|
#1501
|
|||
|
|||
My point was that it has in fact achieved hobby recognition as a variation, just like the 58 Herrer or 57 Bakep, and now the 61 Fairly. The thing of interest to me is why a few print defects get hobby recognition as variations while most do not
|
#1502
|
||||
|
||||
Exactly. That lack of continuity is head scratching. It's almost as if there needs to be an organization started, maybe the Card Collecting Coalition (CCC) that has a panel who decides what is approved and recognized in different categories. Maybe the categories would include Standard/Variation/Reoccuring print defect (RPDs). Hobbyists could submit applications requesting card approval. Then that trickles down to the hobby publications which trickles to the grading companies. Master set collectors could decide which level of set they are going to collect. I know, crazy talk...don't rock the boat, Joe. Sit down.
__________________
COLLECTING BROOKLYN DODGERS & SUPERBAS |
#1503
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
“interesting to some absolute garbage to others.” —- “Error cards and variations are for morons, IMHO.” Last edited by Cliff Bowman; 04-19-2020 at 03:03 PM. |
#1504
|
||||
|
||||
There are recurring cards with the same exact print flaw as the 1990 Topps partially blackless from 1958 (back), 1961, 1963, 1967 (front and back), 1974, 1980, 1985, 1986, and 1988 Topps with some of them that are just as rare or rarer than the 1990 Topps cards but are not worth anywhere near or have the demand of what the 1990 cards do. The 1967 Ed Spiezio is the only one that I can think of that has gained hobby acceptance. I know it is because one of the 1990 cards is the Frank Thomas rookie card and the epic thread on the Collectors Universe forum that gradually unveiled all of the cards affected.
__________________
“interesting to some absolute garbage to others.” —- “Error cards and variations are for morons, IMHO.” |
#1505
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Also IMO, the greater the scarcity is for a recurring print defect, the more demand there seems to come with it. Obvious exceptions include 57 Bakep and 61 Farily. This Lemke blog is a good example of how print defects can be promoted and gain added recognition(demand)....also, notice in this blog the proposal of how scarce this print defect may indeed be: http://boblemke.blogspot.com/2010/10...-error-or.html FWIW, how many here have a copy of the 61 293 Golden? |
#1506
|
||||
|
||||
I do not have that one, but it is low priority for me. It is extremely rare, no doubt. There was one that was clearly stated as such on eBay a few years ago that went for less than $50, if I remember correctly. ETA: It was January 2018 according to WorthPoint. It was just a perfectly placed piece of debris on the printing plate that made the 8 appear to be a 3. I do have a 1967 Spiezio, though .
__________________
“interesting to some absolute garbage to others.” —- “Error cards and variations are for morons, IMHO.” Last edited by Cliff Bowman; 04-19-2020 at 12:24 PM. Reason: Addition |
#1507
|
||||
|
||||
Recent pickup from a fellow member that traded with me. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
I have counted the stitches on a baseball more than once.[/B] My PM box might be full. Email: jcfowler6@zoominternet.net Want list: Prewar Pirates items 1909 Pirates BF2 Wagner Cracker Jack Wagner and Clarke Love the hobby. |
#1508
|
||||
|
||||
That's usually referred to a "wet sheet transfer" since it was adhered to the back of the card from the sheet below it when they were stacked on each other when the ink was still wet. It would get more oohs and aahs in the pre-war section...
__________________
-- PWCC: The Fish Stinks From the Head PSA: Regularly Get Cheated BGS: Can't detect trimming on modern SGC: Closed auto authentication business JSA: Approved same T206 Autos before SGC Oh, what a difference a year makes. |
#1509
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Most are overinking, and won't really be consistent. The Amalfitano is a registration problem. |
#1510
|
||||
|
||||
I couldn’t agree more, in my opinion the 61 Fairly green in ball is the worst vintage postwar variation that PSA recognized, with the 57 Bakep being the next. They recognized the 73 Earl Williams border gaps for a short time but then wisely stopped it. Hopefully they stopped recognizing the 73 Bahnsen and 73 Bell single border gaps as well.
__________________
“interesting to some absolute garbage to others.” —- “Error cards and variations are for morons, IMHO.” |
#1511
|
|||
|
|||
For a time, Lemke was listing border gap defects in the Standard Catalog. He stopped doing that and I think removed some or all when he tightened up his definition of a variation...intentional change in card by manufacturer ( an often hard to apply definition).
