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

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by gracecollector

1961 Topps Checklist 3rd Series #189. Is this a known variation, or just a print defect? I find these intriguing as I can't figure out what would cause these boxy areas to occur, especially as text underneath them appears, the bottom box is either yellow or white, and the box varies in size. What's also interesting is that there are two recognized printing variations of this card - Type 1 with copyright on back beginning at card #263 and Type 2 beginning at #264. Of these 3 cards, one is Type 1 and two are Type 2. The last card also has the photo cropped very differently, as uniform number 14 is missing.

Due to the cropping differences, it appears that one of these three checklists are from different sheets and was printed/released with a different series.

So what I find interesting is that both checklists would end up with similar variations. However, after realizing that all three were sold on Oct 3 by the same ebay seller it started to make more sense. The seller is a high volume seller and more than likely uses a Fujitsu sheet scanner to accommodate their volume of scans. These sheet fed scanners are used by many of the higher volume sellers (Deans, GMcards, battersbox, etc). On these scanners there are different "factory" settings that allow for image adjustments and if the user does not have their settings correctly set, image adjustments similar to this will occur.

Several years ago I thought I had stumbled onto a never seen before variation. I bought a 68 Topps LL card from both Deans and GMcards that appeared to have this same RARE variation. When both cards were in hand and no variation was there, I realized what had happened...their scanner settings were off.


Coincidentally the same seller of these 1961 checklist cards sold the exact same 68 LL card I bought several years ago .... and as predicted, the image in their listing appeared identical to the image from the cards I had bought from both GM and Dean.

It appears Sirius needs to adjust the settings on their scanner to prevent variation hunters from thinking they have found some new variations.

If for any reason I am wrong, I apologize...I would love to see in hand images of these three cards posted by the buyer(s) of the cards.

[Fleerfan]

Thanks for the explanation about the scanner issues. That is what I thought might be causing some of these interesting looking variations I saw on some listings for 1965 Topps Football.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by Fleerfan

Thanks for the explanation about the scanner issues. That is what I thought might be causing some of these interesting looking variations I saw on some listings for 1965 Topps Football.

You're welcome....it appears the 65 Topps FB cards you pictured are from the same larger volume seller who probably is using a Fujitsu 7160 and does not have his settings set correctly for card scanning.

A few years ago when I received my 68 LL card, I checked the settings on my Fujitsu scanner and I believe I had figured out that it was the "hole punch removal" option needed to be turned off to avoid these unique and random occurrences from appearing on scans of cards. Most of these sheet fed scanners are primarily designed for use with regular 20LB paper which may or may not have hole punches in them from being stored in a binder, however, with the correct use of options these scanners are great for scanning large volumes of cards front/back in a short period of time (2000/hr).

[ALR-bishop]

“Fascinating”.... Spock

[JollyElm]

I ran across this odd and timely print anomaly today...

footballcardpumpkinmisprint01.jpg

Surely, I kid.

[swarmee]

It did remind me of the possibility. There was a Magic the Gathering set in the 90s where the equipment wasn't fully cleaned after printing some Charlie Brown cards, and some of the Charlie Brown images were lightly imprinted in the background.

[Cliff Bowman]

It might all be a plot by a few high volume sellers to sell ordinary run of the mill cards to unsuspecting error collectors that would otherwise just sit in their inventories.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Fleerfan

Thanks for the explanation about the scanner issues. That is what I thought might be causing some of these interesting looking variations I saw on some listings for 1965 Topps Football.

Here's a Dean's Card listed on COMC.

1966 Topps - [Base] #373 - 1966 Rookie Stars - Jack Hiatt, Dick Estelle [EX]
Courtesy of COMC.com

[Sliphorn]

These likely were parts of three-card salesman samples. The correct versions are on the top left of the two sample cards and the error right under it. The two right versions of each are the correct # and info versions from the correct cards. The ones at the bottom are the cartoon that is also used on the errors. Notice that the error cartoons do not have all of the red ink. The cartoon on the correct Whitey Ford has the answer on two lines only, while the error card above it uses three lines with a hyphen. I did a lot of research using COMC to find the Billy Martin cartoon that was used in the DeMaestri error card. I believe the sample cards had two of these on either side of a third player who had the commercial on the back, as is seen on the Frank Robinson card back.

Notice on the closeup of the cartoons, that there is some difference in the colors as well as sentence structure on one.

[ALR-bishop]

Neat stuff Tom.

[swarmee]

The #37 that was recently sold on eBay (Early Wynn front, Don Drysdale back, Frank Torre card #) was one I gave the seller the identification of being a salesman sample in a Facebook group. Sold for $150 as a BIN/BO. I was predicting a sale price closer to $50.

[swarmee]

1957 Topps - [Base] #294 - Scarce Series - Rocky Bridges
Courtesy of COMC.com

Blue splotch on left border is a recurring print defect.

[gracecollector]

savedfrommyspokes was exactly correct. These turned out not to be true defects. The seller's scanner was to blame. Sorry for any confusion.

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

Due to the cropping differences, it appears that one of these three checklists are from different sheets and was printed/released with a different series.

So what I find interesting is that both checklists would end up with similar variations. However, after realizing that all three were sold on Oct 3 by the same ebay seller it started to make more sense. The seller is a high volume seller and more than likely uses a Fujitsu sheet scanner to accommodate their volume of scans. These sheet fed scanners are used by many of the higher volume sellers (Deans, GMcards, battersbox, etc). On these scanners there are different "factory" settings that allow for image adjustments and if the user does not have their settings correctly set, image adjustments similar to this will occur.

Several years ago I thought I had stumbled onto a never seen before variation. I bought a 68 Topps LL card from both Deans and GMcards that appeared to have this same RARE variation. When both cards were in hand and no variation was there, I realized what had happened...their scanner settings were off.


Coincidentally the same seller of these 1961 checklist cards sold the exact same 68 LL card I bought several years ago .... and as predicted, the image in their listing appeared identical to the image from the cards I had bought from both GM and Dean.

It appears Sirius needs to adjust the settings on their scanner to prevent variation hunters from thinking they have found some new variations.

If for any reason I am wrong, I apologize...I would love to see in hand images of these three cards posted by the buyer(s) of the cards.

[ALR-bishop]

Brad-- glad you posted those. I for one learned something about that scanning issue

[savedfrommyspokes]

"Blackless-ing"?

[ALR-bishop]

Clearless ?

[Kevvyg1026]

Found what appears to be a recurring print defect on two 1966 series 5 cards. Both #371 (Stange) and #381 (Fischer) appear to have a yellow streak, as noted. Both of these cards are in column 9 on the print sheets. Other cards in this column include #379, 440, 410, and 437 but I haven't see that defect on those cards.

1966_371_STREAK.jpg

1966_381_blue_5.jpg

[ALR-bishop]

As shown in post 1641 he can also be found with blue/green blob on chin, scarce recurring. Had not noticed line on Stange but in checking my set I have one. Now I need a normal one :-{