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

[ALR-bishop]

Claude--It looks to be the common version, it may be harder to find one without it

[benlee66]

some of my vintage oddities.

1. Mathews with white streak over shoulder
2. Killebrew w/flame to the left of his cap
3. Maris w/print shift: red in team banner
4. Trammell missing a lot of color
5. Munson RC that got no yellow print on obverse

[ALR-bishop]

Ben---do you think the Munson resulted from light exposure ?

[benlee66]

1. reverse of Munson RCs (my guess is the back went through the yellow inking twice, hence none on the front)
2. Schmidt obverse
3. Schmidt no name on back, greened out
4. Richard obverse
5. similar to the Schmidt, and was found in the same small collection

[ALR-bishop]

Neat Schmidt card

[benlee66]

1. Seaver with pink dot on color
2. another '76 green bleed back
3. Brett with a bruise on forehead (lefthand card). Maybe something like the '73 Kaline band-aid (wishful thinking)?
4. Menke reverse, card on right has small circle below the 1963 at the end of the text box and just above the top of the stat border.
5. Earl Campbell RC with ink blotch (i'm fairly confident it's a printing flaw and not after market damage)

[benlee66]

A better scan of the back of the Munson with no yellow on front. Lots of yellow on back.

I don't think it's sun-faded. Everything is crisp. Wish I could post a higher resolution scan.

[benlee66]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Neat Schmidt card

It's the neatest error/variation I've come across. How lucky that it was on Schmidt and not a common!?!

[ALR-bishop]

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Ben---do you think the Munson resulted from light exposure ?

No experience with 70 Topps but from the picture I would say yes it is faded. The card looks dull and the magenta does not pop with color. Real missing color cards are super rare. I have a couple pictured in the 80-Present January pick up thread. Those are not 100% missing color but the yellow ink was running very low. Notice how all the colors still pop even with the bad phone picture. In one of the Hank Aaron threads I pictured a amazing missing yellow Clemente that really shows the difference between real and faded.

[benlee66]

ALR-bishop, those are some amazing finds. The '57s and the Kingman are my favorites. Where did you get the '86 Seaver blue streak? I sold mine a couple of years ago on ebay and have been looking for another ever since.

[benlee66]

1-3. Yaz RC with washed out back?
4. Schofield mystery. I don't think it's from a marker.
5. Another pic of the Munson RC with white letters.

Would love feedback.

[ALR-bishop]

Bought both on ebay. They are scarce but recurring. Here is how it happened, and where it happened again.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by benlee66

1-3. Yaz RC with washed out back?
4. Schofield mystery. I don't think it's from a marker.
5. Another pic of the Munson RC with white letters.

Would love feedback.

Could that 1960 Yaz be a 1960 Topps Venezuelan Carl Yastrzemski card? That 1969 Topps Schofield is awesome, I have seen Topps 1974 through 1981 cards with that printing flaw but never a 1969.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Bought both on ebay. They are scarce but recurring. Here is how it happened, and where it happened again.

Still haven't seen a 1986 Topps Terry Puhl with a small section of the the printing flaw, but it has to exist.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

Still haven't seen a 1986 Topps Terry Puhl with a small section of the the printing flaw, but it has to exist.

I have not found a Puhl either and I have been looking fairly hard for over a year.

[ALR-bishop]

That makes 3. . If some seller puts it up with a low BIN he will never know what he may have missed out on

[benlee66]

Another example of a '70 Munson with white letters. Just found this on my hard drive from a past ebay auction. It's what originally made me think it was a possible variation, since there was another example.

[ALR-bishop]

I have no idea if they are faded cards or recurring print defects. In another thread there is a discussion of the 58 Aaron cards with the blue versus green background. The first couple that showed up went for high dollars on ebay since people thought they might be variants ( if a true variation involves an intentional change in a card, I do not think recurring print defects qualify).

