1989 fleer Randy Johnson

[hoebob69]

Ok so I've just kind of gotten into collecting the famous Fleer error cards. The Rick face card speaks for itself but up until recently I didn't really know much about the Randy Johnson Marlboro rookie. I've made quiet a few purchases of this card recently,probably 30 or so,some are graded and some aren't. It's really hard to tell which variations are which through a picture for these for some reason. Well I just got a batch In and I have found a couple different things on a couple of the cards that I was hoping someone could explain. One of them is the completely blacked out version except there is a small green dot in the middle of the right border near where the cowboy would be. The other is the blacked out version but on the red stripe of the shoulder on the uniform nearest to the sign is a yellow circle. I bought them off ebay so I know theres always a chance of tampering but I cant find much on the internet so I was hoping someone else knew.

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by hoebob69

but I cant find much on the internet so I was hoping someone else knew.

Not sure how you missed it but the top result when you google search "1989 Fleer Randy Johnson Marlboro" is my extensive blog on them from a few years ago. The comments section is filled with information too.

https://junkwaxgems.wordpress.com/20...ro-variations/

There are plenty of arguments for variance within the variations themselves but this gives a rundown of the most frequently found versions. I do not count print dot and fish eye or stray ink dots (green dot, etc) as recognizable varieties in the cataloging of these cards as these dots can be found across the card in every place imaginable and the same goes for every other card in the set.

[bnorth]

Yes they are very hard to tell what version you are buying off the net because they just don't scan or take pictures well and several are very close to one another in looks.

I have close to 20 different versions plus countless print errors. Post a picture and I will do my best to tell you what version it is.

I am still looking for a clear sign version or even a picture of one. I have seen a few altered ones including one in a PSA slab but never a real one.

A big +1 on Dylan having a great junk era error web site. I use it regularly and am glad he keeps it going.

[ALR-bishop]

A big +1 on Dylan having a great junk era error web site. I use it regularly and am glad he keeps it going.[/QUOTE]

+ 2

[hoebob69]

Oh I've seen the article numerous times,but like you said it only covers certain versions. When I get home I'll take a picture and show you. But so far I've not seen a card on the web or in person that has the yellow dot on the uniform and I have two!

[ALR-bishop]

I collect variants and like pursuing them if they are recurring, but have come to believe that if you pick out any card in any set and search long enough you will eventually find a printing flaw of some kind.

I also think on cards like this one and the Ripken..and even on cards like the Campos black star, many of the variants out there are post production creations.

Nevertheless, I have several versions of both

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by hoebob69

Oh I've seen the article numerous times,but like you said it only covers certain versions. When I get home I'll take a picture and show you. But so far I've not seen a card on the web or in person that has the yellow dot on the uniform and I have two!

Please post scans when you can!

As for the yellow dot, that is a very common print flaw occurrence. This is not something that will generally be given a separate listing in a catalog as there are so many types of these stray mark flaws: yellow dot, white dot, pink dot, black dot...dot on uniform, in name, over sign area, in border...etc etc. None of them are design changes by Fleer. To collect every one can be fun, for certain, but I will never list them on my site as running changes to the card in effort to correct the signage. They are simply printing accidents.

And that said, if the same print flaw (ie, a border break or stray black line) happens in the same spot for a large enough chunk of the printing, then I consider those worthy of catalog or at the very least, notation as they are commonly known as RPD: recurring print defects.

[hoebob69]

I will post a picture very soon. I got the card I'm speaking about in a lot of 15 off of ebay. All were the 1989 fleer. Only two of them had a yellow dot and they weren't in the same place. Naturally I assumed that it had probably been because of tampering by the dealer. But I've looked and felt and it seems like a part of the card. I really just wanted to know if there were others like it.

[jp1216]

To me, what was funny about this card is that it took years for it to be recognized. 10 years? It was a VERY early correction. Way before the Ripken FF. I've seen the clear Marlboro version. Held it at the National last summer. Resides in a PSA 9 slab IIRC. Only one I've seen.

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by jp1216

To me, what was funny about this card is that it took years for it to be recognized. 10 years? It was a VERY early correction. Way before the Ripken FF. I've seen the clear Marlboro version. Held it at the National last summer. Resides in a PSA 9 slab IIRC. Only one I've seen.

And knowing how PSA is so confused by variations I'm guessing the label said "Ad Partially Obscured" on it.

