Error variations vs. Print Variations: 1990 Fleer Martinez

[swarmee]

Picture for illustration purposes. To me, if you think the magenta wasn't printed in that one section, then it would likely be another fluke like the NNOF Thomas was. You can see that the rest of the card got the magenta pass.

[steve B]

That's what makes the variations difficult to nail down sometimes.

This could have happened a few ways.
They could have blocked off the 90 when setting up the mask. (most likely)
The 90 could have been blocked on the mask by mistake after it was made.(not likely)
Something could have gotten in between the mask and plate when exposing the plate. (Not likely, but considering that it happened a few times at Topps with the 1990 Thomas etc being the best known maybe not as uncommon as it seems. Unlikely, because it doesn't seem to affect any of the other magenta on the card)
The press operator could have stoned off the 90 for some reason. (Unlikely, but the pointing hands on the 81 Fleer seem deliberate to me. Pretty easy to scratch them into the plates. )
There could have been a bit of debris stuck on the plate that wouldn't take ink. (Possible, but ink usually gets jammed in around the edges and leaves marks. )
That bit of debris could be on the offset blanket (Somewhat likely)
The offset blanket could be damaged. (Not all that likely.)

It could be fading, but that's also not really likely, even though it should be possible to make one.

When you get right down to it, many variations are fixes to mistakes. Some are easily identified, like having trade notices or not. Some, like this card it's a little harder to tell.

[ALR-bishop]

Dewey- what do you think should distinguish a recurring print defect from a “true” variation ? What what would be your definition of a card the hobby should recognize as a variation ? Your view is as valid as anyone else in the hobby theses days

[deweyinthehall]

I guess my definition (and the one I try to use in building my own collection) is that the original/error needs to have been "meant" to be printed that way - whether intentionally (e.g. the '74 Washingtons, which is very rare) or absentmindedly (e.g. the '79 Wills, '91 Topps Comstock, '89 UD Murphy, or most inaccurate data on the reverse), vs. something that happened as part of the printing process itself - the NNOF Thomas, the '89 Upper Deck Sheridan (partially obscured "OF"), etc.).

The more I think about this, the more I suspect the 90 Martinez is in the latter category.

[West]

Originally Posted by deweyinthehall

I guess my definition (and the one I try to use in building my own collection) is that the original/error needs to have been "meant" to be printed that way - whether intentionally (e.g. the '74 Washingtons, which is very rare) or absentmindedly (e.g. the '79 Wills, '91 Topps Comstock, '89 UD Murphy, or most inaccurate data on the reverse), vs. something that happened as part of the printing process itself - the NNOF Thomas, the '89 Upper Deck Sheridan (partially obscured "OF"), etc.).

The more I think about this, the more I suspect the 90 Martinez is in the latter category.

In my opinion, a printing defect would imply something transient that was created by accident, like fish eyes, solvent/water drips and any of the million other stains and printing doodads that don't get caught in quality assurance. A "true variation" should be associated with a dedicated set of printing plates.

While the 1990 Topps NNOF was created by accident due to a flaw in the creation of its black printing plate, the print run associated with it did have its dedicated set of printing plates and many other cards within that run have unique variations that are only found in that brief print run. It is likely close to 1000 identical copies exist before it was corrected. Since it had its own set of plates I believe it should have its own category as a variation within the set. The term "printing defect" does not accurately define the true causation of the error, in my opinion.

The paradox of error/variation collecting is the rarer the error is, the more valuable, but at a certain point some cards become too rare to achieve hobby recognition. It is what was very astutely termed the "event horizon" of population count.

https://not.fangraphs.com/the-error-...oples-history/

"The card, a 1990 Fleer Dave Martinez, turned out to be so rare that it was never listed in any of the major price guides, even well after the turn of the millennium. Though the internet has finally confirmed their collective existence, it’s still unclear how many copies of the card exist, and they’re sold so rarely that there’s no way to know how much they’re worth. This is the event horizon of the error card: at some point a card becomes so rare that it becomes invisible, and therefore worthless.

And so the card, with its very yellow 90, will sit in my garage, waiting for the day when the remaining collectors convene and decide that it’s worth buying. And when that day comes, I’ll have finally won that trade I made twenty years ago."

