1984 topps mystery help needed
 

I may have posted this in the wrong area...anyway- been holding on to a stack of these weird 84 topps (no dups) have about 50 of them, mostly commons. Not blank backs, but the backs are missing the red font, etc.

Any idea out there?

Yes a color was missed in the printing process. Think of the blackless 82 Topps

Value depends on the collectors preference

Rich

Agree with Rich. I have a few from different years with my sets. These are 85 Minis

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img026.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img196.jpg

Some overboard 67s

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img164.jpg

Underdone

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img215.jpg

Here is one of mine from 84

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

Too much on this scarce King can bring a big premium

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img251.jpg

Couple more

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img367.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...ps6b627868.jpg

good stuff...thanks guys! Makes sense, would PSA slab these?

Not normally, unless they're cataloged in a true card guide like Beckett. Production errors are usually ignored by PSA.

Why would they not slab/grade them as Authentic.
Just curious

Rich

Because PSA doesn't want thousands of these print defects added to their Pop Report, and then attempted to be added to Set Registries. It would just be a way for people to extort registry competitors with cards that aren't real variations as intended by the manufacturers.
They send most of them back "NO GRADE, NO SPEC, NO INFO" meaning that they're not officially checklisted. Things that are checklisted (like the 1982 Blackless variation) are fair game to grade and add to registry sets.

Addition: Their term is N-9: "N-9 Don't Grade - When we do not grade an issue. The cards may be oversized or an obscure issue. You will not be charged the grading fee."

While I have a set of the 82 Blackless, and many of the transition cards with gray as well, I personally do not think of them as a separate set as checklisted in SCD, or variations. I think of them as recurring print defects

I agree that the defective backs should not be considered variations, but SCD, Beckett and the Registry have recognized several recurring, unintended print defects as variations.

There is no official definition of a variation and the term has been used inconsistently in the hobby.

Obviously PSA can choose to grade any defective card any way they choose...or not