Show...me...your print variations!

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by swarmee

D-shaped print defect over Home on back.

Similar to the 1952 Topps Woodling above, here's another recurring splotch in the text box in 1952 Topps:

1952 Topps - [Base] #28.1 - Jerry Priddy (Red Back) [Good*to*VG‑EX]
Courtesy of COMC.com

[ALR-bishop]

Like Woodling, the Priddy can be found with scarce front defects as well....a blue blob in lower left bottom front border or a red slash in bottom front center border. One of the blue blobs is on ebay now at a wishful thinking BIN. It also has the back defect seen on the COMC card, but the COMC card does not have the blue blob, so I guess they are not concurrent

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-TOPPS-28-JERRY-PRIDDY-RED-BACKS-TWO-2-PRINTING-VARIATIONS-DETROIT-TIGERS/263450562866?hash=item3d56e09132:g1wAAOSwf15aZAC ~

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by gracecollector

1961 Topps Checklist 3rd Series #189. Is this a known variation, or just a print defect? I find these intriguing as I can't figure out what would cause these boxy areas to occur, especially as text underneath them appears, the bottom box is either yellow or white, and the box varies in size. What's also interesting is that there are two recognized printing variations of this card - Type 1 with copyright on back beginning at card #263 and Type 2 beginning at #264. Of these 3 cards, one is Type 1 and two are Type 2. The last card also has the photo cropped very differently, as uniform number 14 is missing.

Due to the cropping differences, it appears that one of these three checklists are from different sheets and was printed/released with a different series.

So what I find interesting is that both checklists would end up with similar variations. However, after realizing that all three were sold on Oct 3 by the same ebay seller it started to make more sense. The seller is a high volume seller and more than likely uses a Fujitsu sheet scanner to accommodate their volume of scans. These sheet fed scanners are used by many of the higher volume sellers (Deans, GMcards, battersbox, etc). On these scanners there are different "factory" settings that allow for image adjustments and if the user does not have their settings correctly set, image adjustments similar to this will occur.

Several years ago I thought I had stumbled onto a never seen before variation. I bought a 68 Topps LL card from both Deans and GMcards that appeared to have this same RARE variation. When both cards were in hand and no variation was there, I realized what had happened...their scanner settings were off.


Coincidentally the same seller of these 1961 checklist cards sold the exact same 68 LL card I bought several years ago .... and as predicted, the image in their listing appeared identical to the image from the cards I had bought from both GM and Dean.

It appears Sirius needs to adjust the settings on their scanner to prevent variation hunters from thinking they have found some new variations.

If for any reason I am wrong, I apologize...I would love to see in hand images of these three cards posted by the buyer(s) of the cards.

[Fleerfan]

Thanks for the explanation about the scanner issues. That is what I thought might be causing some of these interesting looking variations I saw on some listings for 1965 Topps Football.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by Fleerfan

Thanks for the explanation about the scanner issues. That is what I thought might be causing some of these interesting looking variations I saw on some listings for 1965 Topps Football.

You're welcome....it appears the 65 Topps FB cards you pictured are from the same larger volume seller who probably is using a Fujitsu 7160 and does not have his settings set correctly for card scanning.

A few years ago when I received my 68 LL card, I checked the settings on my Fujitsu scanner and I believe I had figured out that it was the "hole punch removal" option needed to be turned off to avoid these unique and random occurrences from appearing on scans of cards. Most of these sheet fed scanners are primarily designed for use with regular 20LB paper which may or may not have hole punches in them from being stored in a binder, however, with the correct use of options these scanners are great for scanning large volumes of cards front/back in a short period of time (2000/hr).

[ALR-bishop]

“Fascinating”.... Spock

[JollyElm]

I ran across this odd and timely print anomaly today...

footballcardpumpkinmisprint01.jpg

Surely, I kid.

[swarmee]

It did remind me of the possibility. There was a Magic the Gathering set in the 90s where the equipment wasn't fully cleaned after printing some Charlie Brown cards, and some of the Charlie Brown images were lightly imprinted in the background.

[Cliff Bowman]

It might all be a plot by a few high volume sellers to sell ordinary run of the mill cards to unsuspecting error collectors that would otherwise just sit in their inventories.

[71buc]

I dont generally collect such things but this card fits nicely in my collection. The team photograph is printed on the non gloss side of the card stock and the back of the card is printed on the glossy side of the card stock. There is also a wet transfer of the back of the card on the front of the card. This is the first version of this card with these printing anomalies I have encountered.

[swarmee]

Interesting: a real "flip stock" as they're called in Topps Heritage.