[TATSR]

Thanks Dylan for the very cool Johnson page. I recently found this. It appears to have a green tint and bubble. Any guesses as to what PSA what label it? Ad or partially obscured?

Thanks,
Tom

[TATSR]

Close up

[jacksoncoupage]

I recently posted this on another board.

Because there are so many different correction attempts, PSA has taken the lazy route and divided them all into 3 categories and even those are three are cross-contaminated at this point.

I have examples like yours in PSA 9 holders that should get the "partially obscured" descriptor but are labeled "completely blacked out" so it's a roll of the dice with them.

When it comes to this card, there are strong arguments to be made that Fleer made many changes to the card between the darkest tinting over the sign and the full blackout background (the final version that has a clean, solid black background). Most collectors argue this is ink variance but I am fairly certain there are legitimate, albeit very similar, changes to the background. This portion of the card's production run is responsible for a lot of the confusion surrounding the card.

This is the breakdown, remember there are variances between them but this is the gist:

-Clear sign (one known copy)
-Visible sign, faint haze/dark tint over sign
-Visible sign, faint haze/dark tint over sign, black bar or strip through MARLBORO
-Visible sign, faint haze/dark red tint over sign, black scribble over MARLBORO
-Visible sign, faint haze/dark green tint over sign, black scribble over MARLBORO
-Semi-visible sign, heavy tint over sign, bubble in upper sign, dark red tint
-Semi-visible sign, heavy tint over sign, no bubble, dark red tint
-Semi-visible sign, heavy tint over sign, bubble in upper sign, dark green tint
-Semi-visible sign, heavy tint over sign, no bubble, dark green tint
-Semi-visible sign, heavy tint over sign, no bubble, dark green tint, black bar or strip through MARLBORO
-Boxed sign, heavy red tint over sign, bubble in upper sign
-Boxed sign, heavy green tint over sign, bubble in upper sign
-Boxed sign, heavy red tint over sign, no bubble
-Boxed sign, heavy green tint over sign, no bubble
-Solid black background, sign appears to be digitally edited - no gap between Johnson's ear and fence/billboard in background.

Again, there are likely versions that exist between these listed here but thisa rundown of the types most likely to be found. Also note that the final corrected version (solid black background) is often affected by yellow/green print dots of various quantity and size but as with most print dots, they are random and therefore not cataloged by me as official running changes to the card.

[bnorth]

Dylan have you seen the clear sign one in hand? I have only seen pics of the one in the PSA slab and it looks altered to me.

I say it looks altered because the only part of the sign that is clear is the white part. The rest of the sign looks exactly like the lightest red tint version. I would think if it was real and unaltered the whole sign would be nice and clear not just the part that can easily be made clear.

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Dylan have you seen the clear sign one in hand? I have only seen pics of the one in the PSA slab and it looks altered to me.

I say it looks altered because the only part of the sign that is clear is the white part. The rest of the sign looks exactly like the lightest red tint version. I would think if it was real and unaltered the whole sign would be nice and clear not just the part that can easily be made clear.

No, I have never seen one in person. In fact, the only clear example I have seen is the one at the bottom of my blog post on them and I don't know if it's in a holder or not. I recall from emailing with the guy that it hadn't been slabbed but that was 5-6 years ago.

I have always been skeptical on it but also open minded to the possibility of a clear version existing as the earliest versions appear to have received some tinting to mask the sign. So likely somewhere, even if only in pre-production samples, a clear version would exist. That and the fact that only a few copies of the Checklists with positions have been confirmed to exist tells me there are 1989 Fleer varieties produced in extremely low numbers.

[Rookiemonster]

I have the 1989 fleet glossy black randy Johnson and Ripken

[Hatorade]

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

When it comes to this card, there are strong arguments to be made that Fleer made many changes to the card between the darkest tinting over the sign and the full blackout background (the final version that has a clean, solid black background). Most collectors argue this is ink variance but I am fairly certain there are legitimate, albeit very similar, changes to the background. This portion of the card's production run is responsible for a lot of the confusion surrounding the card.