The expanded use of scans on ebay and elsewhere made it clear there were minor and even major recurring print defects everywhere, and recognizing them was a lost cause. But the Fairly recognition was surprising. Did it not first get recognized in Beckett ? Maybe it is Rich's fault |
#1512
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#1513
|
||||
|
||||
__________________
“interesting to some absolute garbage to others.” —- “Error cards and variations are for morons, IMHO.” |
#1514
|
|||
|
|||
1955 #144 Amalfitano
Notice the vertical blue line at the left. One of the three does NOT have the blue line and I believe most do NOT. They are out there if that is your cup of tea.
|
#1515
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
When something is that uncommon, and it's listed during a time when there isn't ready access to images, I think most people take it on faith - Like I did, because hey, the guy wrote a book listing loads of variations, he must really be an expert! The Fairly is just weird, because it got recognized at a time when images are readily available and sharable. I haven't yet seen a 61 with green in the ball that I'd think of as being anything but over inking or registration. (I do think they're possible, I've found a couple differences where the color under the back print is actually different. ) I'm more comfortable with the missing black cards, and the border gaps, as in most cases it's at least somewhat clear that the plate was either made differently or had a defect. If the definition is intentionally changed, that works for me for variations, and maybe use varieties for plate differences that weren't intentional. That's also a bit fuzzy, as an example, 88 Score has three different die cuts used to separate the sheet. And the changes were intentional as it was done in response to customer complaints. BUT they are also screened differently for one press run than another. Intentional? they probably happened when the errors were fixed, so to some extent intentional. But I don't think the person doing the new halftones was like "It will look better if I put the red at 30 degrees instead of 45" Likely the camera was set up that way that day, and they just didn't consider it to be important. Lots of sets from that era have similar things going on. |
#1516
|
||||
|
||||
Speaking of recurring border gaps:
1959 Topps - [Base] #260.2 - Early Wynn (white back) Courtesy of COMC.com
__________________
-- PWCC: The Fish Stinks From the Head PSA: Regularly Get Cheated BGS: Can't detect trimming on modern SGC: Closed auto authentication business JSA: Approved same T206 Autos before SGC Oh, what a difference a year makes. Last edited by swarmee; 04-21-2020 at 07:28 AM. |
#1517
|
|||
|
|||
Good analysis Steve. The intentional change definition sounds simple but can be complicated in practice. It Topps adds a option or traded line that is easy, but it is often impossible to tell if a defect was discovered and intentionally changed or not
Another good example are DPs. In the last printed Standard Catalog Lemke listed variations for the 52 Mantle, Thompson and Robinson. PSA does not recognize them. The differences can be found on the front and back. The differences were likely not intended but did result from an intentional decision to DP those 3 cards George Vrecheck has written articles on DP differences in the 63 and 55 (56?) sets. Green tint non pose differences from 62 are another example. Probably not intended but did result from an intentional change in the printing process. Variations ? Bet a lot of 52 Master collectors are praying PSA does not adopt the 52 Mantle as a variation It would be tough to come up with a hobby definition that all would buy into or that would cover all past and future official variations Last edited by ALR-bishop; 04-21-2020 at 07:45 AM. |
#1518
|
|||
|
|||
Variations on eBay
Folks,
Things being as they are, with time on my hands, I have been listing on eBay lots of cards from my many boxes piled in my closet. Some are print errors, variations, blank backs, color shifts and other oddities that some of you may have interest in. I have titled all of these "Variation" somewhere in the listing titles, my eBay seller's name is brightair. If you do a search you can find these. Many more will be listed over the coming weeks and months as I get to various boxes and binders. Furthermore, my zeal for compiling lists of variations has waned and I haven't been keeping them up-to-date, as I'm sure some of you have noticed. Others have been taking over this labor of love and will continue it into the future with even more thoroughness and depth than I was able. I am grateful to them for what they are doing and will accomplish, and look forward to their achievements. Meantime, may everyone be safe and well until we meet again in the flesh. All the best! Richard Dingman |
#1519
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
donut .
