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.

[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?

[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 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.