1972 Topps - Errors and/or Variations

[kevinh1919]

I have some questions about errors and/or variations from the 1972 Topps baseball set. My presumption is that these are to be considered errors.

I am aware of the following:

18 - Juan Pizarro (yellow under C and S and also different cards with green under C and S)

29 - Bill Bonham (yellow under C and S and also different cards with green under C and S)

45 - Blenn Beckert (yellow under C and S and also different cards with green under C and S)

117 - Cleo James (yellow under C and S and also different cards with green under C and S)

Why is it that the yellow/green variation was only applied to these four Cubs players? There are other Cubs players in the set, yet they do not have a version of the variation. Also, why only the Cubs? I don't believe any other teams have it. Your thoughts - are the above to be considered variations or errors?

I have seen blackless cards with blank backs. I'm guessing the blank backs are due to lack of black ink.

I have also seen cards that look to have had their color applied twice, but the alignment of the multiple colorings was off the mark.

There is also a checklist that has the copyright in different locations on the back - 604. One has the copyright on the bottom right and the other on the bottom left. My presumption is that this was done in error. Would you agree?

Are you aware of any other errors and/or variations in the set?

[deweyinthehall]

The 4 affected Cubs were all part of the 1st series, and in fact are the ONLY cubs in the 1st series. While I am not an expert on the process of setting up and printing the cards, seems to me they were simply laid out incorrectly, the error was discovered, corrected, and not repeated in the successive 5 series (though there is the Hickman card).

As to the checklists, at that time checklists were typically printed as part of the prior series, and would then be printed again with the subject series. Multiple printings across more than 1 series creates opportunities for minor set-up issues - copyright alignment, card number alignment, the placement of check boxes relative to numbers and names, minor inking changes, etc. Such variations are seen with most checklist cards from 1972 back through their debut in 1961. Hard to say whether any variation is an 'error' per se.

[ALR-bishop]

Kevin--click on this link and type 1972 Topps in the search box. After checking out pics, click on the download for a list of variations. There are many 1972 recurring print defects or anamolies not covered by this site

http://baseballcardvariationsguidebo...wordpress.com/

[Cliff Bowman]

A 1972 Topps card with no black ink on the front and a blank back is a progressive proof card, but there are 1972 Topps cards with nearly no black ink on the front with full backs that got past quality control, but every one that I have seen has slight traces of black ink and aren’t completely blackless.

[ALR-bishop]

I have a variant of every checklist except for # 1. Anyone have two versions of # 1 ?

[ALR-bishop]

I have a whole bunch of recurring print defects for this set. Many are just registration issues but many are not. The Pizzaro is one example...variations and print defects both

If you have time ( and it takes some time but worth the effort if you collect varants) you will find several 72 variants in this long ongoing variations thread here

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=187722

[deweyinthehall]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

I have a variant of every checklist except for # 1. Anyone have two versions of # 1 ?

As far as I know, and I've done all research I knew how to build my master set, there are no variations in checklist 1.

If anyone knows of any, would be interested to hear.

[ALR-bishop]

What do you use for your master checklist... PSA master, SCD, Beckett, or your own developed list ?

[deweyinthehall]

It's a combination of all of the above, plus TCDB and https://baseballcardvariationsguideb...wordpress.com/
for the most part. Also these boards.

I think I define 'master' differently than some. I only include variations which result from human error - misspelled words, incorrect layouts, "traded" lines, things like that. So, Washington, Nat'l League and the Cubs that started this thread? Yes. I don't include accidents from the printing process itself - so, no Frank Thomas NNOF, 1967 Spiezios or Schaals, etc. I'd be chasing fish eyes and other detritus forever.

[ALR-bishop]

Do you include in your master all variations listed by one of the above sources or do you limit what they may list by your own definition ? Just curious. I tend to view variations as cards intentionally changed by the manufaturer ( not always easy to tell when a change was intentional), but I collect both variations and recurring print defects ( variants) with my sets. Many recurring print defects have been given the status of "variations" by the Hobby but the process in recent times ( post SCD Catalog) is chaotic at best .

Would be happy to participate in listing in this thread any variations or varants folks have for the 72 set...or not

[kevinh1919]

Originally Posted by deweyinthehall

The 4 affected Cubs were all part of the 1st series, and in fact are the ONLY cubs in the 1st series. While I am not an expert on the process of setting up and printing the cards, seems to me they were simply laid out incorrectly, the error was discovered, corrected, and not repeated in the successive 5 series (though there is the Hickman card).

