Interesting 75 variation/error?

[steve B]

I collect both variations and printing errors. There's a handful of cards like this one that I'm just not sure which group it belongs in.

I've a fairly loose definition of variation, counting anything that I can put down as a difference in the printing plate or a certain difference in the production equipment like die cutting mats. The vast majority of those differences are trivial and seldom listed anywhere.

For instance, some 75s are glossy all over, while some have no gloss over the white areas. The same thing happened with the backs of 93 upper deck. 3 varieties, one has gloss over just the picture one has gloss over the entire card, and a third looks like they were done with just over the picture then glossed completely.
91 topps come with not only the light and dark logos, but with ink on back that glows under UV light or ink that doesn't. I'm probablythe only person collecting those.......

Steve B

[bsuttonosu]

Originally Posted by steve B

91 topps come with not only the light and dark logos, but with ink on back that glows under UV light or ink that doesn't. I'm probablythe only person collecting those.......

Steve B

How did you figure this one out?! Does this apply to the Desert Shield versions as well?

Do you happen to keep a list of all the variations you find? I'm mostly a player collector, with George Brett being my focus right now, and I'm always looking for ways to expand my checklists for players into unlisted variations. I know many, and always make note when I find out new ones, but I also know there are a ton out there that I don't know about.

[steve B]

I got a blacklight to use with my stamp collection. And being a kid with a new toy I spent a while wrecking my eyes using the blacklight on nearly everything in the house the first night I had it. I had a monster box of 91's open on the desk and spotted it. I figured they should all be the same, but under UV the box looked like a huge bar code.

Both light and dark logos have the difference.
There's a third sort that shows as a very dark red, but it's very hard to spot.
Also there's a few with a cardboard stock that is mildly reactive to UV. Both of those are far less common.
And to top it all off I've found 4-5 out of about 10,000 that the glosscoat reacts by turning greenish.
I think most companies in the late 80's-early 90's were using multiple printing plants, so you'll find all sorts of little things in those sets.

I have a list of the variations I've found in the 91's somewhere. It's written, so I'll have to make a spreadsheet someday.

I keep some lists of the oddities I find, I just haven't brought them all together into one list.


Steve B

[4reals]

Originally Posted by steve B

I got a blacklight to use with my stamp collection. And being a kid with a new toy I spent a while wrecking my eyes using the blacklight on nearly everything in the house the first night I had it. I had a monster box of 91's open on the desk and spotted it. I figured they should all be the same, but under UV the box looked like a huge bar code.

Both light and dark logos have the difference.
There's a third sort that shows as a very dark red, but it's very hard to spot.
Also there's a few with a cardboard stock that is mildly reactive to UV. Both of those are far less common.
And to top it all off I've found 4-5 out of about 10,000 that the glosscoat reacts by turning greenish.

Steve, any chance we can get you to take a pic of what the cards look like under the black light, maybe with a couple of the blacklight variations sitting next to each other? That would be cool to see. If catalogs ever recognize this as a true variation it could be called the "Steve Blacklight" variation...lol

[bbcarddan]

Even though this thread is a bit old just figured I would toss in my Frank Robinson Yankee card! Which I believe predates yours dabigyankeeman since mine only partially says Yankees and yours says Yankees fully. Obviously my card was "a fake trade in progress" when yours "was a completed fake trade". Making mine the earlier version

[dabigyankeeman]

Dan, your Robinson was the Yankee error version, while mine is the rarest of the rare, the perfect complete Yankee correct version!!!

[doug.goodman]

Hey Al - Steve B sounds even crazier than I am...

I thought that thinking there are 3 back variations of each of the 1963 Topps peel-offs was bad...

Doug

[steve B]

Hey now, it's not that crazy. In stamps looking for tiny varieties has a long tradition. I met a guy who wrote an entire book of about 40 pages or so on relief breaks of the 2cent 1890 stamp. Picture cataloging all the errant dots for one particular card.

Of course I did buy the book........

Steve B

[ALR-bishop]

Doug---I agree with Steve, he is not crazy....he is just odd....like you....and me ( I am reading and posting on a sports card board while on a ship on it's way from Mumbai to Dubai)

[doug.goodman]

Sounds to me like we're all crazy. I would quote Slade, but don't want to show my age (or my preference to them over the band that made a career of their covers).

[buckydent]

The infamous "suntan" variation appears with cards throughout the 70's.
I think it's just ink changing or worn plates on the duller/ off color ones .

See my 1979 Garvey's, 9 of 10 look like the photo on the left, with the suntan variation ( much brighter face ) on the right.

[dabigyankeeman]

Here is one of the most unique 1975 error or variation ever, and its fantastic for a Yankees collector like me, a miscut Frank Robinson that places him on the New York Yankees, maybe the only Frank Robinson on the Yankees card in existance!!!!