Little advice on a Frank Thomas NNOF
 

Hey guys,

I've been collecting cards my whole life but have just started getting a little more serious. I'm buying a lot of HOF RC PSA cards with varying grades.

But to the question does anyone have a feel for what a Thomas NNOF psa 7 might be worth? I believe I can get the card in the $1200-1300 range. Does that sound like a good value or overpriced? I've tried to look at past Ebay sells but there is limited data. I like the PSA 7 because it's still nice but keeps the price down vs going 8+.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

I think that's a good price based on what I have seen them go for.

No name
 

I do not usaually collect graded cards but I got this one a bunch of years ago for $ 400. I hope Bill is right about current prices :)

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img252.jpg

According to a quick Ebay search, PSA 8's are going in the $1800-$2100 range. A 7.5 that sold in June went for $1130.00.

I think you're fine with that purchase Al. I just recently saw some 3's and 4's go for more than that on ebay.

Thanks everyone for the input and wow a PSA 8 for 400 well done!!! Makes me wonder if this card is in a bubble or just really growing in popularity. Seems like the prices have risen over the last couple of years. So is buying now buying at the top of the market or does it have room to grow? Hmmm makes this a tougher decision to make.

I think it's peaked because of Thomas making The Hall. Just my opinion though.

I've been watching these for about the past 6 years and have not noticed any price run-up due to his HOF induction. I think this is because he does have a non- error rookie card as well as Bowman and Fleer options. I believe most collectors will simply buy the regular versions as opposed to spending into 4 figures for the NNOF version. I also think his induction was a certainty so HOF collectors had ample time to pick one up. These cards are not easy to come by as Topps fixed this error early in production.

Thomas
 

I think the thread on CU makes it pretty clear that the defect involved on thenThomas card affected multiple cards. Somewhere in that thread there is a complete list of the cards and even a diagram of the object that apparently blocked the ink off those cards, and it was fairly large.

There is a discussion in another thread here, actually several over time, of what is or is not a variation. One leg of that would be whether something like this was "an intentional change", or a recurring print defect on some print runs, lile the Herrer and Bakep.

Did this error occur on the first print runs of the affected sheet, get noticed, and then was "corrected". Or did it it occur in later runs and then corrected. Does it even matter ? Likely not in this case since the hobby treats it as a variation. And for me, under my personal definition of a variation, it does fit, since it surely looks like someone intentionally intervened in the print process to correct it.

Another example of this type of variant would be the 82 blackless cards. They are listed as a set and not as variations in The SCD Standard Catalog. But they are the same as the regular 82 cards except they lack the black ink. The cards can also be found with grey where the black should have been as the ink ran out. Like the Thomas, the cards were distributed in packs and are scarce. Did someone notice that the black ink ran out and "fix" the problem, or was it not noticed and the ink simply refilled in the normal process. And does it matter for purposes of classification

The Blackless cards are recognized by SCD, but not, as far a I know by PSA. Not sure about Beckett. In that sense they may be like the 62 green tints that are recognized by SCD, but not PSA, and maybe for similar reasons, since there are many cards where they are in transition with grey of faint hints of black, and overall hard to spot without close inspection

I need to stop thinking about this stuff:eek::(:rolleyes:

Al, I think PSA must have recently started recognizing both the 62 GTs and 82 blackless, as there are some examples listed on ebay with "Green Tint" and "Blackless" noted on the flip.

Yes PSA has started recognizing GT's they are clearly still learning and miss-identify quite a few that I have seen. Al, I think there are around 14 1990 cards that were affected by the missing black ink, but (as fate would have it) the one that has the most dramatic change is the Thomas card. Most just have a bit of the black outlines missing, none have the player name missing except Thomas (99% sure of that but memory is not what it once was). If you google Thomas NNOF there are some great threads including one where as you pointed out someone has tried to re-create the card placement on the sheet...

BTW - don't stop, this is Variation-Hound fun!

1990 Blackless
 

Not mine. This has been on ebay a long time. It started out at a much higher price

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1990-Topps-K...item19f3e8fab0

The CU thread is amazing and if anybody has interest in these cards it is worth finding and reading.

I do not remember the dealers name anymore but back in the mid/late 90's I was offered the color progressive proofs for the Thomas NNOF error. They wanted $15,000 each for them so I passed.

If I read his name again it would probably come back to me. I remember he was one of the biggest error dealers at the time and had prices several times what everyone else wanted for the same exact error cards.

Edit, just reread the thread and found the answer to my question.

Also, I think it would be cool to have a Thomas NNOF autographed where the name should be. Just a random thought.:)

Proofs
 

Ben--that is fascinating about the proofs. That would seem to indicate the error was there from the get go and could or should have been caught before the first print runs started... no ?

Steve -- you are my printer expert ?

In one of the threads I read a theory that there was a stray piece of cardstock that became stuck in the printer and covered up these sections of the card during the black run and either dislodged itself or was discovered and removed. I know very little about the printing process so I'd be curious if the printing experts think the theory holds water?

Out of curiosity I checked the population reports: PSA - 164 graded, SGC - 4 graded. Not too many.

I am not a print expert but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once.:D

Proofs like variations have different meaning to different people. I never got pictures of the "Proofs" because of the price. I only found out about them because seller was trying to low ball be on around 500 different only known wrong back error pairs I had.

I would guess they were blank backs with finished fronts because only the black ink is missing not the black from blue, red, and yellow printed over each other to make black. So there would be no difference in the color progressive proofs till the final black stage of printing.

Some useless info. In that era Topps sold its scrap errors and misprints directly to dealers. From my understanding this was very common in the industry. Score in my understanding was the only company not to do this at least once in a while. I know Score did not and was asked by several dealers and myself on a regular basis to do it. I had several friends that worked for Score and they were serious about scrap being destroyed.

Thomas
 

So they may have"just" been blank bank proofs of the regular card before any blank ink was used ?

Hi Al, I am horrible at descriptions. They are the Thomas NNOF version according to the seller so they had to have been completely printing on the front otherwise there would be no difference between a regular color progressive proof(first 3 colors) and one taken from the short time the NNOF cards were being printed because the black ink is printed last. I might be remembering the color progressive part wrong and seller could have just been offering proofs(blank backs). Either way at $15,000 each I was passing.

1990
 

See the link to the article/blog on the last page of this great thread. Good read for those interested in the Thomas and related 1990 missing black cards

http://forums.collectors.com/message...hreadid=709331

Great thread there Al. As I read that I realized that is where I heard the theory about the paper stock which was ruled out through the analysis in the thread. The link in BoB's article which is on one of the last pages of the thread is certainly interesting with the estimated cost and time to pull one from unopened wax.


http://www.bighurthof.com/#!1990-topps-variations/c1gda

Bumping this thread, here's an interesting update. Topps has been making cards labeled "Cards your mom threw out" and in 2010 put out a reprint of the Frank Thomas NNOF. However, they only blanked out the name, not the rest of the areas that did not have the black ink applied. Figured it was interesting:
http://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/2010/...3dd9&size=zoom

Yowsa. Just read through this thread. Al, congrats on getting your card for $400. I got mine for $800. :cool:

http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/ba...ThomasNNOF.jpg

Bargains
 

If so, that is about the only thing I have managed to get for less than you :(

This is my other one

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

Al & Bob, this should make you both feel pretty good. :D

http://www.goodwinandco.com/LotDetai...entoryid=29000

John, if you look closely all of the Topps-made reprints have differences from the originals, some more subtle than others.