1990 Topps Baseball Checklist Variation - Possible New Discovery
 

I've been recently sorting through all of my 1990 Topps baseball cards, looking for new variations, and I noticed a definite variation on Checklist #1, card #128.
The Checklist #1 cards either have "Continued On Checklist 2" listed on the reverse, or the text is missing entirely. I'm wondering if anyone else has noticed this before.

Good catch!

Neat variation

Is the one on the left a Tiffany? The only one without the text on COMC is from the Collector's Edition set.
https://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/1990...inal&side=back
1990 Topps - Box Set [Base] - Collector's Edition (Tiffany) #128 - Checklist
Courtesy of COMC.com

Although yours both have the D* sheet, so it looks like probably a regular Topps card.

It's definitely a regular base card and not a Tiffany!! I busted a huge batch of 1990 Topps a few years back, and I've finally gotten around to sorting them. I have roughly 70 of these Checklist #1 cards, and only 2 of them is missing the text on the back.

Looks legit, nice find Cincykid

Good one

Do any of the other checklists have similar variations.

Rich

Hi Rich,

Based on my research, only Checklist #1 has the variation.

Tim

Did any of your cards also have the black ink missing from the Frank Thomas NNOF error run? Maybe they're part of the same print run.

Hi Swarmee,

I've been checking, but so far, none of the cards, from sheets A* thru E*, are missing any black ink on the front.
Since the Checklist #1 "missing text" variation is located on the D*(Red) sheet, I think it's completely separate from the "partial blackless" cards that are located on the F*(orange) sheet.
I do believe that this variation was caught very early in the print run and was quickly corrected. I have roughly 70 Checklist #1 cards and only 2 of them are missing the "Continued on Checklist 2" text.

Tim

Added that line to the COMC Data Base. Keep that type of stuff coming. That way in case the other one ever comes in, the system is ready for the variation.

Rich

Great find! I too believe this was fixed very early. There also may be others.

Anyway, funny enough I had decided to check this text out before. Figuring it’s font looked off so maybe some existed with the line in different places or without and concluded they were all printed correctly.