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

[4reals]

Yes Cliff, very nice!

I understand the excitement surrounding the 90 Thomas NNOF card (star RC) and the missing ink is in an important location of the card (name). However, when you simplify it down to the type of error it is (similar in nature to the 86's shown) it really shouldn't be recognized by the publications as a legit variation. In theory, they should then go and add all of the other examples we've found over the years and that just is never going to happen. It would be easier to strip the NNOF Thomas of its master set residence but I'm afraid the reaction at this point would not be positive. Logically it doesn't make sense to me but I don't see that it's ever going to change.

[ALR-bishop]

We need to elect someone to be in charge of this hobby. We are in a sate of anarchy

[steve B]

Originally Posted by 4reals

Yes Cliff, very nice!

I understand the excitement surrounding the 90 Thomas NNOF card (star RC) and the missing ink is in an important location of the card (name). However, when you simplify it down to the type of error it is (similar in nature to the 86's shown) it really shouldn't be recognized by the publications as a legit variation. In theory, they should then go and add all of the other examples we've found over the years and that just is never going to happen. It would be easier to strip the NNOF Thomas of its master set residence but I'm afraid the reaction at this point would not be positive. Logically it doesn't make sense to me but I don't see that it's ever going to change.

The 90 Thomas and the Wiggins/Flanagan pair shown are entirely unrelated errors.

The Wiggins/Flanagan is from water or solvent dripping onto the plate or blanket in the press. It's a fairly common error for the era, but finding a matched pair is very cool. It's also the sort of error that is probably unique or nearly so.

The Thomas is from some debris, probably tape blocking some of the black plate from being exposed when it was being made. A printing error, but a recurring one. Probably uncommon since the plate would have been replaced pretty quickly. I'd call it a variation, since it's the result of a different plate. Others might not because of the unintentional nature of the error.

Steve B

[ALR-bishop]

Steve---I have seen a few of the Seaver/Clemons blue defects, which are another matched pair. I am not sure what happened on the Winfield, which has a blue defect but also some missing ink similar to the 90 Thomas. I find it interesting because there seems to have been 2 defects in play.

Since the Seaver/Clemons did recur, at least for a few runs, is it likely the same would have happened on the Flanagan/ Wiggins ? Would these blue defects from 1986 have been self correcting without any intervention ?

There is a very good thread on CU about the Thomas card and the related cards around it that are also missing the black ink. Somewhere in that tread there is a scan of all the cards on an uncut sheet with a diagram of the fairly large piece of debris or tape that cause it.

[steve B]

Seaver/Clemens is more like the 90 Thomas. Probably not as severe, If I remember that thread right there's something like 15 cards affected by the same object that caused the Thomas.

I have some 77 Topps cloth checklists that have the same problem as the Flanagan/Wiggins.

It's possible that it recurred over a few sheets, but no more than a few.

When the operator adds water sometimes it drips onto either the plate or the offset blanket. If it drips on the plate it would probably only be on one sheet since the plate is wet and inked each rotation, and the pressure should squeeze out enough water to keep it to one sheet. I can see water getting on the rubber blanket maybe lasting a couple rotations under the right conditions.

If it was solvent, which is used occasionally to remove ink buildup on the rollers, then it might last a bit longer on the blanket. But again probably only one or two turns on the plate since the water would float it off and the pressure would push it out.

I do have one card showing where the ink floated on a very overwatered plate. Pretty odd effect.

Steve B

[4reals]

Originally Posted by steve B

The 90 Thomas and the Wiggins/Flanagan pair shown are entirely unrelated errors.

The Wiggins/Flanagan is from water or solvent dripping onto the plate or blanket in the press. It's a fairly common error for the era, but finding a matched pair is very cool. It's also the sort of error that is probably unique or nearly so.

The Thomas is from some debris, probably tape blocking some of the black plate from being exposed when it was being made. A printing error, but a recurring one. Probably uncommon since the plate would have been replaced pretty quickly. I'd call it a variation, since it's the result of a different plate. Others might not because of the unintentional nature of the error.

Steve B

Steve B,

You're right in regards to the solvent/debris on plate difference...I suppose comparing the Thomas NNOF to the 86's was a mistake, however, there ARE many examples similar to the NNOF that are not recognized, like the '63 ERA Leaders card I showed earlier in the thread, and most notably, the other partial blackless '90 Topps cards from the same sheet like these:

[steve B]

I didn't explain that very well.

The group of 90T related to the Thomas are from something causing the plate to be made incorrectly.

The plates are made from a set of large negatives called the mask. It's usually a bunch of negatives taped to an opaque paper or plastic sheet. The plate is exposed much like a photograph would be, then developed. If something like a hunk of tape or strip of paper was between the mask and the plate that part wouldn't get exposed and that portion of that color wouldn't print.

I think the 90T and the Seaver/Clemens were both caused that way. The 90T is the most extreme example I've seen. Very sloppy work by the platemaker.

Other cards missing areas of color may be similar, but it's just one way of having missing color in an area.
Incorrect original
Incorrect mask
Bad plate
Solvent/water drips
Debris in the press.
Too much wetting of the plate
Underinking
Damaged/stained paper stock
Misfeed of a sheet
Partial print of the sheet - Impression cylinder not engaged for the whole rotation
Sheet not fed through at all

I think that's it, there could be others I missed.

And some of those have related errors.

Debris in the press can sometimes wrap around the plate, get inked and print what looks like faded solid color.

If there's too little water instead of too little the entire plate can get inked to varying degrees and will also print a light solid layer.


All are pretty cool, but the only one I'd call a variation is the incorrectly made plate.

Steve B

[ALR-bishop]

[gracecollector]

1959 Don Zimmer #287. From what I've tracked, about 90% of printing has unbroken "O", 9.5% has broken "O", and 0.5% has a partially broken "O".

Unbroken "O" in Dodgers.


Partially broken "O" in Dodgers.


Broken "O" in Dodgers.

[ALR-bishop]

Good one Brad. Has Don ever looked better than on that card