There is a feature that isn't on any of the common cards (Full blackout background) that I've seen, but that is on every one of the error cards I have(Over 1000 and climbing) that I think could put to rest any claims that ink variance is the difference and not wholesale changes Fleer made to the editing process of card. If PSA would use this it could at least stop them from labeling some of the heavily tented errors as Completely Blacked Out. Unfortunately, the Ad On Scoreboard and Ad Partially Obscured labels will still be butchered by them.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Hatorade

There is a feature that isn't on any of the common cards (Full blackout background) that I've seen, but that is on every one of the error cards I have(Over 1000 and climbing) that I think could put to rest any claims that ink variance is the difference and not wholesale changes Fleer made to the editing process of card. If PSA would use this it could at least stop them from labeling some of the heavily tented errors as Completely Blacked Out. Unfortunately, the Ad On Scoreboard and Ad Partially Obscured labels will still be butchered by them.

Welcome to the forum! Glad someone besides myself hoards the error versions. I am guessing you are talking the little red swirl on the non blacked out versions.

[Hatorade]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Welcome to the forum! Glad someone besides myself hoards the error versions. I am guessing you are talking the little red swirl on the non blacked out versions.

No, the red squiggle on the bottom right of the card you're referring to is on all cards with red tininting, but isn't on the majority of cards with green tinting. There is a small black hair like marking on all the error cards and not on any of the CBO(common) cards.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Hatorade

No, the red squiggle on the bottom right of the card you're referring to is on all cards with red tininting, but isn't on the majority of cards with green tinting. There is a small black hair like marking on all the error cards and not on any of the CBO(common) cards.

I will have to grab a stack and look for the small black hair. Been a while since I have looked at any of them. Did just get a 9 card binder sheet full of error versions in a big junk era purchase including a couple really dark green scribble versions. Never looked close to se what version of the scribble they are.

[jp1216]

Had the pleasure of opening a '89 Fleer cello box last month. Case numbers identified it as mid December '88. Easily a month prior to the FF discovery. Found the Johnson Marlboro with red tint.

The Johnson was corrected, fixed, adjusted way before the Ripken FF. Cool variety.

[jp1216]

Here is a pic of the clear Marlboro. Not mine. Resides in a PSA 9 slab.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by jp1216

Had the pleasure of opening a '89 Fleer cello box last month. Case numbers identified it as mid December '88. Easily a month prior to the FF discovery. Found the Johnson Marlboro with red tint.

The Johnson was corrected, fixed, adjusted way before the Ripken FF. Cool variety.

Did you get a Wade Boggs and if so did you look to see if it was the super rare no dot version? Our friend Sean busted that cello box recently and found one in it.

[jp1216]

sorry Ben. No Boggs versions that I recall.

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Did you get a Wade Boggs and if so did you look to see if it was the super rare no dot version?

So funny. It is an extremely rare variation (and I believe that it likely originated without the mark and something happened to the plate early on), but I couldn't get $20 for it over a 4 month period of relistings. Fleer E&V collectors are definitely NOT Topps master set collectors.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

So funny. It is an extremely rare variation (and I believe that it likely originated without the mark and something happened to the plate early on), but I couldn't get $20 for it over a 4 month period of relistings. Fleer E&V collectors are definitely NOT Topps master set collectors.

Yes it is one of those examples that super rare does not equal valuable. I have 3 of them, I pulled one back in 89, had a member over on the BO forum send me one for free and a friend pulled one a couple weeks ago and sent it to me. Not sure what the last one cost me yet.

I never seen yours listed or I probably would have tried to buy it for less than you listed it at. Mine are all off center and would like a nice centered one.

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Yes it is one of those examples that super rare does not equal valuable. I have 3 of them, I pulled one back in 89, had a member over on the BO forum send me one for free and a friend pulled one a couple weeks ago and sent it to me. Not sure what the last one cost me yet.

I never seen yours listed or I probably would have tried to buy it for less than you listed it at. Mine are all off center and would like a nice centered one.

The least I had it at was $19.99 (repeatedly) which anything less, seems not worth selling for especially since a lot the rarer stuff is cyclical. New blood comes along and wants stuff that months previously, couldn't get a few bucks. I think the nature of the Boggs error, it's type (a black mark), isn't an aesthetically attractive variation, which I have learned over the last 10+ years does play a huge part in their sales.

