Topps 1986 Oddity

[ALR-bishop]

I have never sold anything on ebay

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

I have never sold anything on ebay

I do not blame you for that, it has become a pain to sell on eBay. Here is the listing with the same exact error. http://www.ebay.com/itm/1986-Topps-D...p2047675.l2557 I have been looking for the Puhl card that was beside the Clemens with no luck so far.

Was hoping it was you that bought or sold it. Just curious about what it sold for.

[Cliff Bowman]

Was hoping it was you that bought or sold it. Just curious about what it sold for.[/QUOTE]

$125.00. I offered the seller $100.00 a few months ago but was declined. Al gets all of the cool cards

[ALR-bishop]

Have not seen one with the blue defect either. But seeing a similar defect the on Winfield is interesting. It likely exists on other cards in the set as well

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Have not seen one with the blue defect either. But seeing a similar defect the on Winfield is interesting. It likely exists on other cards in the set as well

1986 Topps Mike Smithson from the same sheet as the 1986 Topps Dave Winfield, C*.

[Matthew80]

Interesting to see them on the HOF-type players. Must have sucked as a kid to draw one of these, I bet.

Do these types of printing errors occur in many 1980-90 sets and in Donruss and/or Fleer?

[steve B]

Yes, they can and do appear in nearly all the 80's/90's sets, and can appear in almost any set.

There are two different things shown, with similar results.

The Clemens and Seaver are caused by a poorly made plate for the black color. There should be a bunch of them out there depending on how long the printer used the bad plate.

The Winfield and Smithson are caused by water or solvent dripping on the plate. Too much water in one spot and the plate won't pick up any ink. Solvent will do nearly the same thing. Those are usually truly unique, there may be a card from the next sheet showing a similar but less severe version, but not always.

Both are interesting, showing that Topps printed Blue under the black.
I'm not sure why they would do that, it won't ever show unless the registration is way off, and over millions of cards the cost of extra ink would actually add up. It might have been done as a QC measure so they could see if the ink was printed evenly when it was just the blue layer.

Steve B