1958 Topps Hank Aaron - BLUE background??
 

Hi guys, posting this one on behalf of a friend who's not a member....

He recently picked up the pictured 1958 Topps Hank Aaron card. Typically the card has two variations - white letters or yellow letters for his name. However, in both cases, the card's background is GREEN.

In my friend's variation, the name is white, but the entire background is BLUE! I have never seen a version like this.

Has anyone ever seen anything similar on a '58 card, Aaron or otherwise? The card definitely seems legit, so maybe there is a version where along with the yellow missing from the name, it's missing from the run to make the green color (since yellow + blue = green, so no yellow would just be a blue background).

Would love to hear some thoughts on this one. Pictured is the standard card along with the blue background variation. This isn't just a scanner issue or something - this is really how the blue background card appears....

It looks like the card simply missed the entire yellow print pass since all the yellow is missing from it. I don't think it would be a variation to chase or anything, but it is pretty cool all the same.

Best,

AndyH


.

Hit the search button. There was an extenisve thread about 2 years ago on this. I think Doug Goodman contributed a lot of info.

Blue Aaron
 

This is the second appearance here for this card. He shows up in a prior thread thanks to Doug. Doug will be pleased to know his card has company. I have a similar blue Mays from 1966. Could be a print defect. Could be a sunlight issue

Thanks guys - my cursory search didn't return any results on this, so thanks for mentioning. Here is an old thread on the same topic:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=133119

I think this begs the question though: why ISN'T this a recognized variation? If cards like the "Herrer" from the '58 set or the Gene Bakep in '57 can be recognized variations, then why not a significant issue (not a print dot) like a totally different colored background be considered and recognized as a variation?

I'd love to hear from others - we now have at least three of these Aaron cards like this, and I'm sure there are more - what is enough to constitute a variation, if the answer is not three?

Here is one on Ebay right now...and no one bidding. Interesting read from the link, pretty cool.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1958-Topps-3...item5899a88197

The seller has no idea it might be special...

Variations
 

The Herrer and Bakep were recognized as variations years ago before the days of ebay scans which have revealed hundreds of similar print defects, front and back, in virtually every baseball card set. I think similar print defects now normally get very little recognition. But there are exceptions, usually the result of someone being persistent.

My source for getting variants recognized used to be Bob Lemke at SCD, who has now retired, and over time, with the proliferation of additional "finds" on ebay, Bob's definition of what he would list in SCD got more restrictive. He even took many prior listed variations out of the book. Border gaps come to mind. I do not think the Herrer or Bakep, or maybe even the Campos black star would make the cut today. But they are now part of hobby history.

On the other hand, PSA has now recognized in slabs and in their master registry list for 1961 Topops a Ron Fairly card with an errant green print
smudge on the back of the card within the baseball. This print defect exist on other 1961 Topps cards as well...but so far not recognized.

If one's definition of a variation of a variation is a card that the producer intentionally changed for some reason, such as the Topps 1958 option/trade or not cards, then none of these print defects would make the cut. But no one definition prevails out there.

I think there has been some doubt on the Aaron as to whether it was a defect in a print run, which would lead to a small number of them out there, or was caused by sunlight fading. Finding more of them lends to it being a print defect, but not necessarily a variation...again depending on your ( or someone's) definition.

Print defects are endless out there

Still, if PSA is going to recognize the Fairly as a variation, the door seems wide open. Maybe you should submit it along with information on other examples form threads like this and see what they do.

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img344.jpg

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img311.jpg

[IMG]http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img250.jpg[/IMG]

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img252.jpg

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img022.jpg

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img244.jpg

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img172.jpg

I like that 69 rookie stars card!

Some of the variations that are recognized are indeed just printing mistakes.
And there are some that aren't recognized that are differences on the printing plate. Some from damage, some from mistakes in making the plate.
That's how I define a variation, a difference caused by the plate being different. There aren't many people that go with that for good reason. With the access to the internet images a vast number of differences get noticed. Unfortunately, lots of the ones listed on Ebay are just transient print defects. And that added to how inconsequential most of the actual ones are makes collecting them seem silly to many collectors.
The Thomas NNOF is a mistake in making the plate, somewhere along the line a chunk of debris got between the mask (negative) and the plate causing missing areas.

The top two cards could be similar, or might just be cards where a bit of paper or something got into the press and blocked the black layer.

I'm working at typing up a list of variations for 81 topps. Nearly all of them really trivial, but actual plate differences. (I had lots of time, and about 15 thousand of the things to look through. )

The Blue Aarons might be fading, but usually either the red goes first or the colors fade a bit more evenly. If they're not fading then it's just a missing color. A nice and really interesting print error, but not a variation even by my loose standards.