[ALR-bishop]

I have a full Bowman, Topps and Fleer run. For Topps I generally will buy recurring print defects as well as true variations through 1994. After 1994 and for all my Bowman and Fleer sets I have only collected variations listed by SCD, Beckett or in the PSA master lists. Have to have some limits

1991 Topps is the absolute worst. I do not think a master checklist is even feasible

[Hatorade]

CurllyQ.jpg

PSA and BGS have a difficult time differentiating the error card from the common card in too many instances. One easy way for them to never make this mistake again is observe this small hair like object found on the bottom left of the card where the second vertical white line hits the lower blue line. I've termed the object a "short hair". The short hair is not on any of the common versions and is on every error variation I've seen. How can this same object have appeared on all the different error variations? What changed that it didn't show up on the common version?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Hatorade

Attachment 223184

PSA and BGS have a difficult time differentiating the error card from the common card in too many instances. One easy way for them to never make this mistake again is observe this small hair like object found on the bottom left of the card where the second vertical white line hits the lower blue line. I've termed the object a "short hair". The short hair is not on any of the common versions and is on every error variation I've seen. How can this same object have appeared on all the different error variations? What changed that it didn't show up on the common version?

As far as how it got there it's pretty simple. Not easy to tell exactly what way but a few easy ones.

It was there when the original pasteups were photographed so it was on the negative used to produce the black plates.
or
It was a scratch on the black plate that made the errors.
or
It was a scratch on the negative used to make the black plates for the errors.


Whatever the exact reason, making any of the corrected versions meant making new plates from altered negatives, or from entirely new negatives from a corrected pasteup . And either the bit of fiber was gone from the pasteup, or the resulting negatives never got scratched.

Steve B
* It's "possible" there were transitional cards using a mix of old and new plates, but considering that removing the Ad was because of a federal law the whole set was probably redone all at once.

[Hatorade]

Originally Posted by steve B

As far as how it got there it's pretty simple. Not easy to tell exactly what way but a few easy ones.

It was there when the original pasteups were photographed so it was on the negative used to produce the black plates.
or
It was a scratch on the black plate that made the errors.
or
It was a scratch on the negative used to make the black plates for the errors.


Whatever the exact reason, making any of the corrected versions meant making new plates from altered negatives, or from entirely new negatives from a corrected pasteup . And either the bit of fiber was gone from the pasteup, or the resulting negatives never got scratched.

Steve B
* It's "possible" there were transitional cards using a mix of old and new plates, but considering that removing the Ad was because of a federal law the whole set was probably redone all at once.

Steve, thanks for the feedback. I have a very limited understanding of the process used to print the cards and very much appreciate your perspective. As I understand it, Fleer used 2 printing facilities to make the cards. Would that rule out that the scratch was on the black plate that made the errors, because there would have been more than one plate for 2 separate facilities? You mentioned that it’s possible that there are transitional cards using a mix of old and new plates and I believe that is what happened for all the cards that aren’t the final corrected version. Fleer wasn’t able to immediately cover the Marlboro sign completely and what they did was edit the cards in a way that they transitioned from the ad only being slightly obscured with tinting and still visible, to the ad being tinted so heavily that the ad is mostly unable to be seen and all these cards have the black hair. This editing was done in most part over the ad itself and at some point they changed the editing process to cover more than just the Ad, but the entire rectangular area on the upper right part of the card with a consistent blacking out that resulted in the final corrected version, and no more black hair. It seems that a similar situation occurred with the Billy Ripken errors from the set. The scribble, white out and double die edits where used by Fleer to edit the ad before they could produce the black box versions to cover the error, even though they had already begun producing the Johnson cards in their final edit form. Why couldn’t Fleer just edit out the ad more completely with their early attempts instead of having the cards slowly transition from lightly tinted to heavily tinted and why would they have so many unique attempts at covering the Marlboro sign?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Hatorade

Steve, thanks for the feedback. I have a very limited understanding of the process used to print the cards and very much appreciate your perspective. As I understand it, Fleer used 2 printing facilities to make the cards. Would that rule out that the scratch was on the black plate that made the errors, because there would have been more than one plate for 2 separate facilities? You mentioned that it’s possible that there are transitional cards using a mix of old and new plates and I believe that is what happened for all the cards that aren’t the final corrected version. Fleer wasn’t able to immediately cover the Marlboro sign completely and what they did was edit the cards in a way that they transitioned from the ad only being slightly obscured with tinting and still visible, to the ad being tinted so heavily that the ad is mostly unable to be seen and all these cards have the black hair. This editing was done in most part over the ad itself and at some point they changed the editing process to cover more than just the Ad, but the entire rectangular area on the upper right part of the card with a consistent blacking out that resulted in the final corrected version, and no more black hair. It seems that a similar situation occurred with the Billy Ripken errors from the set. The scribble, white out and double die edits where used by Fleer to edit the ad before they could produce the black box versions to cover the error, even though they had already begun producing the Johnson cards in their final edit form. Why couldn’t Fleer just edit out the ad more completely with their early attempts instead of having the cards slowly transition from lightly tinted to heavily tinted and why would they have so many unique attempts at covering the Marlboro sign?

