Net54baseball.com Forums
Page 151 of 289 « First 51101141149150 151 152153161201251 Last »
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Show...me...your print variations! (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=187722)

ALR-bishop 04-19-2020 08:27 AM
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

4reals 04-19-2020 10:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALR-bishop (Post 1972667)
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
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.

Cliff Bowman 04-19-2020 10:21 AM
2 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4reals (Post 1972603)
so I took a page from Cliff's playbook and looked up the sheet that Lillis was on (sheet2). Lillis is at the top row and the cards to the left and right on the top row, Walt Moryn #91 (cardinals), Jim Woods #59 (phillies), Joe Amalfitano #87 (giants), and AL HR Leaders #44 (with Mantle/Maris) all have back print defects with stray ink if anyone is so inclined to add them. Not super attractive since it is the back of the card but cool nonetheless. The HR Leaders card is the least obvious. The bottom left corner of green is a sharp square on most of the cards but a select few have a soft rounded corner and wavy bottom. I also found a green in ball (variation) for the Dodgers Southpaws card #207 which is on a completely different sheet. Couldn't find a 61 topps sheet with the Fairly on it to see what other cards are around it.
Nice work! The card on the end of the top row can also be found with the print error of green in the ball, Russ Kemmerer. Personally, I'm not a fan at all of considering these 1961 cards with dashes of green in the ball as variations, even the Fairly that fills up three quarters of the ball. They are just interesting print anomalies. ETA: There are a few of the 61 Moryn on COMC.

Cliff Bowman 04-19-2020 10:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALR-bishop (Post 1972667)
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
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.

savedfrommyspokes 04-19-2020 11:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALR-bishop (Post 1972667)
The thing of interest to me is why a few print defects get hobby recognition as variations while most do not
IMO, the manner in which some print defects have been promoted by select folks in the hobby (dealers, bloggers, etc) has helped these more well known defects to gain recognition over other print defects.

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?

Cliff Bowman 04-19-2020 11:57 AM
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes (Post 1972736)



FWIW, how many here have a copy of the 61 293 Golden?
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 :D.

Jcfowler6 04-19-2020 06:14 PM
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...ac587b1b.plist
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...582b6ba8.plist

Recent pickup from a fellow member that traded with me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

swarmee 04-19-2020 07:44 PM
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...

steve B 04-19-2020 11:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4reals (Post 1972603)
so I took a page from Cliff's playbook and looked up the sheet that Lillis was on (sheet2). Lillis is at the top row and the cards to the left and right on the top row, Walt Moryn #91 (cardinals), Jim Woods #59 (phillies), Joe Amalfitano #87 (giants), and AL HR Leaders #44 (with Mantle/Maris) all have back print defects with stray ink if anyone is so inclined to add them. Not super attractive since it is the back of the card but cool nonetheless. The HR Leaders card is the least obvious. The bottom left corner of green is a sharp square on most of the cards but a select few have a soft rounded corner and wavy bottom. I also found a green in ball (variation) for the Dodgers Southpaws card #207 which is on a completely different sheet. Couldn't find a 61 topps sheet with the Fairly on it to see what other cards are around it.
These are to me the weirdest things to be accepted as variations.
Most are overinking, and won't really be consistent.
The Amalfitano is a registration problem.

Cliff Bowman 04-20-2020 06:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve B (Post 1972996)
These are to me the weirdest things to be accepted as variations.
Most are overinking, and won't really be consistent.
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.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:02 PM.
Page 151 of 289 « First 51101141149150 151 152153161201251 Last »
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page