Topps 1959

[ALR-bishop]

Kevin---good info. I had not noticed the missing stats. Ironically the 2nd version I have of House has a smudged, partially missing T in Complete on rthe back, and that one has the stats. So I guess you could have 3 versions, since yours has stats and no smudged T

Saved--I saw a article on the Bauer and it had a scan. Never seen it in person.

I have the Wynn with the blotted i in pitcher on the front. Where is the break in the stat box on the white back ?

Do you have or have you seen the blue Banks ?

My Dodgers 457 # 482 is Meyers. Do you have a Houttman ?

I have seen many defects like the Singleton in many sets, but not that card

[Keviron]

I was wondering if the Smudged "T" and full stats would be found together on a card; so I guess yes they can!

From my research, I think it may be possible to have the Wynn on grey or white back, with or without the "I" in PITCHER smudged on the front and with or without the frame line break on the back. That makes 8 possible variations (whew). The break is on the left side, to the left of 1944.

(This card is not mine, the image is pulled from an eBay auction)

[Keviron]

While the back of the 416 Sullivan get a lot of attention for the circle/no circle and period/no period varieties, I also noticed a difference on the front. Maybe less pronounced than the Drabowsky or Ramos varieties, but this one is definitely repeated.

On some cards the lower left corner of the card is clean orange. On others there is a small rectangle - it almost looks like tape might have been used to hold things together early in production and this made its way onto the card (total speculation ?). Interestingly, I have only ever seen the rectangle on the no circle/no period and no circle/period varieties. Granted I have not seen too many of these. I have seen the circle/period (normal) variety with both the rectangle and a clean corner.

The left side of the scan shows no rectangle, the right side of the scan shows the rectangle.

[ALR-bishop]

Wow. Now how many Sullivans do you have to have them all

[Cliff Bowman]

I noticed these recently, 1959 Elmer Singleton and 1959 Hank Sauer with excessive yellow ink along the bottom edge. Undoubtedly there are others with this printing flaw.

[ALR-bishop]

More good stuff Cliff

And Saved, wanted to acknowledge your reference to Richard Dingman. I have also shared info with him and his lists are a great resource. Dick Gilkeson is another

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Saved--I saw a article on the Bauer and it had a scan. Never seen it in person.

I have the Wynn with the blotted i in pitcher on the front. Where is the break in the stat box on the white back ?

Do you have or have you seen the blue Banks ?

My Dodgers 457 # 482 is Meyers. Do you have a Houttman ?

I have seen many defects like the Singleton in many sets, but not that card

Al, I have not seen the blue Banks. Both my 457s show Meyers.

Richard D. bought some cards from me a while back and I shared with him how much I enjoy his list of variations. He didn't realize that it was noticed, used and appreciated. Periodically, I have sent him some variation cards that I have come across and he has added them to his list.

Here is his site:

https://sites.google.com/site/richarddingmancards/home

[savedfrommyspokes]

I found two of the 416 cards I have, with no circle around the "C", also have the small darker colored rectangle box on the lower, left, front. Is there a correlation that if the C is missing the circle then the rectangle appears on the front??

[ALR-bishop]

Saved---just checked my 3 different back variations and all 3 have the little square mark

[ALR-bishop]

Can someone confirm...seen or have...the Houtteman versus Myers version mentioned above ?

[brightair]

Guys,
Just came across this discussion and am now referring to see what I have and what I don't and then to update my variation lists on my site referenced above.
Much appreciate all the discussion and input!
Keep it up, imagine this forum for each Topps and Bowman vintage years, and others!
Anyone willing to trade any of their extra variations, lmk.
All the best,
Richard Dingman
https://sites.google.com/site/richarddingmancards/home

[4reals]

Hi Al,

You know I have my finger on the pulse when it come to Dodgers variations and the like. I have not ever heard of a variation for this particular card before but was cautiously excited to learn a new one might be lurking around out there. I spent some considerable time today asking some of my contacts if they've heard about or encountered this variation and no one had. At this point it would have to be filed in the 'I have to see it to believe it' want list. If it is indeed proven to exist it would be a great discovery and would undoubtedly have to be cataloged by the major publications, after all, that's more than just a glorified ink mark.

[ALR-bishop]

Richard--always good to hear from you

Joe-- the Dodger Houteman card if it exists would be a true variation and should be verifiable unless it is a rare proof error or an urban myth. I too consider it in same vein as the Toops 1962 Stamp of Sievers as an Athletic variation... need to see it. But it never hurts to ask