![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Here is a link to a Clemente.http://cgi.ebay.com/1971-TOPPS-630-B...item562fbc7977
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
hmmm, it may be kevin, my only thing is the one you have without the yellow the whole card looks faded, the red is washed and so on, if you had a yellow-less with the same deep red and black border then it would be more conclusive. i am not sure on this one?
i just looked at cuddas clemente, looks like the same to me, a washed out card, could this account for the missing yellow? if i were you i would try the nonposrts board and ask todd riley, he seems to be very good with colors and the process. Last edited by mightyq; 10-19-2009 at 12:16 PM. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
The normal Garvey is a borrowed pic that has had it's contrast darkened. The no yellow version has a nice black background as well. The red looks faded because it actually has yellow mixed in (more a very dark orange)...without the yellow it's a shade of pink. It's without a doubt not faded in the least. I'll try and get some close up scans to show the missing pixels (or white) where the yellow should be.
Thanks for the Clemente link. It's exactly what I was looking for. I've seen them called "white letter" version before but in reality it's not the case....it is yellowless. Kevin . . . |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Again, using the Garvey, here is the close up comparing a normal card to the missing yellow variation. Although this is just a small portion, the entire card is yellowless giving it washed-out or faded look at first glance. I believe many collectors have simply overlooked these for that reason.
Using a loupe will reveal the obvious. ![]() Kevin Saucier . . . |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Kevin
I had seen the Munson offered before but admit I thought it was a fading issue. Maybe not. Do you know if the Garvey and Munson were on the same sheet and if so who else was on that sheet ? Maybe Dave H knows Al |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I have no idea about the sheet placement.
It may be a good time to start a checklist (if possible). We can now confirm: Munson (2) Clemente Garvey These were probably identified because they are star cards and were closely scrutinized. There has to be more commons out there as well. I've also seen a 1971 Topps blueless(?). Kevin Saucier . . . |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Munson is a series 1 card, Garvey series 3 and Clemente series 5 so definitely not a same sheet issue.
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
We've all seen those Topps sheets from their archives that are printing sheets of different colors. I'm not a printing expert, but I'm sure someone out there is that can speak up about printing anomalies. Why should I care if they simply let the printing press run out of yellow ink? Interesting, but not a variation worth paying big dollars for, in my opinion.
|
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nice selection of vintage singles 1950-1980 | Archive | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 01-18-2009 09:08 PM |
1950-1980 singles at fair prices | Archive | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 1 | 09-27-2008 05:20 PM |
1950-1980 singles(baseball) | Archive | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 06-15-2008 10:08 PM |
1951-1980 baseball singles/items | Archive | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 10-07-2007 10:12 AM |
FS: BIG SELECTION 1950-1980 BASEBALL | Archive | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 09-08-2007 10:07 AM |