1968 Topps Yastrzemski Checklist variation question

[AGuinness]

I've been meaning to ask this for a little while... the 1968 Topps Yastrzemski checklist card (192) comes in two variations that are easily found, one with "To increase your scores," and another with "To increase the scores of your games," on the advertisement on the back.
The Trading Card Database website lists a third variation, reading "To increase the scores," (without "of your games"), and has a photo of the back with those words: https://www.tradingcarddb.com/ViewCa...46?PageIndex=1
I haven't seen any of these examples in my searching, I've never seen this third one. Does anybody have one of these or know anything more about it?
Photo from TCD:

[Cliff Bowman]

I have seen other variations that I very seriously doubt exist on Trading Card Database so I would take it with a grain of salt. They have a 1979 Kellogg’s Pete Rose with the updated ‘P’ logo on the back but still will the 33 triples error. That card doesn’t exist, the 33 triples error only appears on the first printing with the two Quaker kids Phillies logo and the copyright in Tony the Tiger’s scarf. They also have the 1979 Kellogg’s Carl Yastrzemski error card with 9930 at bats on a second printing card. That card doesn’t exist, the error card is only on the first printing that has the copyright on Tony the Tiger’s scarf. I tried to include a variation in the 1980-81 Topps Basketball set with several scans of proof but they refused it. I tried repeatedly to get them to correct listing errors in the 1985 Subway Discs set and also include variations in the set in the past 6 weeks or so but now they won’t even respond to me, but the virus probably has something to do with that. I am convinced that people have sent in scans of photoshopped cards to get variations that don’t exist listed, which is beyond me.

[AGuinness]

I tend to take everything with a grain of salt! The photo looks convincing, but I don't think it would be hard at all to Photoshop that, considering all the text you need is on the two well-known variations.
PSA includes variations on slabs, although they refer to the "Special Baseball Playing Card" vs. "Special Baseball Playing Card Game" at the top of the ad.
Neither PSA nor Trading Card Database make note of how the photo of Yaz on the front can be different, though. And speaking of this, the listing for all three of the variations with Trading Card Database uses the same photo of the front for all of them. Not helpful, as I would imagine there could be helpful identifying marks or something on the different variations. Photos of an example's true front could be helpful in that regard.
I'm more inclined than not to think this is a fabrication... can anyone else chime in otherwise?

[JollyElm]

I sorta read the post quickly, so forgive me if I'm not providing what you're looking for, but here's a graphic I created way-back-when showing the 4 different versions (verbiage on back/different cropping on front) of the 1968 Yaz checklist...

[AGuinness]

Thanks, Darren, and nice work. My inquiry is about a possible THIRD type of verbiage, as seen on Trading Card Database, which may not be real. Ever seen it?

[Rich Klein]

It will take me a while as we're just trying to keep up during these times at COMC but I will make sure all 4 variations (the cropping issue on the B in Yaz's cap is fairly obvious) is broken out someday. Can't say when, but it's now on my list especially because it's fun to work on those cards.

Updated to note I have now broken out all 4 varieties in the COMC checklist and please feel free to send in individual corrections to move cards accordingly.

Rich

[JollyElm]

I have never seen that one before. (Not weighing in on whether or not it's fake, but...) it would take about a minute to create that in photoshop. Just a quick copy of one of the existing "s," combos, and you're off to the races.

[Cliff Bowman]

Here is an example of what I was referring to, someone contributed a 1975 Hostess Burt Hooton 'corrected' scan to the Trading Card Database, the much rarer variation. The problem is whoever did it photoshopped the ON at the end of HOOTEN to make it HOOTON but they didn't photoshop the BERT to make it BURT. The genuine card is on the right, a real 1975 Hostess Burt Hooton corrected card. A 1975 Hostess 'Bert Hooton' card doesn't exist, only a Bert Hooten and a Burt Hooton.

[toppcat]

Online databases and checklists are nice but you need to have multiple sources sometimes to figure out if something exists or not. Same with print too but it's a different game online. Some classic references had intentional errors to prevent plagiarism but online it seems like an attempt to profit by getting a variation into the PSA database is the goal.

Something like a relatively unknown 1968 checklist variation would be available in enough quantity to determine if real or not after some cursory investigation but some legit ones just escape detection until someone inadvertently notices something. Photoshop really makes things difficult, especially given the usual low-res online environment.

[Cliff Bowman]

Here is a thread from three years ago where someone was caught red handed photoshopping a 'newly found' variation on Trading Card Database https://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=238632. I have run across at least four photoshopped variation cards that don't exist on the Trading Card Database, 1975 Hostess 'Bert Hooton', 1979 Kellogg's Pete Rose 2nd printing with 33 triples and the 'P' logo, 1979 Kellogg's Carl Yastrzemski 2nd printing with 9930 AB, 1979 Kellogg's Ron Guidry 2nd printing with 397 hits. I have no doubt if I went searching for them I could find more. Why in the world would someone take the time to photoshop a 1975 Hostess or a 1979 Kellogg's card and then send the scan to a web site? ETA: The member at Trading Card Database who submitted the disputed 1968 Topps 3rd series checklist variation scan is also the same member who submitted the fake 1979 Kellogg's Pete Rose and Carl Yastrzemski variation scans, iffie99.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

Here is a thread from three years ago where someone was caught red handed photoshopping a 'newly found' variation on Trading Card Database https://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=238632. I have run across at least four photoshopped variation cards that don't exist on the Trading Card Database, 1975 Hostess 'Bert Hooton', 1979 Kellogg's Pete Rose 2nd printing with 33 triples and the 'P' logo, 1979 Kellogg's Carl Yastrzemski 2nd printing with 9930 AB, 1979 Kellogg's Ron Guidry 2nd printing with 397 hits. I have no doubt if I went searching for them I could find more. Why in the world would someone take the time to photoshop a 1975 Hostess or a 1979 Kellogg's card and then send the scan to a web site? ETA: The member at Trading Card Database who submitted the disputed 1968 Topps 3rd series checklist variation scan is also the same member who submitted the fake 1979 Kellogg's Pete Rose and Carl Yastrzemski variation scans, iffie99.

