Topps Packaging/Production Timeline Help

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by toppcat

NDA's and general reluctance to talk about Topps production processes render this type of attempt moot usually. Topps is opaque and also has almost no records from the past. It's stymied me for years.

I figured as much. I’d assume the same for UD (especially regarding their early years).

The production info is just one part of the picture here. Finding some info from a Topps source regarding the changes made to the card is the second, most important part and it is hard to imagine any reason why anyone with knowledge about it would have to worry about breaching any NDA. It seems doubtful that whatever the reason for the changes, they’d be protected trade secrets.

[West]

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

I figured as much. I’d assume the same for UD (especially regarding their early years).

The production info is just one part of the picture here. Finding some info from a Topps source regarding the changes made to the card is the second, most important part and it is hard to imagine any reason why anyone with knowledge about it would have to worry about breaching any NDA. It seems doubtful that whatever the reason for the changes, they’d be protected trade secrets.

Just out of curiousity, is there a reason we can't discuss the card in question? I'm quite interested in the general subject as it is, but actually know very little about 1989 Topps errors and misprints.

As for the non disclosure agreements, I have mostly had the same experiences as Dave (Toppcat). Despite numerous attempts I was only able to speak to one former employee.

There are signs that the veil of secrecy is lifting with time. Phil Carter was "Director of Sports" in 1987 for Topps and just last week went on the record for ESPN in the story about Don Mattingly's birthday. However, I've found that the guys who are most visible are often in some kind of PR or upper management position that would have interaction with the press. Topps' employee records were very confidential at the time and I've never had any luck tracking down anyone who had anything to do with pre-production. For example, John Tassoni Jr of Topps printing subcontractor Quebecor was interviewed by SCD last year but he was just a floor worker in 1990.

https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...hn-tassoni-jr/

If you're looking for someone who would have been involved in pre-production (plate making, correcting errors, etc), that would have likely been a different department. Depending on the card itself and the nature of the error, you're probably not even looking for a Topps employee. You would likely be wanting to talk to a pre-production worker from 1988-early '89 at Federated Lithographers-Printers (which became Quebecor in Nov. 1989 when they bought it). Let's take a look at the two articles detailing pre-production and see if we can figure out what the process was (and hopefully Steve B can actually answer this question at some point)

When you look at Tassoni's interview, he was at one point quoted as saying that in the early 90's, “The film was sent to us,” Tassoni said. “All we had to do was strip it in.” This implies that while photography, artwork, graphics and design were likely done in house at Topps, once it was all completed and ready to be shot and negatives created to make printing plates, that would be shipped off to the subcontractors at Federated Lithograph Printers/Quebecor to have final negatives created and then used to create the printing plates. This would seem to make sense to me. Since the plates would degrade frequently over the time it takes to produce millions of sheets of sportscards, it would be worthwhile to have platemaking done at the printing facility to decrease turnaround time when new plates are needed. Or when an error is discovered that needs correction. So if you are looking for information on how an error was corrected in the middle of a 10 million sheet press production, my best guess is you would be looking to talk to someone at Federated Lithograph Printers.

It is possible that I have this all wrong and they did all their platemaking and print corrections in Duryea. If you look at the second article I have that goes behind the scenes at Topps, they make it sound as if all printing and pre-production was done right in Duryea at the Topps plant. But the employee I spoke to about the accuracy of this article implied that this was a bit of PR spin. It sounds way better in print to imply that all the work is done in house at Topps rather than to clumsily explain that they've subbed out printing to a Canadian owned company operating in Rhode Island. Here is the article below to compare:

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by West

Just out of curiousity, is there a reason we can't discuss the card in question? I'm quite interested in the general subject as it is, but actually know very little about 1989 Topps errors and misprints.

Absolutely not, I'd love to share as much about this card to anyone interested. I am working on a lengthy blog entry now. My site focuses on errors and variations (and unmarked promos, proof) from the junk wax era, especially the stuff that didn't make the guides, usually due to discovery after the error fad of the early 90s had passed. The card in question is as fascinating to me the 1990 Topps NNOF or 1989 Fleer Bill Ripken is to others. But warning, this is deep dive into the production lifespan minutia of a common!

1989 Topps Tony Oliva #665 (Turn Back The Clock subset)

Here is what is known:

(3) Versions of the card exist:

1. Missing copyright line on back (blank space were copyright goes)
2. Blacked out copyright line on back (vertical black bar printed over copyright)
3. Copyright line on back (copyright visible in correct placement)

Since 1989/1990 Beckett has listed two versions: "Missing copyright" and "Corrected" versions. Dick Gilkeson's Error & Variation Guide has listed the "Blacked-out" version since at least 1990 (my copy of his guide is from 1990). Since I started down the E&V road in 2002ish, I have been hunting for the "Blacked-out" version. Most hobbyists, I think its fair to say, only know of the two versions. I have seen very few examples of the blacked out card, possibly for this reason. It being a common card likely has something to do with that as well.

