|
I was looking at The Trading Card Database and noticed they don't call the Blackless cards variations either. They list them as a "Parallel" set :)
https://www.tradingcarddb.com/Insert.../89/1982-Topps |
Yes, they get to decide whether a variation is an actual variation (which means they show up on the regular checklist) or is a parallel. I'm not sure I would consider it to be a parallel set, since not all cards are on the checklist.
|
The 68 Topps Milton Bradley set is viewed by some as a parallel set and by others as variations to the 68 set. It also is only a partial set. Interestingly two of the MB cards, Cox and Brinkman, have long been viewed as variations to the 68 set ( incorrectly in my view)
There are many views on what is or should be a "variation" but there is no real standard hobby definition or official arbiter of what should be on a set check list. The process has been mostly ad hoc |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I personally agree they are not variations, and am ok with calling them reprints or a parallel set, but I think the hobby has ruled otherwise on Cox and Brinkman, so I keep a second copy of their MB cards in my 68 set as well as in my MB set :) I also agree that they are a subset, but SCD and Lemke have listed several Topps baseball subsets independent of the other non baseball subjects in such sets in The Standard Catalog. I have collected just the baseball subjects listed in the Catalog for the 48 Magic Photos, 55 and 56 Hocus Focus, the 54 Topps Scoops and Look and See, the 63 Great American Stamps and Valentine Foldees ( 63 and 66), the 65 Push Pulls and the 68 MBs. And there is a variation of the MB checklist. There are 2 versions of the 107. Although Carlton Miller, our resident MB expert would disagree with me on that point. He would say the 2nd CL is card 77 in the set ( subset) and not a variation, I think because it is a DP. I tend to think of DP differences, although not necessarily intended but resulting from set up of the sheet layouts, as variations ( for example the 2 different 52 Mantles, Robinsons and Thompsons). I understand not all would agree, and that's ok with me. I am not sure anyone has a monopoly on what constitutes a real variation. Ultimately I guess the hobby as a whole decided over time |
cloud
2 Attachment(s)
Picked up the Cecil Cooper - "Cloud" on back
I know they are just defects of defects but I will still try to track down the others :) I have only seen the Madlock. If anyone has pics of any of the others I would love to see them. I asked Fred and he didn't save the scans. Thanks! Would be interesting to know if these specific defects occurred on the typical non blackless cards too. 9 Ron Guidry with Gray “flying saucer” 60a Tony Armas small gray “egg” on back 137a George Cappuzello Purple George 365a Bill Madlock gray cloud on back 385a Ken Forsch Red strip on Cap 564a Doug Decinces gray cloud by © 664a Dan Spillner Letters underlined 675a Cecil Cooper gray cloud on back |
I have the 137 variant. My cards are on the move to a new location but will post a scan later. Also have at least 2 other cards not on Fred's list that also have defects not on the "regular" blackless cards in my set
Have never tried to run down if the defects can be found on non blackless cards but suspect they do |
2 Attachment(s)
Wanted to see if my Madlock with and w/o a cloud match what Ben has seen previously....
|
3 Attachment(s)
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
3 Attachment(s)
Quote:
|
2 Attachment(s)
Quote:
|
It looks they’re both the normal version, not the one affected by the print flaw that makes his first name purple. When I looked for a blackless 1982 Hector Cruz a few years ago all I could find were ones that have the large print defect and gave up on trying to find one without it. I imagine all of the Hector Cruz cards without the defect are sitting in collections and are unavailable. The print defect that makes the Cappuzzello name purple is part of the same one that covers the Cruz card. ETA: The Cappuzzello I have scanned is poor quality but it shows the version with the purple GEORGE.
|
Quote:
|
I believe there are 82 Hector Cruz blackless cards without the print flaw but I imagine the few that exist are sitting in whale collections.
|
Quote:
|
3 Attachment(s)
Cliff, thanks for posting the Cappuzzello and adding another one to the list with Cruz. What shall we call that one - orange sprinkles on chin? :) Curious if that same defect went to the Gossage below Cruz on the sheet.
