2002 Topps Albert Pujols - does the 'corrected' version exist?

[deweyinthehall]

Working on a master 2002 set, and I have yet to be able to find visual proof that a corrected #160 showing Pujols' actual image on the card reverse (not Placido Polancio) actually exists.

If it does, I assume it is hyper-rare.

But - does it exist?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by deweyinthehall

Working on a master 2002 set, and I have yet to be able to find visual proof that a corrected #160 showing Pujols' actual image on the card reverse (not Placido Polancio) actually exists.

If it does, I assume it is hyper-rare.

But - does it exist?

Yes it exists.

[deweyinthehall]

I've found opening day and HTA parallels with the real Pujols on the reverse but so far not the base set version...

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by deweyinthehall

I've found opening day and HTA parallels with the real Pujols on the reverse but so far not the base set version...

I mistook the HTA version for the one you need.

[Rich Klein]

But It's very difficult to obtain and we did get verification from Topps in 2002 and published that in our Beckett Baseball Card Monthly. I think that was one of the E&V columns I wrote back in the day and we did have a picture of said card

Regards
Rich

[ALR-bishop]

I have never seen one


https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrN...RIyeDme9ltCSA-

[mighty bombjack]

Hello all. I am actually the person who made this error (worked as baseball editor at Topps in 2001-2). My sincere apologies to Albert, Placido, and collectors everywhere!

Once the error was discovered/reported, I pulled a legit Pujols head shot. I was told that we (Topps) no longer corrected errors like this during a print run, as that could be viewed as creating inserts that went against pack odds (i.e., a way to possibly sell the end/leftovers of a print run - putting rare corrections in the last cases printed). The photo was to be used for variations of the set (Chrome, HTA, etc), just as it was, but not the flagship base card itself.

Thus, I have always avowed that a corrected flagship version doesn't exist.

Now, to be clear, I pulled the correct photo pretty quickly after printing started, and I was not privy to most of the manufacturing process. So it's entirely possible that a corrected version was made. I've seen Rich post that he's seen one, and he obviously knows his shit. But I've never seen one, and I was told they weren't going to make one.

The mystery continues I guess. If it exists, I hope someone comes forward with it.

[deweyinthehall]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

Hello all. I am actually the person who made this error (worked as baseball editor at Topps in 2001-2). My sincere apologies to Albert, Placido, and collectors everywhere!

Once the error was discovered/reported, I pulled a legit Pujols head shot. I was told that we (Topps) no longer corrected errors like this during a print run, as that could be viewed as creating inserts that went against pack odds (i.e., a way to possibly sell the end/leftovers of a print run - putting rare corrections in the last cases printed). The photo was to be used for variations of the set (Chrome, HTA, etc), just as it was, but not the flagship base card itself.

Thus, I have always avowed that a corrected flagship version doesn't exist.

Now, to be clear, I pulled the correct photo pretty quickly after printing started, and I was not privy to most of the manufacturing process. So it's entirely possible that a corrected version was made. I've seen Rich post that he's seen one, and he obviously knows his shit. But I've never seen one, and I was told they weren't going to make one.

The mystery continues I guess. If it exists, I hope someone comes forward with it.

Thanks for this great information!

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

Hello all. I am actually the person who made this error (worked as baseball editor at Topps in 2001-2). My sincere apologies to Albert, Placido, and collectors everywhere!

Once the error was discovered/reported, I pulled a legit Pujols head shot. I was told that we (Topps) no longer corrected errors like this during a print run, as that could be viewed as creating inserts that went against pack odds (i.e., a way to possibly sell the end/leftovers of a print run - putting rare corrections in the last cases printed). The photo was to be used for variations of the set (Chrome, HTA, etc), just as it was, but not the flagship base card itself.

Thus, I have always avowed that a corrected flagship version doesn't exist.

Now, to be clear, I pulled the correct photo pretty quickly after printing started, and I was not privy to most of the manufacturing process. So it's entirely possible that a corrected version was made. I've seen Rich post that he's seen one, and he obviously knows his shit. But I've never seen one, and I was told they weren't going to make one.

The mystery continues I guess. If it exists, I hope someone comes forward with it.

Wayne:

And I'm going from memory 20 some odd years later but I believe Clay Luraschi told us at the time it was less than 10 percent of the Topps Print Run with the corrected Pujols photo. May be less than five percent even in reality.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

Hello all. I am actually the person who made this error (worked as baseball editor at Topps in 2001-2). My sincere apologies to Albert, Placido, and collectors everywhere!

Once the error was discovered/reported, I pulled a legit Pujols head shot. I was told that we (Topps) no longer corrected errors like this during a print run, as that could be viewed as creating inserts that went against pack odds (i.e., a way to possibly sell the end/leftovers of a print run - putting rare corrections in the last cases printed). The photo was to be used for variations of the set (Chrome, HTA, etc), just as it was, but not the flagship base card itself.

Thus, I have always avowed that a corrected flagship version doesn't exist.

Now, to be clear, I pulled the correct photo pretty quickly after printing started, and I was not privy to most of the manufacturing process. So it's entirely possible that a corrected version was made. I've seen Rich post that he's seen one, and he obviously knows his shit. But I've never seen one, and I was told they weren't going to make one.

The mystery continues I guess. If it exists, I hope someone comes forward with it.

This is great stuff and a fun look at how the things we obsess over come to be. Nobody has ever shown a fixed copy so it appears the internal policy was adhered to and there is no correct version.

[Bill77]

They did correct the Mark Loretta card from this set but only put it in the factory set and have done the same for other cards in different years as well. My guess is that if a corrected version does exist it would be in the factory set. The real question would be which version of the factory set is it in as I believe they put out 2 different sets red and green box.

[Rich Klein]

Topps did correct the Loretta card for their Home Team Advantage set which from reading the Beckett Blurb was in the Blue Factory set.

And if you want to see both pictures, COMC.Com has all the photos you need to see on Loretta

https://www.comc.com/Cards,ss,=2002+...oretta,ot,i100

Regards
Rich

[Bill77]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

Topps did correct the Loretta card for their Home Team Advantage set which from reading the Beckett Blurb was in the Blue Factory set.

And if you want to see both pictures, COMC.Com has all the photos you need to see on Loretta

https://www.comc.com/Cards,ss,=2002+...oretta,ot,i100

Regards
Rich

Post 28https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=356747
Also listed here: https://www.tcdb.com/Checklist.cfm/sid/1562?PageIndex=6

[Rich Klein]

Then I will go back to my original statement

The Pujols WERE Corrected but as noted with Mark "Sweet" Loretta, there probably are not very many AND with Sir Albert's popularity, I'll wager they are in collections

I'll also wager if anyone wants to make REAL good $$$$ they should put them into an established auction house and watch the sparks fly

Rich

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

Then I will go back to my original statement

The Pujols WERE Corrected but as noted with Mark "Sweet" Loretta, there probably are not very many AND with Sir Albert's popularity, I'll wager they are in collections

I'll also wager if anyone wants to make REAL good $$$$ they should put them into an established auction house and watch the sparks fly

Rich

Hey Rich,

The base Loretta was corrected in non-HTA sets, specifically in green sets that include the 5 draft picks card, the green sets with archives cards contain the error photo version still. They have been turning up at auction fairly frequently since this info came out.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

Hey Rich,

The base Loretta was corrected in non-HTA sets, specifically in green sets that include the 5 draft picks card, the green sets with archives cards contain the error photo version still. They have been turning up at auction fairly frequently since this info came out.

Cool -- isn't it nice we have something to chase in the 2002 Topps set

Rich