[71buc]

Thanks for that information. I was unaware that Topps is currently intentionally making "flip stock" cards. Although it is unlikely to possess much value, is it safe to assume this one in my collection is a rarity?

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by 71buc

I dont generally collect such things but this card fits nicely in my collection. The team photograph is printed on the non gloss side of the card stock and the back of the card is printed on the glossy side of the card stock. There is also a wet transfer of the back of the card on the front of the card. This is the first version of this card with these printing anomalies I have encountered.

Very nice find Mike. While I have seen many examples of wet transfers over the years, this is the first flip stock anomaly from 60s/70s I have seen.

[steve B]

I saw a handful of 72s like that offered years ago. Maybe in the 90's?
The asking price was way too high for me at the time.

It's really nice to see one.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Fleerfan

Thanks for the explanation about the scanner issues. That is what I thought might be causing some of these interesting looking variations I saw on some listings for 1965 Topps Football.

Here's a Dean's Card listed on COMC.

1966 Topps - [Base] #373 - 1966 Rookie Stars - Jack Hiatt, Dick Estelle [EX]
Courtesy of COMC.com

[Sliphorn]

These likely were parts of three-card salesman samples. The correct versions are on the top left of the two sample cards and the error right under it. The two right versions of each are the correct # and info versions from the correct cards. The ones at the bottom are the cartoon that is also used on the errors. Notice that the error cartoons do not have all of the red ink. The cartoon on the correct Whitey Ford has the answer on two lines only, while the error card above it uses three lines with a hyphen. I did a lot of research using COMC to find the Billy Martin cartoon that was used in the DeMaestri error card. I believe the sample cards had two of these on either side of a third player who had the commercial on the back, as is seen on the Frank Robinson card back.

Notice on the closeup of the cartoons, that there is some difference in the colors as well as sentence structure on one.

[ALR-bishop]

Neat stuff Tom.

[swarmee]

The #37 that was recently sold on eBay (Early Wynn front, Don Drysdale back, Frank Torre card #) was one I gave the seller the identification of being a salesman sample in a Facebook group. Sold for $150 as a BIN/BO. I was predicting a sale price closer to $50.

[swarmee]

1957 Topps - [Base] #294 - Scarce Series - Rocky Bridges
Courtesy of COMC.com

Blue splotch on left border is a recurring print defect.

[JollyElm]

Here's an odd one that is quite easy to find.

The 1972 Series 6 checklist can be found with a pair of smudgy dark areas interfering with the names near the bottom. They are usually quite similarly placed across multiple cards, but there is some variation to where they appear (I believe).

s-l1600-14.jpgs-l1600-13.jpgs-l1600-5.jpg

[ALR-bishop]

This card has two version; copyright left or copyright center left on back. In checking those two in my set the defect Darren highlights is on my center left card. Does it appear on both versions or just that one ?

[Kevvyg1026]

Perhaps one version of the checklist is from series 5 printing and the other from the series 6 printing

[JollyElm]

Those pics are just screengrabs, so I don't know which version(s) of the back they have, but there are undoubtedly some found on COMC where the backs can easily be seen.

[aronbenabe]

Anyone know how common this is with the 1971 Topps?

[swarmee]

You mean the oversaturated orange? My guess would be it got a second pass through one of the inking stages.

[aronbenabe]

Originally Posted by swarmee

You mean the oversaturated orange? My guess would be it got a second pass through one of the inking stages.

Ah, thanks for the explanation...seems right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[swarmee]

For future questions, I would recommend 1) uploading smaller scans and 2) giving us your actual question, instead of making us figure it out based on your crazy oversized scans... ;-)

[steve B]

I for one like the crazy oversized scans! There's so much I can see that just can't be seen on smaller scans.

[ALR-bishop]

There are some minor back variants in some of the Leader cards in the 91 Topps set involving either a complete or broken circle around the MLB copyright. Neither are apparently hard to find, but if you have old eyes, they are hard to see. I could not make them out with the scans on eBay or COMC. A fellow board member was able to send me what I needed ( the Hasselhoff Cheesburger man), and even in hand I needed a light and magnifying glass to see the differences.

It is of course ridiculous to care about such differences in cards, but since I do, I appreciate bigger scans as I get older. But they do distort threads when posted. I can still remember, as a low tech guy, being stumped early on in how to size pics for posting. It still presents problems for me on occasion

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

There are some minor back variants in some of the Leader cards in the 91 Topps set involving either a complete or broken circle around the MLB copyright. Neither are apparently hard to find, but if you have old eyes, they are hard to see. I could not make them out with the scans on eBay or COMC. A fellow board member was able to send me what I needed ( the Hasselhoff Cheesburger man), and even in hand I needed a light and magnifying glass to see the differences.