Beckett has a parenthetical note next to the card in their annual guide: "Fabricated Card" - which likely refers to the fact that Oliva didn't have a solo card in the 1964 Topps set so Beckett mocked up something based on the photo of his Rookie Stars card (shared with another player). A very common practice today with Topps Archives types sets, not so common then.

So the questions I have are:

What order were these produced? It is commonly believed that there are two versions of the card and a copyright line was originally forgotten and added early on in the run (it is a tough card to find). But the discovery of a third version challenges this. Like the black box on the Ripken or the one on the 1990 Upper Deck Mike Witt, this vertical black bar covers up the copyright line perfectly. So...

Could the copyright line version be the mistake? Copyright line version runs from the beginning throughout the run, word comes in from ?? toward the end of it, requesting the change, card receives black strip over copyright either to A) mark for removal from sheets or as the correction itself. Aesthetically, it doesn't work so Topps changes the plate and removes the copyright line entirely. If so...

Why did Topps need/want to remove it? Does it have something to do with the card being a mockup or "fabricated card" as Beckett calls it? What possible reason could Topps have to remove the copyright line from a product of theirs?

And lastly, if the production order is as generally believed: no copyright followed by a "correction" by adding the copyright, where does the blacked-out version fit in? Is the black bar covering nothing? A marking point for where the copyright is meant to go? Any good reason for this to be the case?

This is where things are right now. I just received a disappointing "blind lot" of 141 copies of the card from Sports Lots. No blacked-out version. I'm looking at cases now online (though this is riskier than buying 100+ copies sight unseen).

I think I've covered everything so far. Let me know your thoughts.

[steve B]

May as well combine the answers as I see them to both questions.

west-

Topps process was much more involved at the design/proofing stage than the place I worked. We probably did one or two photographic proofs based on the customers originals. Some jobs there were no proofs at all*.
After that it was probably very similar. Original art was photographed, (Most likely the meaning of the "board X" markings in the sheet margins.
The negatives went to the stripping dept. which mounted them to an opaque paper called a mask, which made it a full plate size negative of sorts.
Then off to platemaking,
Then plates off to the pressroom.

Our place pretty much held the plates in the plate room until the pressroom needed them.
depending on the press, whoever was printing for Topps, Quebecor or anyone, probably would have made the next needed plate as required. So if say yellow was on the press for 3 days, the cyan plate would probably be made on day 3. If they were really adventurous they might have anticipated the overall need and made multiple plates. (If they were using multi- color presses, which seems likely and/or if they were using two presses at the same time they would have had to anyway. And the cost of a spare plate would be small compared to a production delay)

When Tassoni says “The film was sent to us,” Tassoni said. “All we had to do was strip it in.” To me that means they were sent negatives by Topps and their stripping department made the masks.
That really makes sense, especially if you consider the size of a sheet on the press. Shipping a bunch of negatives that big would have been a bit of a hassle.

Which leads into Dylans questions...

the backs would have only required two masks, one for the underlying color, and another for the black.
If one card didn't get a copyright notice, the correction would be to make a copyright notice negative, cut a window for it into the right spot on the mask and put that small negative in place. Probably with the red stripping tape, which would have been kept away from areas intended to print, like borders etc. Or the tape could have been trimmed once it was in place.

So what I think the sequence is -
1) Incorrect plate with no copyright
2) Correct plate with copyright
3? 2A?) The copyright ends up coming off the mask, leaving a nice rectangular hole, which since it's like the light part of the negative ends up as a printed area.
4) That problem is found, and the mask repaired.

Alternately-
A lot of the elements are sent as sort of clip art negatives. Including the copyright notices, and they're added individually.
except one gets forgotten, leaving the same sort of hole.
1) plate with the bar
2)Darn! can't send them out like that! Tape over that thing and make a new plate right away! = No bar, no copyright
3) Guys! it has to have a copyright! How long have we been printing them without it? Ummm….. Ok, I'll have stripping send you a new plate right away. = corrected version with copyright.

Theres some precedent for the secong maybe being right. The 81 fleer were probably done with clip art style borders, and regular scotch tape. You can see that tape in some of the pictures.

If the first is correct, there will possibly be two ever so slightly different correct versions.




*I did a drawing of the High School for the yearbook, and it came back from the yearbook company cut in half. The next school year the school dept wanted to do a print commemorating the remodeling of the school, and they had the place I had worked for do it (No surprise, they did a lot of printing for the town) I brought the original in and told them what was wanted, and they just said "no problem" Never got a proof of any kind.
The final prints were very nice, and they'd fixed some unevenness where the cut was. And on two different sorts of paper! Turns out they did it for free or almost, and used paper leftover from other jobs.