Am I quoting back a participator in this thread? This was a great article and I quite enjoyed reading it. I would note that another paradox of error and variation collecting is that if you bring more recognition to a certain error card, you increase the odds that some will surface, but you also increase the chances that someone else will outbid you for it.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by West

"waiting for the day when the remaining collectors convene and decide that it’s worth buying."

For what it's worth, two have sold on eBay, the highest one going for $60 in 2016. Can't determine what the other one sold for.

[West]

Originally Posted by swarmee

For what it's worth, two have sold on eBay, the highest one going for $60 in 2016. Can't determine what the other one sold for.

That's interesting, seems that the author may have won that trade after all. I just thought it was quite fitting that the article that this thread brought back to my memory from 7 years ago was based around the very card the thread is centered around.

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by West

"The card, a 1990 Fleer Dave Martinez, turned out to be so rare that it was never listed in any of the major price guides, even well after the turn of the millennium. Though the internet has finally confirmed their collective existence, it’s still unclear how many copies of the card exist, and they’re sold so rarely that there’s no way to know how much they’re worth. This is the event horizon of the error card: at some point a card becomes so rare that it becomes invisible, and therefore worthless.

And so the card, with its very yellow 90, will sit in my garage, waiting for the day when the remaining collectors convene and decide that it’s worth buying. And when that day comes, I’ll have finally won that trade I made twenty years ago."

Am I quoting back a participator in this thread? This was a great article and I quite enjoyed reading it. I would note that another paradox of error and variation collecting is that if you bring more recognition to a certain error card, you increase the odds that some will surface, but you also increase the chances that someone else will outbid you for it.

The article is not correct: the card has been listed in the guides (even monthly Becketts) throughout the 90s. I believe it was noted with “VAR1” or some other unusual abbreviation. At some point (maybe 90s annual guides) they added the “yellow ‘90” note in parenthesis. Not to mention that it has been cataloged in the Dick Gilkeson guide as far back as 1990.

That said, I feel certain that a small chunk of 1990 Fleer printed with an obstruction to the magenta plate where the ‘90 would strike. All cards were printed with yellow and magenta to produce the red ‘90. It’s also perhaps worth noting that Fleer utilized two separate printing facilities for this product and from all research I’ve compiled, this card only came from specific packaging type from one of the two. In other words, this card wasn’t simply an “early correction” but instead, a correction made to a very specific chunk of the run, isolated from the rest.

[West]

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

The article is not correct: the card has been listed in the guides (even monthly Becketts) throughout the 90s. I believe it was noted with “VAR1” or some other unusual abbreviation. At some point (maybe 90s annual guides) they added the “yellow ‘90” note in parenthesis. Not to mention that it has been cataloged in the Dick Gilkeson guide as far back as 1990.

That said, I feel certain that a small chunk of 1990 Fleer printed with an obstruction to the magenta plate where the ‘90 would strike. All cards were printed with yellow and magenta to produce the red ‘90.

Good to know. The article appeared on Fangraphs which is more targeted at the sabermetric community so the writer was probably just not aware of more niche publications like the Dick Gilkeson guide. It's nice to know that some more obscure variations like the 90 Fleer Martinez have gained a hobby following!

[deweyinthehall]

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

The article is not correct: the card has been listed in the guides (even monthly Becketts) throughout the 90s. I believe it was noted with “VAR1” or some other unusual abbreviation. At some point (maybe 90s annual guides) they added the “yellow ‘90” note in parenthesis. Not to mention that it has been cataloged in the Dick Gilkeson guide as far back as 1990.

That said, I feel certain that a small chunk of 1990 Fleer printed with an obstruction to the magenta plate where the ‘90 would strike. All cards were printed with yellow and magenta to produce the red ‘90. It’s also perhaps worth noting that Fleer utilized two separate printing facilities for this product and from all research I’ve compiled, this card only came from specific packaging type from one of the two. In other words, this card wasn’t simply an “early correction” but instead, a correction made to a very specific chunk of the run, isolated from the rest.

Thanks - this is all interesting. So, it does seem as though the Martinez with the yellow '90 was the result of a flaw or obstruction in the printing process, rather than - for some reason - being originally set up to print the '90 in yellow and then corrected later to print in red.