__________________
“interesting to some absolute garbage to others.” —- “Error cards and variations are for morons, IMHO.” |
#1520
|
|||
|
|||
Greatly appreciate all your work Richard
|
#1521
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The dealer I hung out at had a copy they'd let me read on slow days. One time I borrowed it, photocopied the whole thing and thought I brought it back. I went through some old stuff of mine and found it like 30+years later. Either that, or I bought it on one of their auctions and forgot I did. |
#1522
|
|||
|
|||
I'll add a "me too" on all the work Richard has done. Everyone who has made a major effort to document this stuff should get some hobby recognition of some kind.
|
#1523
|
||||
|
||||
For the nearly twenty years since I bought the Rick Reuschel on eBay I have kept an eye out for the other half, a Art Howe underneath it on the sheet. He finally showed up last week. Both cards are cut identically so I thought maybe they were both off of the same exact sheet, but it looks like the blue ink flaw doesn't line up perfectly when they are placed together. Now if I could find the Bill Atkinson that was under the Bob Boone...
__________________
“interesting to some absolute garbage to others.” —- “Error cards and variations are for morons, IMHO.” |
#1524
|
|||
|
|||
Good ones Cliff
|
#1525
|
||||
|
||||
Absolutely appreciate Richard's efforts to document all of the different types of variations he has encountered. For years I have used the variations list he has worked tirelessly to compile as a resource. Thank you Richard!
__________________
To ensure I offend NO ONE, the image used as my avatar is indeed my own card. |
#1526
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
In looking through some 67s recently, your former nemesis the 67 Monteagudo print variation appears to be a progressive variation of sorts. As we know from post 1463 (https://net54baseball.com/showpost.p...postcount=1463) the cause of the variation appears to "originate" on the Monteagudo card. In looking through other Monteagudo cards, I noticed what appears to be a smaller anomaly (does not reach the edges). While a challenge to see on screen, this is much more obvious in hand. Besides my copy, here is a copy from COMC....the tell tale is the horizontal red line in Monteagudo's hair on his right side and the difference on his left eye brow. My question is which anomaly was the original one, the anomaly that broke the black border or the smaller one? |
#1527
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
COLLECTING BROOKLYN DODGERS & SUPERBAS |
#1528
|
||||
|
||||
Here's a variation of the 1956 Haddix - red line in the upper right corner.
I've seen a lot of posts about 1956 variations but have not seen this one mentioned. IMG_1353.jpg IMG_1354 (1).jpg IMG_1355.jpg |
#1529
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks for posting it Eric
|
#1530
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#1531
|
|||
|
|||
Pretty happy I found this thread - well sort of, now it looks like I have about a weeks worth of digging through boxes ahead of me.
I stumbled upon these blank backs - I imagine they are pretty standard issue but I haven't been able to find any information on them or similar cards. Any help is appreciated. Keep up the great work - love the content here! Last edited by timber09; 04-28-2020 at 04:41 PM. |
#1532
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#1533
|
|||
|
|||
Here are a few ghosts......
ghosts.jpg |
#1534
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#1535
|
|||
|
|||
1955 Logo Variations
This is #14 Fenian and #30 Power. Notice the lack of a top line on the logos. You can see on the Fenian that the bat in the Athletics logo touches to the top margin on one version.
|
#1536
|
||||
|
||||
Came across these two 68 Al Jackson cards that were both in the same lot that came in the other day....both copies in the lot have the same obscured print on the back. There is a slight obstruction starting on the card's left side ("Maj." on the totals stat line) to obscuring "E.R.A." on the stats header line to the right. 1967 Topps have multiple cases of recurring print obstructions on card backs, this is one of the first recurring cases I have seen with 1968s. The question now is, does the print obstruction carry over onto either the card to the left or right of this card on the sheet?
|
#1537
|
||||
|
||||
Our friend lowpopper/rookie-parade introduced a very similar error/variation on the 1955 Topps Dick Groat on eBay that I was going to show here but forgot to.
__________________
“interesting to some absolute garbage to others.” —- “Error cards and variations are for morons, IMHO.” Last edited by Cliff Bowman; 05-05-2020 at 08:19 AM. Reason: Correction |
#1538
|
||||
|
||||
I don't think this one has been mentioned. At least I never saw it when compiling my Cardinals variation list for my team sets. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. I discovered this one the other day.
