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

[Cliff Bowman]

I don't remember if this one has been mentioned here or not, Topps replaced Ed Bouchee with a second Jim Bunning on the 1958 Second Series sheet creating a double print of Bunning, making a photo cropping variation similar to the eleven double printed cards in the 1963 Topps Fifth Series sheet. The pinstripe hits the Tigers emblem in the center of the circle and the T on his uniform is cut off at the end on one version, the second version has the pinstripe more to the left hitting the Tigers emblem circle and the end of the T on his uniform is visible.

[ALR-bishop]

Either you or someone else told me about this one because I have both.

Still looking and hoping for a pulled Bouche proof

[ALR-bishop]

Not in the same League as Joe's above but maybe an honorable mention

[e6phillips]

Each of these three versions: no blob, small blob, larger blob, are fairly common. Malzone was double-printed, but I don't know why there would be three versions (and maybe more).

https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1632360416

Always looking for 1956 salesman samples, miscuts, sheet cuts, printer's defects, panels, overprints and other errors.

[ALR-bishop]

My group of Malzones. Blob at top. Then faded blob. Then no blob. But my no blob seems to have another defect. It is not a crease but maybe an after production mark rather than a printing defect

[JollyElm]

I know this one has been discussed before, so forgive me. We all know that the vast majority of 60's era Topps checklists had multiple variations, as some (most) appeared across two series' printings and they occupied multiple positions on the print sheets themselves. This led to slight (but distinct) differences in the cropping of pictures and whatnot.

Well, I finally made an animated gif of the 1969 Topps #412 Mickey Mantle Checklist to highlight the differences in that particular card...




To distinguish the two, I refer to them as 'high chin' and 'low chin.' (I guess I should've went with something more clever like 'hi-hat,' but as usual, the drummer gets ignored.) On normal size cards, the most obvious tell is the sky above the Mick. One looks huge, while the other is more of a sliver. Besides the chin and sky, there are other strange things afoot, too. The yellow rectangles are significantly different across the two printings, as the 'high chin' has much larger and fuller boxes, with only a hair's width separating them. And the 'low chin' version has the "SPECIAL!" area awkwardly tilted, as the rest of the line of text is pretty level.

If I had to guess, I would assume that there is probably at least one more (real, cropping oriented) version of this card.


Edited to add: Whoops! Forgot to mention that I know these are the Boswell (on back) variations, but I was doing this as a front-only way to distinguish the versions. The 'low chin' versions (big sky) are the ones with the fully intact Boswell name on back.

[Bigdaddy]

Was going through some '80s RCs the other night and noticed a 1985 Fleer Roger Clemens RC with red 'smoke' around the bill of his hat. Had never noticed this before. Looking at the 'bay, probably 1 out of every 30-40 of these cards has the red smoke, but don't seem to have any particular premium.

Is this a well known print variation?

Not my card below:

[Sliphorn]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

I don't remember if this one has been mentioned here or not, Topps replaced Ed Bouchee with a second Jim Bunning on the 1958 Second Series sheet creating a double print of Bunning, making a photo cropping variation similar to the eleven double printed cards in the 1963 Topps Fifth Series sheet. The pinstripe hits the Tigers emblem in the center of the circle and the T on his uniform is cut off at the end on one version, the second version has the pinstripe more to the left hitting the Tigers emblem circle and the end of the T on his uniform is visible.

I bought the other version of this that I needed but see something that looks like a "Y" on the left version kind of coming up above the bottom box. Am I seeing things? Thanks.