Some pretty cool new(?) 1963 Topps Printing Error/Variations

[savedfrommyspokes]

Nice finds Cliff....with the bottom areas all being yellow, it would make since that these cards were all on the same row of the sheet. The 63 Topps #5 NL LL card I have seen (posted here I believe) missing the left border.

[SMPEP]

Cliff - I will second the great sleuthing, but will also add ... you are missing 3 cards. The row would have had 11 cards in it. I bet you'll find them if you keep looking.

Cheers,
Patrick

[ALR-bishop]

Go ahead Patrick, make his day

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by SMPEP

Cliff - I will second the great sleuthing, but will also add ... you are missing 3 cards. The row would have had 11 cards in it. I bet you'll find them if you keep looking.

Cheers,
Patrick

You are correct that there are eleven yellow bottom cards in that horizontal row, but I am pretty certain that only these eight cards in the row were affected. The Sadowski can often be found with an irregular cut on the left edge which tells me that it was the first card on the row, and the printing flaw ends on the Cook. I would still like to know who the next three are, though.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

Nice finds Cliff....with the bottom areas all being yellow, it would make since that these cards were all on the same row of the sheet. The 63 Topps #5 NL LL card I have seen (posted here I believe) missing the left border.

I was hoping nobody would notice that . I believe ten cards in the first series can be found with the same flaw, but along the left or right side rather than the top. Half of the cards in 1963 were printed upside down. I have found that these are even rarer than the high number printing flaw cards, I am still looking for three of them.

[JTysver]

This is from a piece of paper or tape being left on the negative when they made the plates.
This is not really a variation in my opinion but a printer's error.

[ALR-bishop]

Yes, but so is the 57 Bakep and the 58 Herrer, and maybe the 52 Campos black star or missing front border. All famous "variations".

What is the hobby definition of a true variation anyway ? What is your definition ? Intentional change made to a card ? What about double prints with differences like the 52 Mantle ? Intentional ? Variation ?

PSA has been listing a 61 Fairly with a smudge of green in the baseball on the back as a variation. Is it just a print defect ? Who is to say ? Who is the arbiter ?

No wrong views in my mind. Hobby conundrum. Some variants catch on, others do not. If you have one, it tends to be a variation, or you want it to be

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Yes, but so is the 57 Bakep and the 58 Herrer, and maybe the 52 Campos black star or missing front border. All famous "variations".

What is the hobby definition of a true variation anyway ? What is your definition ? Intentional change made to a card ? What about double prints with differences like the 52 Mantle ? Intentional ? Variation ?

PSA has been listing a 61 Fairly with a smudge of green in the baseball on the back as a variation. Is it just a print defect ? Who is to say ? Who is the arbiter ?

No wrong views in my mind. Hobby conundrum. Some variants catch on, others do not. If you have one, it tends to be a variation, or you want it to be

+1

[Sliphorn]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

+1

Note the backs of these 1957 cards with "Bakep" type errors. Why have they not been as sought after?

[ALR-bishop]

Tom --it's because you have them and we don't

[Sliphorn]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

+1

Here is an example of printing errors that sometime go wacko with collectors. These have the same type errors as "Bakep" with red paint overlying some of the white lettering. These should not be pricy but sometimes are.

[Cliff Bowman]

That 1957 Topps Sal Maglie with the over inked back went for a hefty price on eBay a while back if I remember correctly, if it's the same exact one.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by Sliphorn

Here is an example of printing errors that sometime go wacko with collectors. These have the same type errors as "Bakep" with red paint overlying some of the white lettering. These should not be pricy but sometimes are.

Found a couple of them. Do you think I would have any luck lobbying PSA to designate the Bailey "Side Of B/B Is Red"?

[jsrgale]

Anyone heard about a 1963 Bud Daley card (should be #38) instead the back is #68 Friendly Foes Snider and Hodges?

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by jsrgale

Anyone heard about a 1963 Bud Daley card (should be #38) instead the back is #68 Friendly Foes Snider and Hodges?

That would be interesting, as the Daley card is not immediately adjacent to the 68 Foes card on the uncut sheet, but it is two cards below the Daley card......could have been a severe misprint on the back portion of the sheet to have caused this. I can't recall seeing a wrong back due to a back misprint of anything more than an immediately adjacent card. Certainly would be unique....obviously, most of the cards from that sheet would have the same wrong back so maybe someone else has at least seen one of these other non-adjacent wrong backed cards.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by JTysver

This is from a piece of paper or tape being left on the negative when they made the plates.
This is not really a variation in my opinion but a printer's error.

In your opinion, is the 1990 Topps Frank Thomas No Name On Front just a printing error or is it a variation? (Not my card, unfortunately.)

[ALR-bishop]

I would normally say it is a recurring print defect, but since I have one, it is definitely a "true" variation



Same with this recurring print defect...apparently




But, the jury is still out on this Thomas no name