This one is reoccurring. The yellow-ish upper right corner of the green team name box is the print variation. Last edited by frankhardy; 05-14-2020 at 07:19 PM. |
#1539
|
|||
|
|||
The most unbelievable sale ever...yesterday
What the...is going on here...yesterday on ebay
1967 Topps Punch-Outs Chico Salmon PSA 6 - none Higher! Mickey Mantle Test RARE |
#1540
|
||||
|
||||
1973 Topps - [Base] #220 - Nolan Ryan Courtesy of COMC.com Probably already know about this, but saw two of these on COMC. So it's a recurring print defect. Bought them both so if someone needs it for their collection, let me know.
__________________
-- PWCC: The Fish Stinks From the Head PSA: Regularly Get Cheated BGS: Can't detect trimming on modern SGC: Closed auto authentication business JSA: Approved same T206 Autos before SGC Oh, what a difference a year makes. |
#1541
|
|||
|
|||
Good one on a major star, John
|
#1542
|
||||
|
||||
Looks like a straight color bleed, so it's possible people would think it was water damage if they were looking through a collection and found it. But finding two with the exact same blue smear pattern shows it's a "real" variation a.k.a. recurring print defect. I didn't really browse anywhere else to see if it's already known.
Figured since it was so noticeable and being Nolan Ryan, that it was already cataloged somewhere.
__________________
-- PWCC: The Fish Stinks From the Head PSA: Regularly Get Cheated BGS: Can't detect trimming on modern SGC: Closed auto authentication business JSA: Approved same T206 Autos before SGC Oh, what a difference a year makes. |
#1543
|
||||
|
||||
Found this 65 Billy Bryan card with a single white letter "B" (in Bryan) on the card front. Richard D's variation list mentions this card can have "White letters in name on front". There is also a quite small amount of white on the left edge of the "r" to the right of the "B".
My question is that since he seems to infer that there is more than one white letter in the name on front, does anyone have a copy of this card with multiple white letters in the name? |
#1544
|
||||
|
||||
I have three 1965 Topps Bill Bryan cards with white letters, one is like yours with just the B white, one has the Y and the B white, and then a third has many letters white or partially white and the defect also goes into the team pennant. I also have the much sought after 1966 Topps Bill Bryan yellow tint , and several of the recurring 1968 Topps Bill Bryan star burst print errors. There is also a recurring print error flaw where the 1965 Topps Curt Simmons has white letters in his name but I don't have one of those.
__________________
“interesting to some absolute garbage to others.” —- “Error cards and variations are for morons, IMHO.” |
#1545
|
||||
|
||||
Thank you for sharing those Cliff, quite interesting. The 65s Bryans WLs seem to be fairly rare, especially considering that the Bryan card is one of the most common cards from that set(IMO). Also, the picture used on the 66 card was clearly taken within a very short period of time from when the picture used on the 65 card.
__________________
To ensure I offend NO ONE, the image used as my avatar is indeed my own card. |
#1546
|
||||
|
||||
1959 Topps - [Base] #434 - Hal Griggs Courtesy of COMC.com Red print hickey/fisheye below the capital G in Griggs is recurring.
__________________
-- PWCC: The Fish Stinks From the Head PSA: Regularly Get Cheated BGS: Can't detect trimming on modern SGC: Closed auto authentication business JSA: Approved same T206 Autos before SGC Oh, what a difference a year makes. |
#1547
|
||||
|
||||
While each version looks to be nearly equally plentiful, there appears to be 3 different versions on this 72 606 Melendez card. The first (top left) has a full blue circle around the name, on the second copy (top right) the right side of the circle is missing some blue, while the third copy is missing about half the blue. And yes, there is a secondary variation on this card, the blue spot below the left shoulder is recurring.
|
#1548
|
||||
|
||||
Found these years ago together and held onto them. No name on back and missing yellow. Joe
|
#1549
|
|||
|
|||
Good ones, Joe
|
#1550
|
|||
|
|||
1952 variant
This scan was sent to me by David Pierson from the Aloha state. He used to post here as cardboard junkie but was banned sometime back. Scarce like the Campos back defect but recurring
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
1966 Topps High # Print Variations | 4reals | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 9 | 04-27-2014 06:05 PM |
Are these variations or print defects? | savedfrommyspokes | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 16 | 02-09-2013 11:52 AM |
Well known print defects. Do variations exist without? | novakjr | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 9 | 01-28-2011 04:32 PM |
Finally confirmed - d311 print variations exist! ("bluegrass" variations) | shammus | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 8 | 09-03-2010 07:58 PM |
Wanted: T206 Print Variations and Errors | Archive | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 1 | 01-04-2007 07:23 PM |