that reason.

Using a loupe will reveal the obvious.

<img src='http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/3117/garveycompclose.jpg' border='0'>


Kevin Saucier
.
.
.

1971 Yellowless
 

Kevin

I had seen the Munson offered before but admit I thought it was a fading issue. Maybe not. Do you know if the Garvey and Munson were on the same sheet and if so who else was on that sheet ? Maybe Dave H knows

Al

I have no idea about the sheet placement.

It may be a good time to start a checklist (if possible). We can now confirm:

Munson (2)
Clemente
Garvey

These were probably identified because they are star cards and were closely scrutinized. There has to be more commons out there as well.

I've also seen a 1971 Topps blueless(?).


Kevin Saucier
.
.
.

Munson is a series 1 card, Garvey series 3 and Clemente series 5 so definitely not a same sheet issue.

We've all seen those Topps sheets from their archives that are printing sheets of different colors. I'm not a printing expert, but I'm sure someone out there is that can speak up about printing anomalies. Why should I care if they simply let the printing press run out of yellow ink? Interesting, but not a variation worth paying big dollars for, in my opinion.

Variations
 

It's funny though how people will pay big bucks....like me... for mere print defects like the Herrer, the Bakep and the Campos. More recently, the SCD catalog lists fairly big premiums for the 1982 Topps blackless cards. That was a hard set for me. Also there have been big premiums paid (guilty again) for the 1980 Topps yellow names.

Why do people pay a premium for them ? Is it just because they are in the Catalog or in the hobby lore, even if by accident ?

Does anyone have a view on whether the 58 yellows or 69 whites are anything more than print defects ? I know Bob L is rethinking his criterea on variations for the big book, but currently you can find examples that I guarantee will not fit whatever definition anyone comes up with.

And, by the way, does anyone have....has anyone seen...that 1962 Topps Roy Sievers stamp in a KC outfit ? :-)

I collect printing errors too, and there's several ways a card can be missing a color.
Press out of ink, one color section of the press not engaged, Sheet mis fed through the press (Either partiallly fed, or double feed) Printed through some obstruction like a part of a mangled sheet, small bit of paper etc. Or the sheet just didn't get run through for that color.

Some of those aren't possible with some processes, And I'm not entirely sure which ones were used at what times. For example sheet fed presses vs web fed presses, or one color press vs multi color press. I'd guess that the change to web fed happened around 1992. And at one point I know topps printed sheets that were double what is usually considered a sheet (2 sheets of 132 side by side)

I have a card that was the corner card from a marker sheet. With a sheet fed press a group of sheets , maybe 10 or so are used to adjust the press. The last one is a marker to allow the pres operator to keep the setup sheets separate. Thy usually do this by tearing a corner off. The card I have shows printing in the torn section. I saw tha sheet it came from, and wanted the whole thing but it was just too much for me at the time.




or the plate can be made wrong