Steve B

Variants
 

I have a lot of respect for Steve's opinions on this stuff., although I lean to defining true variations as cards the producer intentionally changed, even though I tend to collect any significant or interesting print defects as well

Here is something similar to the blue Aaron in a 66 Mays. It would be helpful to see the back of the Aaron as well

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...g?t=1355506754

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...g?t=1355506814

Here are front and back scans of all three variations, you will note that there is no color variation on the back like there is on the 66 Mays.

I actually have two of these Aaron blue background cards, and the other one is the same, with no back color variation.

I do not believe them to be sun faded.

They pop up fairly often on ebay.

Doug


PS - my definition of a "variation" involves printing different cards using purposely different printing plates. The the 52 Mantle stitching differences and the 63 cropping variations qualify, but the 58 Herrera and 90 Thomas do not. Using my own definition, the 58 blue background Aaron does not qualify, it is nothing more than a huge print dot, but I still like it.

While I collect only pre-War nowdays, I picked up this Ripken rookie with a color error/variation (missing the yellow print pass, I assume) many years ago.
Val

With all due respect, if the '58 yellow letter variation is indeed a "variation", in this set, then the '58 Blue Background Aaron is a "variation" as well! An error card is caused by a group of cards, (more than one) that are the same, but being different than the other cards in a set, caused by either the machine's malfunction, or the human operator's error on a paticular run, on a paticular day, (A dripped "ink spot" does not apply here). This is true with many different collectibles from all over the world, including, mis-stamped coins, errors in printed currency, stamps, cards, and etc.
With the 1958 Topps yellow letter variation, a group of cards had a different color of ink from the standard cards in the set. Also, with the 1958 Topps Aaron card, a group of cards had a different collor of ink from the standard cards in the set. Plain and simple...the 1958 Topps Aaron card with the "Blue Background" is in fact an error card, and a variation within the set! As more collectors share their "Aaron Bluebacks", the industry will in fact one day, recognize this variation, as an error card! I am 54 years old, I hope it happens in my lifetime.
Congrats to those of you who have been lucky enough to find one of these Aaron "Blue Background" cards.

I was lucky enough to secure an OC example about 40 years ago in Atlanta, (shown below). I also saw another one about 10 years ago at a Charlotte card show., but it was very rough. After doing an on line search, and reading these two threads, I know that at least 8 of these cards existed at one time. I'm very sure more are out there although very rare, and I hope people will continue to post them.



http://http://i1350.photobucket.com/albums/...psfe1e83f7.jpg

It was never about the bubble gum...

variants
 

Different folks define the term variation in different ways, and in my view none are wrong. I like the term variant to describe cards that differ in some respect from each other, whether by design or accident.

I tend to view a variation as a card that was intentionally changed ( 59 trade/option versus not, or 59 Spahn DOBs, or 52 red versus black backs). Sometimes such changes occur from an intentional change in the print process ( 62 greenies ). Sometimes multiple changes are made to get a card right ( 66 Landrum, 69 Popovich, 89 Fleer Ripken)

I collect variants of interest to me, or the hobby in general, and posted some earlier in this thread. I think I have all variations listed for Topps in the Standard Catalog. But I have collected many variants not in the book, including this blue Aaron

But I agree with Doug, who also has one, that it is unintentional printing error, and I view my 58 Herrer , 57 Bakep, 3 different 59 H Sullivans, 4 different 52 Campos cards as similar print defects and not "true" variations.
But they all have historical hobby recognition as variations in the hobby.

With the internet and ebay, it is now clear there are hundreds of such print defects in virtually every major baseball set ...and new ones turn up everyday....many more distinctive and interesting than those above. But they have little or no hobby recognition or interest

Recently George Vrechek has written articles on DP printing /cropping differences in several 1963 and 1956 cards. Such differences in the DP 52 mantle. Robinson and Thompson were listed as variations in the last editions of SCD

I have come to not worry whether they are print defects or variations. They are variants and if they have hobby recognition or are interesting to me, I collect them. But their value is determined by hobby recognition as evidenced by the ridiculous run up in value of the 61 Topps Fairly with the green smudge in the bottom of the baseball on the back after PSA include it as a variation in it;s Registry master list ( But I confess I have one of those too ;) )

If you do a search for Topps Variations or Errors on ebay it is obvious that there are numerous recurring and unreported print/color defects or differences/variants in every Topps set, at least through 1994 when I stopped trying to accumulate any that were not catalogged. The internet and ebay have greatly facilitated both finding and sharing print oddities over what was the case earlier in the hobby


Nice to meet another variations collector Allen

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...psa13ee72c.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...ps75660074.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...psa0a7d5b9.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img369.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...ps1aa38c2e.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img305.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img134.jpg

Wow Al those are some nice cards. I really like your print offset cards.