There would have been way more than even two plates.
That the line is on so many versions means it was most likely on the negative, so it got onto all the plates made during the transition from error to corrected. It goes away on the corrected versions? If that's always the case then the corrected ones were printed from a plate made from a new negative.
The transitional ones could have been done by altering the negatives for one or more of the other colors. Probably while they were waiting on the new negative for black to be done from altered original art.

It would be unusual for two different companies to share a negative. More likely is that one company started first. Maybe producing the cards for Wax boxes? I think those were released first with the other formats following a bit after. So company A does cards and has errors like the Johnson and maybe the Ripken that have to get fixed right away. Company B starts a bit later maybe doing the ones for cellos or vending or whatever. But they've been told about the problems and are either given corrected art to work from or do less obvious corrections. (Probably the first case)

Both companies probably ran multiple presses, and over a print run as large as 89 fleer they would have had to replace the plates a few times.

The Ripken corrections were probably a bit more of an emergency than the Johnson. Johnson ran up against a federal regulation (So did a lot of diecast cars) And the feds were probably ok with a simple "oops! we're fixing it, won't happen again" The Ripken was a bit of a thing in even mainstream media, and not the sort of PR they wanted. So they made a few different sorts of corrections. The knob area could have simply been erased from plates on the press to make the whiteout versions, the scribbles were probably scratched into the plates -also while the plates were still on the press.
The "double die" ones are just a result of bad registration. You'll find that sort of thing on lots of cards, it just got noticed on Ripken because everyone was looking at thin figures printed in multiple colors which makes them prone to that sort of "doubling".

Steve B

[Hatorade]

http://m.ebay.com/itm/1989-FLEER-381...%257Ciid%253A1

http://m.ebay.com/itm/1989-FLEER-381...%257Ciid%253A1

I was pretty excited to hear that PSA was introducing a new label for the Marlboro variations. It didn't take long to realize that instead of this being a positive development, that this would just lead to more duplicity and confusion.

I've seen quite a few of these same exact versions(cards linked) with the Ad Completely Blacked Out label from PSA. PSA has also applied the "green tint" label to the final corrected version of the card(common card) with a green dot that sounded similar to one of the cards the OP was mentioning. Some more consistency from the graders is really needed on these cards as there is quite a premium for cards they label ad on scoreboard or green tint. People are paying a good deal for the certain designations and those labels don't really mean much with the way PSA is being inconsistent.

[ALR-bishop]

Easy way to avoid that problem is to ignore what PSA minions thinks about the variants of this card.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Easy way to avoid that problem is to ignore what PSA minions thinks about the variants of this card.

^^+1^^ Also with there being a half dozen or more green tint versions their "green tint" label is meaningless anyway.

[Hatorade]

Being a buyer aware of some of the intricacies with these cards, the mislabeling has worked out very well for me, but I think for the long term value of the cards, more consistency from PSA would really help. Having them put 4 different descriptions on the same card or very similar looking cards makes it tough to determine what the actual variations are worth. The situation where PSA labels a common card with a large green print dot "marlboro sign tinted green" and then the card sells for several hundred dollars has to lead to some unhappy collectors eventually. I think I saved an image of the card on my phone and will post it.

[ALR-bishop]

As Darren has pointed out PSA and many dealers, still have problems distinguishing between the regular and green tint 1962s.

Unless graders have several examples of the various versions of the card in front of them I am not sure how they would ever accurately identify a particular card with so many apparent nuances. My guess is that there is not even total agreement among Randy And Billy collectors on how many different versions of those cards exist, and how many fakes.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

My guess is that there is not even total agreement among Randy And Billy collectors on how many different versions of those cards exist, and how many fakes.

That's not a guess Al, that is fact. I have silly large collections of both and I know people with even better collections of Billy than mine. As a group we never agree.

