Is 1953 Bowman the most error-filled card set in history?

[John1941]

(Sorry for the click-baity title.) I just wrote a blog post detailing how almost every single card in both 1953 Bowman sets has a statistical error: https://adventuresofabaseballcardcol...lled-card.html

[swarmee]

Not anymore: 2024 Topps Heritage (based on the 1975 set) has entire parallels where they screwed something up on the page, like this one:
https://www.comc.com/Cards,sr,=2024+...d+-+Red+Border

All the red borders (and other color parallels) were printed with text stating that they're white bordered.

But as for stats, probably.

[skelly423]

1949 MP & Co would like a word.

[Smanzari]

Doesn't 1954 have more? Nearly 20% of that set has an Error or variation (like 39/225)

[deweyinthehall]

1991 Topps would be a strong candidate....

[butchie_t]

I'm thinking 1990 Donruss may have a play in this category.

[bnorth]

1989 Fleer also has to be up there. With just 2 cards(Bill Ripken/Randy Johnson) there has to be easily more than 40 variations/errors. Then there are easily 10 or more other error cards in the set.

[Republicaninmass]

54 bowmans stats are variations, no?

[John1941]

Originally Posted by Smanzari

Doesn't 1954 have more? Nearly 20% of that set has an Error or variation (like 39/225)

20% of the cards in 1954 Bowman have a corrected error - 87% of the cards in 1953 Bowman have an error, and none of them are corrected. 1953 Bowman has 195 cards with statistical errors.

[John1941]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Not anymore: 2024 Topps Heritage (based on the 1975 set) has entire parallels where they screwed something up on the page, like this one:
https://www.comc.com/Cards,sr,=2024+...d+-+Red+Border

All the red borders (and other color parallels) were printed with text stating that they're white bordered.

But as for stats, probably.

Ouch. Topps is getting so lazy...

Because I'm a stat-lover I'm most concerned with statistical errors, so I'll take that.

[Kevin]

Always thought it was 1981 Donruss

[John1941]

From what I can see, 1981 Donruss has 30-35 errors. That's 5% of the set - not quite 87%. Donruss's errors were just a lot more noticeable.

This isn't directed at just one person, but maybe y'all could at least skim my article before you reply.

[John1941]

Originally Posted by skelly423

1949 MP & Co would like a word.

I'm not sure how to compare 1949 MP & Co. with 1953 Bowman, or any other reputable set - it's apples and oranges. But I did take a look at some of the literature on it - and yikes. That's one horrifying set.