Here is a pic of my Ted Williams with the missing yellow and a Willie Mays also missing the yellow.

http://i1001.photobucket.com/albums/...psc52b730d.jpg

http://i1001.photobucket.com/albums/...ps396d879e.jpg

Variants
 

Good ones Ben

...at long last!
 

In May of 2014, the 1st known graded variant of the 1958 Aaron , "BLUE BACKGROUND" that listed the ERROR, (Graded with Variation listed as, "MISSING YELLOW INK") card sold on the public market! A NR MT +, (6.5) example, bar code log # 0008046099, being the 1st to set a president as a collectors error variation. Pictured below is the long awaited arrival of the newest addition of the industry's officially recognized variation to the 1958 Topps MLB set! Thanks Beckett, for being the 1st in the industry to recognize this cool version as a rare collectible within this set! Congrats to all of those that have secured one of these '58 Aaron Blue background cards!

http://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball-ca...#1126011260992

...it was never about the bubble gum

This is a bad move because the blue background can be replicated in 2015.

I'm skeptical of any Topps card that had green coloring and is now blue.

Awesome! I'm going to quick buy a few green background Aarons' before they become the SP.

blue
 

Although I have one, I agree with Brent that one will never know if a blue Aaron is an actual unintended recurring manufacture print defect ( which many would say should not qualify as a variation in any event), or a unintentional or intentional creation by light damage. The fact there are not a lot of other blue background cards ( from the same sheet... I know some have surfaced), also is a red flag to me.

Maybe I should submit this one now :)

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img366.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img367.jpg

WOW just F'n wow. Those cards did not leave the factory blue, no way no how. The Beckett one is an obvious altered card.

As someone who mainly collects error cards I can say from experience that over 95% of so called missing color cards are altered. In hand most are very easy to spot if you know what to look for.

I picked up a beat to heck 58 Aaron from a fellow board member to show what to look for in this card when someone turns it blue. I have been to busy(lazy) to get it done but looks like I need to so fellow board members are not scammed anymore.

Here is a picture of another 58 Topps to show a before and after removing the yellow. On the 58 cards the yellow is very easy to remove and the other 3 colors are very hard to remove making them look real easier than most other cards. I also removed the yellow from the other card and as you can see it left a slightly more noticeable alteration.

I used to think these were really cool variations but I am now of a mind that they are faded. The examples of fades in the other thread were persuasive and now we have a home-made example.

...
 

Ben, You say the altered cards are easy to spot, can you tell us how?
Richard

$1,000,000 question.............How is the yellow so easily removed without damaging the card ?

Actually it appears to be a $3,585.00 question. One that many will figure out soon enough now that they know it can be done and they can get paid for doing it. :eek:

Blue/green
 

Russ---just long exposure to light, intentional or not, can make the green fade to blue. You can see that result in various stages. In a card in a sleeve with a price sticker left too long in bright light exposure, the blue will have a green spot under the sticker. I have seen examples.

Like Al said just put it in sunlight. Those cards are the easiest to spot as being altered. The ones done in direct sunlight usually get a dirty dry look to the gloss. The card will also usually get a wavy effect to it like it got damp once.

Then there is the way the yellow ink looks. The key is no matter if there is very little(barely notice) or a lot(regular color) the yellow will be a bright yellow. If it is not a bright yellow it is because it had been faded. The best place to look on the Aaron card is around the Indian in the logo. Notice every one pictured in this thread and every other one you have ever seen has varying degrees of a dull yellow.

Now for the better done ones. They are not wavy, gloss look good, and looks to be no yellow in the circle. These need a 10X loupe to spot in a well naturally lit area. The white in the logo will not be as bright as the white on any other part of the card. Also a quick look with a 60-100X top lighted microscope works pretty well.

There is another thread on here that I have pictures of real missing yellow cards and how to spot them. I do not know how to link to it or I would. I believe someone also posted some great pics that showed where the price sticker was. It was also discussing the 58 Blue Aaron.

My opinion is changed too
 

I used to think the Blue Aaron was real based on this uncut sheet ... BUT if you look closely at the bottom row of cards (especially the left side of the sheet) you can see that there is a clear stripe where there is bright yellow. It sure looks like the full sheet got left in the sun, but someone had piece of paper (?) over a small portion of it at the bottom. You can also see how the other cards look faded versus those ones.

