Show...me...your print variations!

[Cliff Bowman]

While searching on Trading Card Database looking for chicanery committed by the member iffie99 I actually ran across a pretty cool variation unknown to me that was listed by him. 1972 #216 Joe Niekro can be found with and without a black bar between the 6' and the 1" in his height, it looks like the version without the bar is the less common one but by no means rare. It reminds me of similar variation cards of Roger Metzger, Richie Zisk, and Dave Roberts in the 1979 set.

[brewing]

I've spent most of my time here the past 5 years in the buy/sell area. Been intending to share this for way too long. Using my time at home to focus on cards, so now is a good time to share.
Noticed this about 2 years ago while working on the set. I've been tracking this card on eBay since that time. The version with the complete black border around the Yankees logo seems to be rarer. But not that much rarer, probably 60% w/o and 40% with.

[Tripredacus]

edit: moved to PM instead to not derail topic.

[JoeBoo]

Not sure this would be considered a "variation" but i always thought the 1979 fronts with 1978 backs were interesting. i am a Winfield collector so wish i had Dave on the front but oh well. I never found much info about these but there's always a few on Ebay. I have seen wrongbacks before but never different years like this.

[ALR-bishop]

Welcome Boo. Most do not consider wrong backs variations, and normally not as sought after. But there are wrong back collectors, usually involving major stars, and wrong year backs are a big plus I would guess. Some have posted wrong backs from non baseball issues. ( baseball on front another sport or non sport issue on back, or other way around)

If you are a Winfield guy here is an odd one

[JoeBoo]

Thanks Al. gotcha. That is an odd one!

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Welcome Boo. Most do not consider wrong backs variations, and normally not as sought after. But there are wrong back collectors, usually involving major stars, and wrong year backs are a big plus I would guess. Some have posted wrong back from non baseball issues. ( baseball on front another sport or non sport issue on back, or other way around)

If you are a Winfield guy here is an odd one

That 86 Topps Winfield isn’t in my top ten of screwups where I had a chance to get something on eBay and didn’t pull the trigger, but it might be #11 .

[swarmee]

Yeah, topps printed some 1989 Football backs with a baseball front as well. But yours is really neat since it's from two different years.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Yeah, topps printed some 1989 Football backs with a baseball front as well. But yours is really neat since it's from two different years.

Back in the mid eighties Baseball Card Magazine had a picture of a badly miscut 1968 Topps baseball card with the top 25% of the card being a 1967 Topps football card. That card freaked me out for about 20-25 years until I learned about Milton Bradley Win-A-Card game cards either here on eBay.

[4reals]

Originally Posted by JoeBoo

Not sure this would be considered a "variation" but i always thought the 1979 fronts with 1978 backs were interesting. i am a Winfield collector so wish i had Dave on the front but oh well. I never found much info about these but there's always a few on Ebay. I have seen wrongbacks before but never different years like this.

I’ve collected blank backs and wrong backs for a long time and 1979 is the only year I’ve seen the wrong year on the back. Mine are 78 as well. As Al mentioned, you can also find some with non-sports from the same year. I’ve personally seen star wars and mork and mindy on the back on 1979 Topps. People paid about $50 a pop for those about 4 years ago if my memory serves correct.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[steve B]

Originally Posted by JoeBoo

Not sure this would be considered a "variation" but i always thought the 1979 fronts with 1978 backs were interesting. i am a Winfield collector so wish i had Dave on the front but oh well. I never found much info about these but there's always a few on Ebay. I have seen wrongbacks before but never different years like this.

Those are cool, they came from a find by a dealer in 79.

The story I heard was that they routinely visited the dump near one of the printing plants. One day they found a bunch of strips of these.

I bought a strip, but it wasn't packed well at all, just coiled into a box and it got a bit crushed. Still have it somewhere.
All were vertical strips the full sheet height.