"Iffie" veracity indeed....

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

Here is a thread from three years ago where someone was caught red handed photoshopping a 'newly found' variation on Trading Card Database https://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=238632. I have run across at least four photoshopped variation cards that don't exist on the Trading Card Database, 1975 Hostess 'Bert Hooton', 1979 Kellogg's Pete Rose 2nd printing with 33 triples and the 'P' logo, 1979 Kellogg's Carl Yastrzemski 2nd printing with 9930 AB, 1979 Kellogg's Ron Guidry 2nd printing with 397 hits. I have no doubt if I went searching for them I could find more. Why in the world would someone take the time to photoshop a 1975 Hostess or a 1979 Kellogg's card and then send the scan to a web site? ETA: The member at Trading Card Database who submitted the disputed 1968 Topps 3rd series checklist variation scan is also the same member who submitted the fake 1979 Kellogg's Pete Rose and Carl Yastrzemski variation scans, iffie99.

I understand the frustration with fake scans on TCD -- but I just checked the 1968 Yaz Checklists and am totally comfortable with setting up the two listings for each variety with the B on the cap on the B totally visible and the B on the cap touching the circle. That one is legit. Maybe not the TCB scan but I'll vouch for the COMC scans since those are done with actual cards in hand

I found both versions of the 1979 Kellogg Rose with triples in the COMC Data Base so that one is legit as well

We also have both versions of the Hostess Bert Hooton (Hooten) in the COMC Data Base so that one is legit as well

I did not see on a quick scan the Yaz with 9930 At-Bats but if someone wants to do a deeper dive than me and verify go ahead.

On a historical note -- for years someone (we believe it was Larry Fritsch) claimed there was a no traded version of the 1959 Bill White RC (#359). I look every time I see one and have never seen one in 40 years -- so I keep hoping but no presumption that one exists either. On the other hand - the Joe Doyle T206 version was rumoured to exist for years as well and did pop up so never say never

Rich

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by toppcat

Online databases and checklists are nice but you need to have multiple sources sometimes to figure out if something exists or not. Same with print too but it's a different game online. Some classic references had intentional errors to prevent plagiarism but online it seems like an attempt to profit by getting a variation into the PSA database is the goal.

Something like a relatively unknown 1968 checklist variation would be available in enough quantity to determine if real or not after some cursory investigation but some legit ones just escape detection until someone inadvertently notices something. Photoshop really makes things difficult, especially given the usual low-res online environment.

Dave is correct -- publishing incorrect information is an old way to see if anyone copies your work. The famed Who's Who in America always used a fake name or two to see who was using their work. Also -- putting false information into a checklist is as Dave said a way to check on whom is using your data illegally.

[Cliff Bowman]

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. Yes, the variations exist and I own all of them. What I am saying is that members at Trading Card Database have created two variations that don’t exist and put up photoshopped scans of four cards that do not exist. The 1979 Kellogg’s Pete Rose 33 triples ONLY appears on the first printing with the two Quaker Kids team emblem and the copyright inside Tony the Tiger’s scarf. It does not exist on the second printing with the ‘P’ logo and the copyright under Tony the Tiger. The 1979 Kellogg’s Carl Yastrzemski error 9930 AB ONLY appears on the first printing with the copyright inside Tony the Tiger’s scarf, it does not exist on the second printing with the copyright under Tony the Tiger. The 1975 Hostess Burt Hooton corrected card DOES NOT EXIST with Bert Hooton on the front of the card, it has Burt Hooton. The error card has Bert Hooten on the front of the card. It’s difficult to tell on the scan of the 1979 Kellogg’s Ron Guidry but I now believe that it is actually the correct second printing with 396 rather 397 and is the wrong card. I am not familiar with the 1968 checklist but I believe what the OP said about it and it doesn’t exist.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

I just checked the 1968 Yaz Checklists and am totally comfortable with setting up the two listings for each variety with the B on the cap on the B totally visible and the B on the cap touching the circle. That one is legit.

Did you check all the Sold outs to see if there were any previously sold that have the back variety shown in the image? The Hooton seems fairly obvious based on fuzziness and letter spacing that it's fake. The '68 back looks more real to me. But it would be hard for nobody else to have checklisted it over time, since it was already a known wording variation.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Did you check all the Sold outs to see if there were any previously sold that have the back variety shown in the image? The Hooton seems fairly obvious based on fuzziness and letter spacing that it's fake. The '68 back looks more real to me. But it would be hard for nobody else to have checklisted it over time, since it was already a known wording variation.

John:

Whenever I check for variants I just check every card that has been ever been scanned. I don't know if they are sold out or not when I do a project such as that or the Hostess Brown Backs, etc. I just check every card we have ever had.

On the Yaz -- I set up one of each new variant you can check and if you want to add that's fine I'm having a ton of fun with the Artist's Names -- keep those coming.

Rich

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

I'm having a ton of fun with the Artist's Names -- keep those coming.

Cool; doing the best I can with those. Deciphering some signatures is like reading hieroglyphics.... ;-)