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

[ALR-bishop]

Thomas---can not remember if it was here or somewhere else that is was pointed out that this card has a recurring red dot defect on the back in the number. My red dot version seems to have more spacing on the front. Do you know if those differences coincide ?

[Sliphorn]

I'll check on the coincidence. I went to COMC and it appeared that they do NOT have specific issues. Good question.

[ALR-bishop]

My card with the red dot in the number on the back has the missing brown in the mitt on the front pointed out by Darren, and the defective IES in Series on the front pointed out by Steve, and the brighter orange border on the back pointed out by Thomas. Are these differences always consistent such there are just 2 versions ?

[shoeheart]

I love the unique proof variations ... cards printed prior to production and never made it further. Some are very obvious (like the 1977 Reggie), others not so much.

[shoeheart]

trying to list a few Cubs cards ....

[shoeheart]

Not sure if I'd call these proofs, variations, or prototypes. Obtained about 10yrs ago from Topps Vault ... these cards have fully-printed backs.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by shoeheart

trying to list a few Cubs cards ....

I didn't know the Sizemore existed, the Cubs traded him to the Red Sox in August 1979 so I'm surprised the 1980 proof still had him as Cub. What is the difference on the 1980 Cubs Future Stars cards? I have compared them to the issued card and can't find a difference.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

I didn't know the Sizemore existed, the Cubs traded him to the Red Sox in August 1979 so I'm surprised the 1980 proof still had him as Cub. What is the difference on the 1980 Cubs Future Stars cards? I have compared them to the issued card and can't find a difference.

The Sizemore card is a pretty neat card.....on the FS card, it looks like there are some cropping differences on the images for first two players pictured. The color of the "Cubs" in the banner is different also, but that might be because the card is a proof?

[Sliphorn]

I always assumed the 1949 Bowman set used 36-card sheets. These overprint examples are farther apart numerically than 36 by a long shot. Feller is #27 while the overprint is #99 Gustine. Kooks is #31 while the overprint is #103 Tipton. The difference between the two is 72 in both cases, likely two sheets? A mystery.

BTW, the card that is partially into the Kokos #31 is #32 Eddie Yost. Apparently the red commercial at the bottom got changed before too far along.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Sliphorn

I always assumed the 1949 Bowman set used 36-card sheets. These overprint examples are farther apart numerically than 36 by a long shot. Feller is #27 while the overprint is #99 Gustine. Kooks is #31 while the overprint is #103 Tipton. The difference between the two is 72 in both cases, likely two sheets? A mystery.

In this case, though, the logic is a bit flawed. Because there are overprints doesn't necessarily mean the cards were being printed at the same time. For instance, it's possible a sheet with a printed back was accidentally included with the sheets of blank paper at a later date (when a different series was being printed). And there is always the possibility it could have been just a piece of scrap the printers used to test a print run.