It is of course ridiculous to care about such differences in cards, but since I do, I appreciate bigger scans as I get older. But they do distort threads when posted. I can still remember, as a low tech guy, being stumped early on in how to size pics for posting. It still presents problems for me on occasion

Like Al, I like the larger scans when details are hard to see .... even in hand.

But if there is a need to use a larger scan to see specific details on a card, at least crop down the image to just the card itself.

[LuckyLarry]

[swarmee]

1974 Topps - [Base] #5 - Hank Aaron Special (1966,1967,1968,1969)
Courtesy of COMC.com

Black dot on the top right border is a recurring print defect.

[savedfrommyspokes]

I can't remember if the "dotted" line print variation located on the upper left of the 1970 389 Jim Shellenback cad has been discussed before or not. However, I came across my first copy and wondered if the dotted line extended onto the card above. The answer is yes, but only a small part of the line can be seen along the bottom edge of the 70 Topps 388 Bryon Browne card.

[ALR-bishop]

The left Browne has two defects and the second may cross over too

[Sliphorn]

I never go after the wrong backs that are rampant in this hobby UNLESS they are the common versions of cards. Thesis the case in the 1955 Bowmans where the Bolling and Johnson wrong backs are the commons. I scanned these recently for Mike Cady and was amazed to find out that the Johnson backs have the card numbers that correspond to the players on both. The Bollings have the same card number even though the back is otherwise incorrect. The Bollings BOTH have #48 even though Frank is #204. Ernie and Don Johnson have the correct numbers. I hope folks can follow me on this. I had never noticed that the error cards had this variety.

[ALR-bishop]

One of the few times a post by Tom did not send me scrambling to find some card

[Sliphorn]

Thankfully I did not find some obscure unknown variation or error this time. I just was ignorant of this fact.

[JollyElm]

For you no black blob, but large fisheye fans...

s-l1600-18.jpg
Jim-Northrup-(No-Blob).jpg
1726877579178062410.jpg

[aronbenabe]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ALR-bishop]

Tommy looks a little out of sorts....and big, really big

[swarmee]

How do those "no blobs" get graded as straight 8s without a PD qualifier?

[aronbenabe]

Does anyone know how common these print variations are for the 1970 Topps Baseball set?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[steve B]

The overly dark 70 Topps are a bit unusual, but they are out there.

I should give mine another closer look and see if I can spot what actually caused them.

[savedfrommyspokes]

I am not sure which is rarer....charcoal grey 70s or the use of grossly oversized images w/o any description....appears they are both fairly common and recurring.

[aronbenabe]

Thanks Steve and Spokes for your replies


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ALR-bishop]

There is a thread or discussion within a tread ( maybe this one) on the charcoal 70s

[gracecollector]

savedfrommyspokes was exactly correct. These turned out not to be true defects. The seller's scanner was to blame. Sorry for any confusion.

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

Due to the cropping differences, it appears that one of these three checklists are from different sheets and was printed/released with a different series.

So what I find interesting is that both checklists would end up with similar variations. However, after realizing that all three were sold on Oct 3 by the same ebay seller it started to make more sense. The seller is a high volume seller and more than likely uses a Fujitsu sheet scanner to accommodate their volume of scans. These sheet fed scanners are used by many of the higher volume sellers (Deans, GMcards, battersbox, etc). On these scanners there are different "factory" settings that allow for image adjustments and if the user does not have their settings correctly set, image adjustments similar to this will occur.

Several years ago I thought I had stumbled onto a never seen before variation. I bought a 68 Topps LL card from both Deans and GMcards that appeared to have this same RARE variation. When both cards were in hand and no variation was there, I realized what had happened...their scanner settings were off.


Coincidentally the same seller of these 1961 checklist cards sold the exact same 68 LL card I bought several years ago .... and as predicted, the image in their listing appeared identical to the image from the cards I had bought from both GM and Dean.

It appears Sirius needs to adjust the settings on their scanner to prevent variation hunters from thinking they have found some new variations.

If for any reason I am wrong, I apologize...I would love to see in hand images of these three cards posted by the buyer(s) of the cards.

[ALR-bishop]

Brad-- glad you posted those. I for one learned something about that scanning issue

[savedfrommyspokes]

"Blackless-ing"?

[ALR-bishop]

Clearless ?