[Hatorade]

https://flic.kr/p/WBcZqJ

They way Fleer produced the Marlboro cards it does make it tough to distinguish between some of them, but with PSA applying the green tint labeling of the common card pictured above it shows they don't have much of a clue about these cards. It seems to me that if they don't have a good enough understanding of the cards then they shouldn't be applying a label to it.

[jacksoncoupage]

Here is a new variation on the blackout "final" version. The edited sign area is covered entirely in a solid black layer that normally extends left on an even level to Randy's ear. This one has a gap. All copies I have seen do not have the gap, until this one.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

Here is a new variation on the blackout "final" version. The edited sign area is covered entirely in a solid black layer that normally extends left on an even level to Randy's ear. This one has a gap. All copies I have seen do not have the gap, until this one.

Cool find. Looks like a print spot/error and not a real variation IMO. Now I will have to try and find one for my print error collection.

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Cool find. Looks like a print spot/error and not a real variation IMO. Now I will have to try and find one for my print error collection.

Looks like my pic didn't load but I got the card in hand today and it is just a very dark "box" around sign version. False alarm!

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

Looks like my pic didn't load but I got the card in hand today and it is just a very dark "box" around sign version. False alarm!

I got your pic to load for me. It was from Dean's cards. Sorry to hear the card you received didn't have the print spot, have had it happen several time myself.

EDIT: Dylan do you think you got the correct card that you ordered? I collect print errors and have had people send me the wrong card saying "I had 2(or more) and they are the same so I probably didn't send the one in the picture". They didn't realize I wanted the one with the ugly print spot. Also got the correct card and what looked like a print spot turned out to not be there because the card was exactly the same as the one in the picture except the little print error looking area.

[ALR-bishop]

I have never had such experiences

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I got your pic to load for me. It was from Dean's cards. Sorry to hear the card you received didn't have the print spot, have had it happen several time myself.

EDIT: Dylan do you think you got the correct card that you ordered? I collect print errors and have had people send me the wrong card saying "I had 2(or more) and they are the same so I probably didn't send the one in the picture". They didn't realize I wanted the one with the ugly print spot. Also got the correct card and what looked like a print spot turned out to not be there because the card was exactly the same as the one in the picture except the little print error looking area.

The card in the pic has a 100% blacked out, flush, background. No sign of the box within the dark, dark brown/nearly black area. What set it apart was the gap next to Randy's head, which only affects not black-out versions. The card I received is very obviously a box around sign version (one of the bubble types) and far from the solid background type.

[bnorth]

Just picked up this one that has the some spacing above the ear that Dylan showed in the card he thought he bought.

This is one of the dark red box versions. Don't have it in hand yet.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

Here is a new variation on the blackout "final" version. The edited sign area is covered entirely in a solid black layer that normally extends left on an even level to Randy's ear. This one has a gap. All copies I have seen do not have the gap, until this one.

Strangely since Dylan's post I have found 3 total with the error he described and had never noticed it before.

Here are pics of the 2 I bought last night. Hopefully when they arrive they still have the variation.

EDIT: After carefully looking at several 100 of the Marlboro error versions today I see the error above his left ear is a fairly common. I have found it on most if not all variations used to cover/obscure the Marlboro sign.

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Strangely since Dylan's post I have found 3 total with the error he described and had never noticed it before.

EDIT: After carefully looking at several 100 of the Marlboro error versions today I see the error above his left ear is a fairly common. I have found it on most if not all variations used to cover/obscure the Marlboro sign.

The "gap" in the fence/background line is always my tell for a marlboro/cover-up variation when looking at copies not described as Marlboro. It is on every cover-up attempt aside from the full, blacked out "final" correction type.

This is what I thought I was purchasing from Dean's Cards, a true first example of a blacked out backgound version that still had the gap by his ear. The card I got was a dark red box w/ bubble version, which was fairly disappointing.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

The "gap" in the fence/background line is always my tell for a marlboro/cover-up variation when looking at copies not described as Marlboro. It is on every cover-up attempt aside from the full, blacked out "final" correction type.

This is what I thought I was purchasing from Dean's Cards, a true first example of a blacked out backgound version that still had the gap by his ear. The card I got was a dark red box w/ bubble version, which was fairly disappointing.

Ok, I get it know, thank you for the clarification.

[mrdbrooks77]

Picked these up last week. The box one looks blue in person, and the one on the left is very clear very little red to it.