![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Thanks! You have many many more of the versions than I do! I wonder if it makes sense to edit the sketch, putting the clearest version on the very top (since it is highest on the clarity scale) and the completely blacked out version on the very bottom (since it is lowest on the clarity scale). All of the other versions fall between these two extremes (so those pictures would be in the middle). Then, I could replace the "no tint" label with "light red tint" (so the four columns across the x-axis would be "light red tint", "blue tint", "green tint", and "dark red tint")? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
It looks like the next two cards remaining from the clear column would be moved to the top of the current red column. The last remaining image in the old clear column would be moved to the top to start a red 2 column. You would also add 2 columns for each fish version and 1 for the negatives that we've talked about earlier. Then things get pretty interesting for the greens. There appears to me to be a minimum of 4 or 5 different green runs so it gets a little tougher for them. Fortunately, with some of the characteristic feature I mentioned earlier you can do some separating within the different versions. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
I also have one of the blue box cards. Pretty sure I have posted a pic of it. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=218755 With your card you can read the lettering in Marlboro pretty well in the scan despite the amount of tinting over the ad. Your card was one of the 4 or 5 that will fall in the mid-blue level on Steve's chart. With the blue box version I referenced you are unable to view the Marlboro lettering in the scan of the card and appears very much like some other "box" versions, but unlike those other versions with the blue box card in hand, you can still read the letters in Marlboro. The blue box version is the 3rd image on post #41. To follow up with your question, the lightest known red versions are the cards like the bottom three cards from the none column. As you mentioned, the "clear" card that I suggested be moved to top of the blue column has very little to no red tinting on the card and as the card does gain tinting over the ad its blue tinting and not red so it gets progressively bluer and not more red with additional tint. With the way Fleer produced the cards the clear versions go from clear to mid-blue to blue box and why I suggest that the top card in the none column and Kevin's card go atop the future blue column. This is also why I suggested the other cards in the none column be moved to the top of 2 future red columns. As these 2 red run of cards gain more tint they become darker red and become so much darker red they transition to the two other cards I included in post #41. I also suggested that he add two columns to his chart for the fish versions. If you look at the 2 different albums of the versions of the fish on my Flickr page you'll notice that the cards are setup in similar fashion to what Steve is suggesting in his chart. The top cards have very little tinting and the cards at the bottom have so much tinting that they transition into "box" versions. The cards transitioning is not a coincidence, but how Fleer covered the error. By making some changes to his chart I think we can highlight the different versions and how each version transitions in a lineage from light to darker. I don't have it 100% figured out at this point, but if I'm wrong I think it will come out pretty quick by trying to develop the chart further. If I'm right filling in the gaps will be fun and give us a better understanding of the errors. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
It is great what you guys are doing. Back when I was hoarding them I always wanted to take pics and make a list for all the different versions. EDIT: Added pic it is kinda hard t see in the pic but it definitely looks like yours in hand. Last edited by bnorth; 07-26-2020 at 07:29 PM. Reason: add pic |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Ben, I believe I own the blue one you had. I bought it from David on this board. I'm pretty sure this is the one due to the small scratch over the Marlboro man. I was lucky enough to grab a second blue one on EBay earlier this year. I know Kevin also has one of the blue ones. Outside of these and the ones on Hatorade's site I haven't seen others (but always on the lookout in case more come out of the woodwork). I'm still hoping to add to my above sketch but have been holding off for some cards to get back from PSA grading so I can scan them. If possible I want to use the same scanner and same settings so I can better differentiate the versions (as opposed to differences in scanner or photo settings). |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
I just pulled my first rack pack with a Johnson variation on top - black box, and it wasn't during the time period that we all though it "should" be. What is Hatorade's site? Can you provide that? Thanks! |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
![]() |
Tags |
1980's, 1989 fleer, error cards, randy johnson, variations |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Randy johnson marlboro error | hoebob69 | 1980 & Newer Sports Cards B/S/T | 1 | 06-17-2018 05:41 PM |
1989 fleer Randy Johnson | hoebob69 | Modern Baseball Cards Forum (1980-Present) | 63 | 02-24-2018 12:07 PM |
New 89 Fleer Randy Johnson Marlboro error version? | bnorth | Modern Baseball Cards Forum (1980-Present) | 4 | 03-04-2016 06:21 AM |
SOLD: MINT 1987 Leaf/Donruss Greg Maddux RC & 1989 Fleer Randy Johnson & B. Ripken RC | wilkiebaby11 | 1980 & Newer Sports Cards B/S/T | 1 | 10-22-2015 06:30 PM |
Randy Johnson 1989 O-Pee-Chee RC PSA 10 Low POP!!! | tsalem | 1980 & Newer Sports Cards B/S/T | 1 | 11-22-2012 08:59 AM |