NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. When you click on links to eBay on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Postwar Sportscard Forums > Modern Baseball Cards Forum (1980-Present)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-04-2016, 10:24 AM
steve B steve B is offline
Steve Birmingham
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: eastern Mass.
Posts: 8,131
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatorade View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-21-2016, 12:09 PM
Hatorade Hatorade is offline
member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 75
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve B View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-21-2016, 04:53 PM
steve B steve B is offline
Steve Birmingham
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: eastern Mass.
Posts: 8,131
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatorade View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-11-2017, 01:07 PM
Hatorade Hatorade is offline
member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 75
Default PSA has bungled the "green tint" designation already

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.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-11-2017, 06:17 PM
ALR-bishop ALR-bishop is offline
Al Richter
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 8,997
Default

Easy way to avoid that problem is to ignore what PSA minions thinks about the variants of this card.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-11-2017, 06:20 PM
bnorth's Avatar
bnorth bnorth is offline
Ben North
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 9,923
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ALR-bishop View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-11-2017, 11:35 PM
Hatorade Hatorade is offline
member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 75
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
Reply




Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
1986 Fleer Basketball, Randy Johnson PSA 10 Rookie, 1985 Topps Tiffany Lot maddux311 1980 & Newer Sports Cards B/S/T 0 09-22-2013 11:13 AM
Nolan Ryan 1989 + 1982 OPC + Randy Johnson OPC PSA 10 RC tsalem 1980 & Newer Sports Cards B/S/T 2 02-01-2013 04:14 PM
FS: 1989 Randy Johnson RC 5 card lot BGS/PSA freakhappy 1980 & Newer Sports Cards B/S/T 0 01-17-2013 10:51 PM
Randy Johnson 1989 O-Pee-Chee RC PSA 10 Low POP!!! tsalem 1980 & Newer Sports Cards B/S/T 1 11-22-2012 08:59 AM
13-Randy Johnson Topps rookie cards 1989 keithsky 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T 0 06-06-2011 03:31 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:10 AM.


ebay GSB