1974 Topps Wash - SD Variations

[insidethewrapper]

If all the cards in the1974 Topps set were printed at the same time and not in Series. Then why don't all the San Diego cards have a Washington Variation ? Thanks

[moeson]

This excerpt from a Keith Olbermann SCD column sheds some light on the 1974 Padres situation but doesn't answer why only some cards showed Washington:

"This was the season Topps jumped the gun on the planned move of the San Diego Padres, and issued the 14 lower-numbered Padres (and the No. 599 rookie card featuring Padre Dave Freisleben) in two varieties: San Diego or “Washington, Nat’l Lea.” The proof cards of the Padres up to number 387 all list the team correctly (no “Washington” proof has ever been found), but the color scheme for the lettering is all different. Instead of black on a brownish orange, they’re all white on brown – not a mistake as such, but a design change (and paralleled by other aesthetic changes for other teams as well).

The proof cards, as ever, give considerable insight to baseball card history. The Topps Vault auctioned a 1974 proof sheet on eBay in 2003, and all the Padres players on it are listed with San Diego – and are thus covered by the hand-markings of the set editor, insisting that they be changed to Washington. Just to further clarify what was happening at Topps HQ, this proof sheet is, as most were, dated – marked “Dec. 6, 1973” – and thus indicating what kind of chaos had enveloped the card company less than three months before the cards were due in stores".

- See more at: http://www.sportscollectorsdigest.co....ph9GvKzt.dpuf

[toppcat]

I think the answer is they were still composing the uncut sheets in rough numerical order and the first three (which would go no higher than #396) were composed and printed first. The change was then ordered at the end of the first run of these sheets. The error above those numbers on the #599 rookie card was likely just overlooked the first time around. Based upon the two "correct" versions of #599 at least three print runs came off the presses. It seems likely to me that each sheet's run was completed before the next run or new sheet batch was started. There had to be some order to the process just from knowing how Topps went about their proofing process.

I seem to recall the Washington cards were not available in all parts of the country, possibly from a newspaper article at the time. Again, going from memory, Topps had three main distribution centers in the US around this time, so I wonder if one run was meant for each distribution center. As kid collectors in 1974, we were very aware of the errors on Long Island so they have always been popular.

[JollyElm]

Well, from a logical standpoint, you have to understand that although 'all' of the cards were released at the same time, not all of the cards were actually printed at the same time. They had numerous print runs throughout the year, so they eventually changed 'Washington' to 'San Diego.'

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by toppcat

I think the answer is they were still composing the uncut sheets in rough numerical order and the first three (which would go no higher than #396) were composed and printed first. The change was then ordered at the end of the first run of these sheets. The error above those numbers on the #599 rookie card was likely just overlooked the first time around. Based upon the two "correct" versions of #599 at least three print runs came off the presses. It seems likely to me that each sheet's run was completed before the next run or new sheet batch was started. There had to be some order to the process just from knowing how Topps went about their proofing process.

I seem to recall the Washington cards were not available in all parts of the country, possibly from a newspaper article at the time. Again, going from memory, Topps had three main distribution centers in the US around this time, so I wonder if one run was meant for each distribution center. As kid collectors in 1974, we were very aware of the errors on Long Island so they have always been popular.

That sounds very logical, Dave. I don't remember their respective card numbers, but assuming the Winfield has a higher card number than McCovey, that would explain why there is a McCovey "Washington" variation (which I have), but no similar Winfield.

May your collecting bring you joy,

Larry

[K-Nole]

BTW,

I am needing these cards to complete our set.

If you have any that you want to get rid of, let me know what you need.