Doh. I did not look at it from a series perspective. This makes sense.

Now please tell us more about the Hickman card.

As to the checklists, at that time checklists were typically printed as part of the prior series, and would then be printed again with the subject series. Multiple printings across more than 1 series creates opportunities for minor set-up issues - copyright alignment, card number alignment, the placement of check boxes relative to numbers and names, minor inking changes, etc. Such variations are seen with most checklist cards from 1972 back through their debut in 1961. Hard to say whether any variation is an 'error' per se.

I see. I agree that the multiple setups/printing increased the chance of mistakes.

Thank you for sharing!

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Kevin--click on this link and type 1972 Topps in the search box. After checking out pics, click on the download for a list of variations. There are many 1972 recurring print defects or anamolies not covered by this site

http://baseballcardvariationsguidebo...wordpress.com/

Thank you. I will have to take a look.

[kevinh1919]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

A 1972 Topps card with no black ink on the front and a blank back is a progressive proof card, but there are 1972 Topps cards with nearly no black ink on the front with full backs that got past quality control, but every one that I have seen has slight traces of black ink and aren’t completely blackless.

Got it. Thank you for the info.

[kevinh1919]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Do you include in your master all variations listed by one of the above sources or do you limit what they may list by your own definition ? Just curious. I tend to view variations as cards intentionally changed by the manufaturer ( not lways easy to tell when a change was intentional), but I collect both variations and recurring print defects ( variants) with my sets. Many recurring print defects have been given the status of "variations" by the Hobby but the process in recent times ( post SCD Catalog) is chaotic at best .

Would be happy to participate in listing in this thread any variations or varants folks have for the 72 set...or not

Please feel to do so.

[deweyinthehall]

Going back to the original post, I took a closer look at those series 1 Cubs variations.

There are 12 color combinations in the 1972 set - 2 teams for each.

The Cubs shares its with the Indians.

In all color combo pairs, the lettering and all its facets are identical, but not here. Look at the Indians - the areas under the letters are green. On the "correct" cubs 1st series cards, and all cubs throughout the set, the underside of the letters are yellow, which also matches the color of the thin border around the whole front of the card. Nowhere else does a card's underside coloring match the border. Look at the 1st series Cubs "errors" - the undersides of the S and C are green - this matches with the Indians colorings and contrasts with the border color.

So what is going on? The "error" cards reflect 50% of what the Cubs cards SHOULD look like - green under the letters. The "correct" versions, and all other Cubs in the set are actually in 'error' in that they do not conform to the set's coloring pattern - they are in fact the ONLY team which fails to do so, so this makes it plain they are an aberration.

I think the green ink was accidentally omitted from the U and B on the series 1 Cubs. Someone realized this created an issue, but rather than correct things and add green under the U and B, they erred and made the C and S yellow. Once that occurred, they kept the design yellow through the other 5 series for consistency.

Reasonable?

[butchie_t]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

I have a variant of every checklist except for # 1. Anyone have two versions of # 1 ?

Sigh,,,

Did not know there was a #1 checklist variation. Can you tell me what it is?

I am reasonably sure you have become the Emeritus DEMI-GOD of variations Al.

Time for you to publish a detailed compendium.

Regards,

Butch.......

[kevinh1919]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

I have a variant of every checklist except for # 1. Anyone have two versions of # 1 ?

If it’s easy to share, what are the variants for each of the team checklists?

[butchie_t]

Originally Posted by kevinh1919

If it’s easy to share, what are the variants for each of the team checklists?

https://baseballcardvariationsguideb...wordpress.com/

Go to this link, a great source of info.

Butch

[kevinh1919]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Kevin--click on this link and type 1972 Topps in the search box. After checking out pics, click on the download for a list of variations. There are many 1972 recurring print defects or anamolies not covered by this site

http://baseballcardvariationsguidebo...wordpress.com/

It definitely helps now that I went back and read for 1972 Topps. Thanks again for passing along.

Originally Posted by butchie_t

https://baseballcardvariationsguideb...wordpress.com/

Go to this link, a great source of info.

Butch

Thank you, Butch. I figured out that Al was referring to the first set checklist, not card #1, which is the Pirates team checklist. I read the link for 72 Topps and had I done so when Al first mentioned it, I would have had a few less questions. ��

[Zach Wheat]

Are there variations with in the 1972 Topps Cloth Stickers?