It is interesting that the Logan and Burdette cards didn't turn blue ... but you can see the clear line where they were/were not in the sun ... so they did change, just not as much as Aaron.

(Oh and if you look closely on Ebay - you will find single cards that match the fading on this sheet. There are usually 2-3 Mays cards for example that you can spot without a bright yellow bar at the bottom.)

Patrick

Super cool sheet, thanks for sharing it.

What is the average time a card has to be exposed to sun light (or any other light) to get rid of the yellow?

It really depends on the year/brand of card. Buy a cheap Green 58 Topps and throw it on the dash of you car and find out. It is actually a fun/cool experiment. You could also put a small piece of tape over part of it so you can see how much it actually changes.

EDIT: If anybody does this please take pictures and post them. I have not used direct sunlight to fade a card in years.

Sheets and threads
 

Patrick-- great sheet scan

Ben-- that was a good thread, if you can direct me to it, I will link it

It was in this section and the name of the thread is Blue Front 1958 Hank Aaron

blue
 

Got it , thanks Ben

http://net54baseball.com/showthread....lue+font+aaron

You could also get the card slabbed then fade it in the sun, I suppose. It wouldn't say blue variation but you could pass that off as a TPG error. You could even protect the flip by covering it while the card is exposed. Allegedly :rolleyes:

I would think you might get away with that on a lower grade card. I assume in the holder the card would seriously warp. I would think the card would get very hot in that sealed plastic holder out in the sun.

Any body got a high end 58 Aaron they would donate to testing.;)

Blue
 

Ben-- can I hire you to turn my blue one back to green ? :)

Yes but it would cost a lot more than turning a green one blue.:D

Blue
 

Here is a Blue Gibson up on ebay now.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/PSA-4-BOB-GI...item1e9e35a797

Only 50 gs. I am glad it is priced reasonably. Nothing noted on the grading label. Interesting.

I can't believe you outed that auction!

I was going to swoop too!

:D

The graded blue Aaron in the Heritage auction sold for over $3000 with bp and was resold by Probstein123 on Ebay for around $550 a little while later. Not sure what this Gibson will sell for the first time, but will be interesting to see what it sells for the second time.

swooping
 

I promise not to swoop :)

I bought a blue 1986 Topps Joe Montana at a show for a buck that I later realized was just light faded. I also have a gray-backed 1965 Murakami.

Me too Al, me too.:D

But if anyone wants one for 1/2 price of the one on eBay please let me know. I can get you a much nicer one graded by your favorite company or raw.:eek:

This one just sold on eBay for $71, it was advertised as a 1958 Topps Hank Aaron blue background error card. It's obvious that it was just a normal card that sat in the sunlight behind a glass display counter at a sports card store for an extended period of time, with a price tag protecting the unfaded small rectangle area.

At least they are not pulling insane premiums anymore. It is the first I have seen since the mass selloff from board members after they where proved to be just altered cards.

I see there is another one of these rare gems on ebay. http://www.ebay.com/itm/1958-Topps-3...QAAOSwImRYG-bU

Nice card. As in post 10, I don't think these are faded either. This one is a darker blue.....really kind of neat.

I have swung both ways on this. I have one but have come to believe most are faded. There are color gradations of the blue, but that could still be consistent with fading. If it was a sheet error there ought to be more of the same defect showing up on a lot of cards. I know there have been some.

And the number of Aaron's showing up leads me to believe some may be intentional creations.

I hope you are right Leon but I would bet money, based on the info in this thread, that most of these Aaron's are faded and that telling a legit production color defect from a faded card would be virtually impossible

But I still plan to hold onto my Aaron and Mays because I like mysteries and oddities :)

Reality Check...
 

All 1958 Topps Aarons are faded. Maybe the first few were unintentional finds in card shops where the octogenarian owner left his inventory in the window for a decade, but since then, several of these have popped up with different shades of blue (cyan ink).

If the yellow was truly omitted from just one card on the sheet (really?) then that blue would be just solid cyan ink and would look the same all the time since it's just solid ink.

If the yellow had been omitted from even a portion of the print plate, then we'd see more "yellowless" 58s out there. News flash.... there are no others! Hmmm, what does that tell us?

Think about the 1982 Topps "Blackless". The omission of the black ink affected 132 cards and is pretty universal in appearance on the affected cards and there are multiple copies of each card int he marketplace that all look alike.

1958 Topps Hank Aaron authentic "yellowless" is a unicorn.