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by steve B

So what I think the sequence is -
1) Incorrect plate with no copyright
2) Correct plate with copyright
3? 2A?) The copyright ends up coming off the mask, leaving a nice rectangular hole, which since it's like the light part of the negative ends up as a printed area.
4) That problem is found, and the mask repaired.

Alternately-
A lot of the elements are sent as sort of clip art negatives. Including the copyright notices, and they're added individually.
except one gets forgotten, leaving the same sort of hole.
1) plate with the bar
2)Darn! can't send them out like that! Tape over that thing and make a new plate right away! = No bar, no copyright
3) Guys! it has to have a copyright! How long have we been printing them without it? Ummm….. Ok, I'll have stripping send you a new plate right away. = corrected version with copyright.

This is very helpful info and much appreciated. It seems a very likely explanation for the card from a production error perspective and it may be all that there is to it. Have you completely ruled out there being a non-production-error reason to add, cover and/or remove the copyright line? Do you think there is any chance that the removal of the copyright was the final version?

I am not certain I can rule out other possibilities for the changes yet. I find it very unusual that Oliva, the only "fabricated card" of the TBC subjset that required a new card to be mocked-up had these issues while the other TBC cards on the same sheet (in close proximity to the Oliva), did not. This may be nothing but hard to ignore that there could be some connection to it.

After reading George Vrechek's interview with Mike Jasperson, I sent Mike an email in hopes that he had any info on the card. I'm doubtful that he would recall the card in any way but a lead on the production proof of the card could be very helpful and worth following. I dp recall several years back when Topps Vault was very active on ebay, regularly looking for proofs of the Oliva and coming up empty.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

This is very helpful info and much appreciated. It seems a very likely explanation for the card from a production error perspective and it may be all that there is to it. Have you completely ruled out there being a non-production-error reason to add, cover and/or remove the copyright line? Do you think there is any chance that the removal of the copyright was the final version?

I am not certain I can rule out other possibilities for the changes yet. I find it very unusual that Oliva, the only "fabricated card" of the TBC subjset that required a new card to be mocked-up had these issues while the other TBC cards on the same sheet (in close proximity to the Oliva), did not. This may be nothing but hard to ignore that there could be some connection to it.

After reading George Vrechek's interview with Mike Jasperson, I sent Mike an email in hopes that he had any info on the card. I'm doubtful that he would recall the card in any way but a lead on the production proof of the card could be very helpful and worth following. I dp recall several years back when Topps Vault was very active on ebay, regularly looking for proofs of the Oliva and coming up empty.

There are lots of things that might happen outside of a production error.

Like the copyright line could be wrong somehow, and need to be removed quickly. That could be done on the press by scratching/scraping a box where the copyright was on the plate. But that would be a short term measure, like if the stripping dept was only in on days and the problem was found and a correction demanded during second or third shift.
I figure both of those are very unlikely, since the demand for an immediate repair would probably have to come from Topps, and they would be closed as well. There would probably also be a few cards with the incorrect line. (How many times has any card co actually stopped all the copies of a card from getting out? )

As far as I know, the copyright back then was only about the card it was on. Not like today where a retired player sometimes has the permissions printed on the card back.
If the no copyright was last, why? The notice with the circled C is about a registered copyright. Even if they found out that particular one didn't go through all they would have had to do was stone off the circled C and keep printing. The created image was subject to copyright when it was created, even if it wasn't registered.
Of course, the whole copyright notice could be stoned off, it's pretty small so removing it would maybe take a couple minutes.
The only scenarios I can think of
1 )Topps didn't have permission to use the picture. Which is very unlike Topps. At least in the late 70's early 80's they contracted with photographers to take pictures and got whatever the photographer produced, or at least the bulk of it. I think the guy I met kept a few pics from each session he did, but he also collected cards.
They would have used a photo in their files that they already had the rights to.
2) Hmm... Maybe... Tony Oliva never signed a contract, so in a way the card wasn't actually licensed and maybe couldn't have a copyright? They removed the copyright notice instead of pulling the card. That would be pretty strange and I'd think it would have made the hobby press back then.
3) Topps messed up and never filed for a copyright.
All those would be really strange, considering how many layers of proofing and approvals Topps had. Bu then... stuff like the 79 Bump Wills still got through so maybe?

It might be worth trying to search the copyright database, if it never got a registered copyright you might find all the other cards except that one.

I'm thinking the production error is the most likely.

[steve B]

BTW, since Topps not copyrighting a card in it's main set in one of the huge production years would be a unique or nearly unique situation I'm almost hoping I'm wrong and it's one of the latter Ideas or something stranger.