But, then a bunch of the blue Aarons started to show up on ebay, probably manufactured by exposure to light. Of course there is a risk in exposing a higher dollar value card to light damage on the hope it will bring more money than the regular version

It might be worthwhile to take a less valuable but similar 70 rookie card and expose it to light and see how it compares to the Munson after such exposure.

The situation with the Aaron card, one of which I have, has led me to believe one would never know for sure if one had a true variant ( recurring print defect) or just a faded card in most cases

[Tripredacus]

As a rule of thumb when it comes to fading due to light/sun, red is the first to go. If that particular card was missing its yellow due to fading, the red would be effected as well.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Tripredacus

As a rule of thumb when it comes to fading due to light/sun, red is the first to go. If that particular card was missing its yellow due to fading, the red would be effected as well.

I can 100% guarentee this is false except maybe on 1 or 2 years of cards that I have never seen. Yellow goes first and then Magenta(red).

[jl4jc2001]

I'm new to this board. I'm mainly a set collector (Baseball 61 - 87), but I hunt variations also (sell overflow on eBay).

I ran across a few of these that have a mystery number in the top right hand corner. I've lightly tried to 'scratch off' the number, without any success.

Would there be a reason Topps may have had something like this?

Jerry

[ALR-bishop]

Welcome aboard.

Those are fascinating cards. I have not seen that before. Are the backs normal ?

Why did you start with 61 and end at 87 ?

[jl4jc2001]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Welcome aboard.

Those are fascinating cards. I have not seen that before. Are the backs normal ?

Why did you start with 61 and end at 87 ?

Hi Al:
The backs appear to be completely normal. At first, I thought someone stenciled the numbers on the cards, however I've not been able to scratch the numbers off (being careful not to damage them). I certainly wouldn't want to 'market' something errantly, so I've just held them.

Actually, the 70's were my hay day of collecting, so I've tried to work backwards into the 60's to complete some of those sets (1967 is my favorite). I was out of the hobby for about 20 years, stopping around 87, when we had children and priorities changed (I had to be a big boy...lol). I've just never had interest in completing the rest of those more recent years sets.

[4reals]

Welcome Jerry!

Great additions to the thread! Are those the only two examples you've seen?

I'm a Dodgers collector. Here's a recent one I've found...partial black border missing on the bottom banner point.

I know this isn't the B/S/T forum but this is an extra. If anyone wants it for $5 dlvd in a PWE, feel free to pm me.

[jl4jc2001]

Hi Joe:
Thank you. Found a 71 Gaston, with a 3 on it in the same location on the card. Nice 74 T John!

[Sliphorn]

Here are some 1964's with paint issues. Were they drunk at the time of production?

[ALR-bishop]

Those players or the printers.... or both ?

Where were you in 1964 ?

[aelefson]

Hi-
Here are a few print freaks I have found recently. The 72s look like the 64s posted above. My scanner is having some issues, but two of the 76 Topps cards have green covering the name area on the back, and one has some sort of white mark in the name area. They are not as dark as my scanner shows, but the green completely obscures the player name on the back.

Alan

[ALR-bishop]

Good ones, Alan

[4reals]

LOVE those last two shares! Exactly the stuff I try and chase when I think of print variations!

[jl4jc2001]

Here are four of my new arrivals: 77 Blue with partially missing lower left border, 59 Conley with yellow blob, 72 Killebrew wrong back (Astros Rookies on the back, miscut), 81 Lynn crazy miscut.

[begsu1013]

i am not a variation guy at all. not to say, i don't have extreme respect for folks and their eyes that can find this type of stuff.

...i still cant find waldo.

with that being said, not sure if this is a noted one or not, but i thought something looked off on the 61 koufax card.

it took me a while, but then it hit me. the "A"s in "sandy koufax" are filled in w/ white.

not a scanner fill in, card is in hand.

[JollyElm]

There's a recurring anomaly on 1972 Tom Timmermann cards. On the upper half of the right side white border, there is a short, black, vertical line and a little ways down from there is a deflated balloon shape and some random lines.