I only have a couple of the partial blackless like that George. Would be quite a task to track a set of those down too. I believe this is the 564 Doug Decinces gray cloud by © I had no luck finding any other images but i did find an image of a sealed cello Blackless pack. How cool is that! Would love to get my hands on one of those. |
Quote:
|
2 Attachment(s)
I'll probably get reprimanded for outing this auction, but currently on eBay there is an E* sheet 1982 Topps Yankees Future Stars card that has just the faintest remnants of their names and positions in what is supposed to be black ink. It has a complete back. The seller describes it as blackless and I would have to agree with him. Are there any known E* or F* sheet 1982 Topps blackless cards and are they accepted as such? ETA: The seller doesn't refer to it as blackless, only as a print error.
|
Cliff, I saw that one too. Similar to the F sheet Ripken I posted on page 2 of this thread. I would call it by Fred’s term - Blacklessing. Minimal black names but not completely blackless. I’m not tracking the blacklessing but I’d be kidding myself if I said I didn’t at least want the Ripken.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
1 Attachment(s)
Scanned the A, B, and C sheets today for reference. This is a thumbnail of the high res images.
|
How many cards were in here? Incredible! Think I may have bought a card or two from you. So incredibly hard to find.
|
Last message was for Ben
Thought I was replying to the post about the box you picked up.
|
Quote:
I haven't sold any of those but I probably will end up selling or trading the 25% or so of the set that I have in addition to the full set. Are you collecting the set, a specific team, or player? Ben |
Holy smokes. That is insane! Congratulations! That Ripken is so cool! I’ve been buying the All-Star Cards and any HOFers. If ever looking to part with any, please hit me up!
|
Quote:
|
Christian, let’s see that Mint blackless Morris. Very Nice score!!!
|
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
1982 Topps Jack Morris Blackless |
Very nice Christian!!! Your set is moving along fast! Some awesome quality additions.
|
That Morris, oh my!!
|
1 Attachment(s)
https://www.ebay.com/itm/203007917667
Another mislabel... $7 dollar base card at best. Hope it doesn’t end too high for the buyers sake... Edit: ended at $122... |
Quote:
I note The card and note is a mislabel card. I wrote to The seller one hour before the auction ended. He responde my Message: I appreciate your feedback. I had several really great ebayer's that provided me with similar information. Much thanks to them and to you. I had no idea and just described the card as PSA labeled. I really hated that I caused any confusion in that listing even if unknowingly. It is not worth the frustration or the money to misrepresent something and never would knowingly. I updated the description once I was made aware, worked with a bidder to cancel a bid and will obviously let the winning bidder know the card was mislabeled by PSA. Thanks, take care and be safe. He's a nice guy, but he had the confussion because dont know about blackless variation. |
Yea PSA labeled a lot of the in action and all stars as Blackless when they first started slabbing them as variations. Some of the highest graded cards are mislabeled. Hope the buyer figured out what he was getting.
|
One of the top two bidders on that Schmidt blackless is a big Schmidt registry person.
I often find myself having a lack of sympathy for collectors who don't do even the slightest amount of due diligence in researching an issue. How can two people both bid over $100- for a card that is clearly not even the variation? Hell, a five minute Google search can tell you more about what you should be expecting for this variation. <rolls eyes condescendingly> |
Quote:
|
2 Attachment(s)
Quote:
For the Blackless set the one that is part of the registry set but should not be and will probably always remain a mislabel. Fisk IA 111. Would love to be proven wrong, but I’ve only seen faded ones. |
Another mislabel, 1982 Topps Pete Rose in Action- Blackless. The PSA Blackless pop report is unreal, lot of mislabels https://www.ebay.com/itm/333655341424
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
2 Attachment(s)
I have had the 2010 Topps "Cards Your Mom Threw Out" Carlton for a while and pulled the Turner out of a Topps Archives retail box from Target a few years ago.
Anyone aware of other years/products where Topps has printed cards similar to the 82 Blackless? Someone said Gypsy Queen had something, but I don't think I have seen those. |
forgive me for my lack of knowledge on this, but were these found in boxes/packs or sealed sets? assume best way to get them is to buy them from current owners, but was curious about the possible alternate routes. thank you.
|
They did show up in packs. I bought many of my B and C cards from sellers in Michigan who got them from packs. Many of my A cards came from sellers in NY who also got them from packs
|
Quote:
i just picked up a blackless card for about 10 bucks. look forward to checking it out up close. |
1 Attachment(s)
Blackless cards apparently was found in cello packs. The B and C sheet Cards are the most scarcest. This Brett is from C Sheet and is Impossible to find, very desired for George Brett Collectors.
|
I have been contacted on occasion asking if I would sell certain cards from my set, Brett more than once.
It was my experience B and C cards were harder to find in building my set. |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:33 AM. |