 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11
07-30-2014, 07:52 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Yes Cliff, very nice!
I understand the excitement surrounding the 90 Thomas NNOF card (star RC) and the missing ink is in an important location of the card (name). However, when you simplify it down to the type of error it is (similar in nature to the 86's shown) it really shouldn't be recognized by the publications as a legit variation. In theory, they should then go and add all of the other examples we've found over the years and that just is never going to happen. It would be easier to strip the NNOF Thomas of its master set residence but I'm afraid the reaction at this point would not be positive. Logically it doesn't make sense to me but I don't see that it's ever going to change.
__________________
COLLECTING BROOKLYN DODGERS & SUPERBAS 
|
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| 1966 Topps High # Print Variations | 4reals | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 9 | 04-27-2014 06:05 PM |
| Are these variations or print defects? | savedfrommyspokes | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 16 | 02-09-2013 11:52 AM |
| Well known print defects. Do variations exist without? | novakjr | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 9 | 01-28-2011 04:32 PM |
| Finally confirmed - d311 print variations exist! ("bluegrass" variations) | shammus | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 8 | 09-03-2010 07:58 PM |
| Wanted: T206 Print Variations and Errors | Archive | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 1 | 01-04-2007 07:23 PM |
Threaded Mode