Here are three separate cards containing these anomalies…

72timmermann.jpg

[ALR-bishop]

I wonder if we picked one random card from every Topps set 52 to 79, and one of us variant obsessive types were assigned to research each card, front and back, for any variant cards on eBay for a specified period, say a month, if it would tend to indicate every/any card can found with some print defect, recurring or not, if you look long enough and close enough.

[SMPEP]

Hi Al,

Can't speak for every year, but for 1952, I'd say nope. You couldn't do it with just any random card in the set. At least with regard to RECURRING print defects. Sure if you count one time defects on a card as a variation like the Bartirome with the overprinted red ink on back - you probably could find something on every card in the set. But in my opinion, that card is not a variation. It's just a one off printing mistake. Makes it one of a kind. But not an addition to the checklist.

Cheers,
Patrick

[ALR-bishop]

Personally I do not consider any variant a variation unless it was changed intentionally by the manufacturer (that would include unintentional changes that occurred from intentional changes or set up in the printing process)

I do think it is often impossible to tell if a recurring print defect was intentionally changed. But non recurring print defects or unintentional temporary print defects, whether common, scarce or rare, are not real variations....for me.

But, my point was that if we searched long enough and close enough on any card, front and back, it would not surprise me if you would eventually find a print variant of some sort. I think most the cards posted in this thread are not variations, but they are variants ( cards that differ from their common counterpart in some way).

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

But, my point was that if we searched long enough and close enough on any card, front and back, it would not surprise me if you would eventually find a print variant of some sort. I think most the cards posted in this thread are not variations, but they are variants ( cards that differ from their common counterpart in some way).

Completely agree with this. You can take any 2 same player/year cards from pre-1990 and you will find some kind of print flaw that is different between the 2 cards. Some people even list these print flaws on eBay as variations for 100X and more of their normal value. At least with those prices you don't have to worry about shilling.

[SMPEP]

Sadly, Ben .... you still do.

[whiteymet]

Hi Guys:

I am not bigtime into this stuff. In fact I am not collecting Topps myself after selling my collection years ago. But I do love variations in the things I do collect.

I saw this recently and wondered if it has been noted.

Notice the difference in color on the Mays jersey, but more so on the color of the sky in the upper right corner.

Fred

[ALR-bishop]

Do not recall that one being mentioned, but color and tint differences in other cards have been noted, and think you can find them on many cards in most sets. Here are couple of more recent extreme example:

[JollyElm]

While looking to upgrade some of my 59's I noticed these Dick Brown print anomalies…

59DickBrown.jpg

The two on the left have red and black shapes in the margin, while the pair on the right each have a vertical blue line appearing in the lower right, white area.

[JollyElm]

And these two Milt Graff cards have an anomalous slanted line just outside of his left ear…

59MiltGraff.jpg

[ALR-bishop]

Good ones, Darren. Is there a color difference on Brown as well ?

[Sliphorn]

Many of these have this line on his leg. I would say about 30% or so do.

[4reals]

Originally Posted by begsu1013

i am not a variation guy at all. not to say, i don't have extreme respect for folks and their eyes that can find this type of stuff.

...i still cant find waldo.

with that being said, not sure if this is a noted one or not, but i thought something looked off on the 61 koufax card.

it took me a while, but then it hit me. the "A"s in "sandy koufax" are filled in w/ white.

not a scanner fill in, card is in hand.

Neat Koufax variation! I never noticed one like that before. Did you ever notice the magenta square in the lower right corner just under his arm? I believe it's an uncorrected print defect. I've looked unsuccessfully for a variation without it but have never seen one.

[D. Broughman]

Roy Face

[ALR-bishop]

Maybe it happened when the card took a beating

[irv]

Just noticed this one on E-Bay.

Black star on the back of this 52 Topps card? It looks like it is going to go for big bucks too?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-Topps-B...UAAOSwzhVWs1JG

[ALR-bishop]

Long time recognized "variation". There are also some partial black stars out there, and versions with partial missing front borders. They have some hobby recognition but are not part of the PSA registry master list and so do not carry as big a premium as the black star