Color Variations and '57 Topps

[mintacular]

Anyone know if this would qualify as a variation, and if so, are there other '57s that have stark color differences like this? Of for that matter, other documented variations? Thanks.

[ALR-bishop]

Color variants like this exist in all Topps sets. I am not aware of any of them getting listed as variations in SCD. Not sure about Beckett of the rRgistry. SCD does list the 1982 blackless set where a color is missing from 396 of the cards in the set. But the blueless cards from the same set are not listed. Sometimes color differences may just be part of the printing process with some color running too low or being too prominent. Sometimes it maybe sun fading. But if someone would start trying to list such differences in color in all Topps sets, the list would be enormous. You can find examples on ebay all the time and they do not get much interest

[mintacular]

Thanks Al, I've been collecting this set for some time now and have noticed color differences but this one just jumped out at me recently. Sitting side by side in my binder they look like completely different cards....I can't say that I've seen others like this with such a stark difference...If there are ones, would like to know who

[ALR-bishop]

Patrick--I am a pretty obsessive variant/error/defect/variations collector. After finishing the Topps sets I did the variations listed in SCD, and to some extent Beckett. The Registry seemed to me to follow SCD. Now that Bob has retired, SCD may be a grandfathered source. Bob was great at looking into new variants people sent him. But, at the end he was leaning towards only listing new cards in which it appeared an intentional change had been made in the card by the manufacturer, a definition that would have excluded even cards like the Herrer, The Bakep and maybe the Campos black star going forward

After doing listed variations I started doing print defects and oddities that appealed to me, and tried to get Bob interested in as many as possible. Given the growing size of the book and the explosion of print defect type differences found due to ebay and the internet, Bob became a tough sell the last couple of years...and rightfully so in my view.

I follow the variation/error listings on ebay constantly, and stuff like blank or wrong backs and color differences do not generate much interest in general...unless recognized through some hobby publication. SCD used to run regular articles discussing variant cards not in the books and debate if they should be. Ones not making it in still had some extra value due to the articles themselves, such as the 1952 Scheib and Woodling border irregularities and the House yellow tiger, all discussed in SCD articles

I have several significant color variations myself ( I have tried to get at least one example for each set), and I did do the 1982 Blackless set. It would be interesting if other 57 collectors had and came forward with other color variants like your

I think you have a neat card and that cards like that add to the value of the set, if not in the market, at least to those who enjoy finding them and adding them to our sets

[con40]

These two cards show a great example how ink density can affect a card's overall color.

The card on the left has much more cyan ink (light blue) applied than the card on the right. The result is that any colors with a percentage of cyan ink get darker and bolder in value as the ink density increases.

One of the pressman's main jobs is to maintain consistent ink levels on press. There are four inks (cyan, magenta, yellow and black) on a standard full-color print job. These four inks in various combinations print all the colors we see in any printed matter of the 1920s up through today. Keeping the right densities of ink is like a balancing act. When the levels shift too much, the proportions of ink get out of balance and the image changes... sometimes dramatically.

If SCD or any other reptatble source started considering these ink shifts actual variations, then EVERY card ever printed would have multiple variations extant.

[ALR-bishop]

Agree with you on your last observation Keith. A weeks review of variation/error listings on ebay will prove that point.

But some color variations are fairly dramatic...the 84 blueless being one example. Also take a look at the just completed listings for1984 "Topps blackless Encased" cards on ebay .

Doug on here has a 58 Aaron where the background is blue rather than green and I have Mays from 1966 with blue versus green banners.They are both pretty dramatic. My Mays may just be green faded to blue from sun or light.

I guess if you wanted to create some dramatic color variants you could just leave some cards in a sun facing window sill for 6 months

[steve B]

In addition to the ink density there's the registration. If the cyan is meant to be overlaid by another color but is out of register just right then those areas will look very blue.

At first glance I thought it might be a difference similar to the 62 green tints, but there are too many things that are similar between the two. The blue thread above his right wrist, the dark area at the upper left edge and the blue thread just right of it. Probably a few other small things.

If it was a variation by my defenition (A card from a different plate or plates or from a different place on the same set of plates) There would probably be fewer small mistakes that were common between the cards.

On the registration - Another thing on this card that could be seen as a variation by some is the stripes on the sleeve. One has a dark stripe with orange above and below, while the blue one only has the stripe below.
But it's not an actual difference, the red is printed low enough to hide the upper stripe.

I'm into the variations/varieties as well as printing errors. I'm finding that "varieties" is accepted better than variations when I'm describing something where the plate is different but it's not a deliberate change.

Steve B

[mintacular]

Thanks for all your comments guys, I guess I should have been more precise with my language i.e. "variation." Good information though. BTW, if anyone has any '57s that look different like the Thomas' plz post or let me know what they are even though they wouldn't qualify as a "variation"

[darkhorse9]

One interesting thing I've seen about the 1957 set. Almsot all of the stars are in the first series.

If you look at the last (5th) series, there are zero stars except for the two multi-player cards. Considering that there is no premium for high numbers that year it's a cheap series to pick up. The biggest names in cards 353-407 outside of the Yankee and Dodger multi cards are Ralph Terry, Earl Battey, Al Cicotte and Don Elston - Yikes!

How often does an entire series contain so few (even minor) star cards.