78-79 they were using a lot of leftovers for other stuff.
79's with 78 backs
Some with Mork and Mindy "stickers" on the back (I forget if they are 78 or 79)
Sheets of both 78 Baseball and Black hole backs are used to print Bazooka boxes- grocery store verions, about the size of a mac and cheese box.
Probably one or two others I don't know about.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Finally....
While going through another overgraded ebay lot I received today, I finally found the one variation I have been searching for over the past 15+ years. I was muttering to myself about the condition of the cards being 2-3 grades lower than stated when I see the nicest card in the whole group, the 67 Spiezio missing the "Spie". Many of you probably have multiple copies, but this was my first copy of this card. More than got my money's worth out the lot afterall.

[4reals]

Was going through my 61 Dodgers team set yesterday. The Fairly gets a lot of notoriety for it green ball variation because it’s recognized in publications, however, there are other cards in the set that aren’t recognized that have the same characteristic. One, is the Lillis. Not only does he have a green ball variation but he also has stray ink at the stat box that comes in a variety of shapes. Same is true for the Koufax/Podres Southpaw card.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[4reals]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[4reals]

Awesome! What a great surprise! Congrats on the find!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ALR-bishop]

Congrats Larry.

It is interesting to me how some recurring print defects gained general hobby recognition as variations while the vast majority do not.

Who is in charge of this stuff anyway ?

[4reals]

so I took a page from Cliff's playbook and looked up the sheet that Lillis was on (sheet2). Lillis is at the top row and the cards to the left and right on the top row, Walt Moryn #91 (cardinals), Jim Woods #59 (phillies), Joe Amalfitano #87 (giants), and AL HR Leaders #44 (with Mantle/Maris) all have back print defects with stray ink if anyone is so inclined to add them. Not super attractive since it is the back of the card but cool nonetheless. The HR Leaders card is the least obvious. The bottom left corner of green is a sharp square on most of the cards but a select few have a soft rounded corner and wavy bottom. I also found a green in ball (variation) for the Dodgers Southpaws card #207 which is on a completely different sheet. Couldn't find a 61 topps sheet with the Fairly on it to see what other cards are around it.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by 4reals

so I took a page from Cliff's playbook and looked up the sheet that Lillis was on (sheet2). Lillis is at the top row and the cards to the left and right on the top row, Walt Moryn #91 (cardinals), Jim Woods #59 (phillies), Joe Amalfitano #87 (giants), and AL HR Leaders #44 (with Mantle/Maris) all have back print defects with stray ink if anyone is so inclined to add them. Not super attractive since it is the back of the card but cool nonetheless. The HR Leaders card is the least obvious. The bottom left corner of green is a sharp square on most of the cards but a select few have a soft rounded corner and wavy bottom. I also found a green in ball (variation) for the Dodgers Southpaws card #207 which is on a completely different sheet. Couldn't find a 61 topps sheet with the Fairly on it to see what other cards are around it.

Nice work! The card on the end of the top row can also be found with the print error of green in the ball, Russ Kemmerer. Personally, I'm not a fan at all of considering these 1961 cards with dashes of green in the ball as variations, even the Fairly that fills up three quarters of the ball. They are just interesting print anomalies. ETA: There are a few of the 61 Moryn on COMC.

[4reals]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

Nice work! The card on the end of the top row can also be found with the print error of green in the ball, Russ Kemmerer. Personally, I'm not a fan at all of considering these 1961 cards with dashes of green in the ball as variations, even the Fairly that fills up three quarters of the ball. They are just interesting print anomalies. ETA: There are a few of the 61 Moryn on COMC.

That's cool, Cliff! Apart from the dash of green in the baseball, the left edge of the stat box is also wavy instead of straight.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by 4reals

so I took a page from Cliff's playbook and looked up the sheet that Lillis was on (sheet2). Lillis is at the top row and the cards to the left and right on the top row, Walt Moryn #91 (cardinals), Jim Woods #59 (phillies), Joe Amalfitano #87 (giants), and AL HR Leaders #44 (with Mantle/Maris) all have back print defects with stray ink if anyone is so inclined to add them. Not super attractive since it is the back of the card but cool nonetheless. The HR Leaders card is the least obvious. The bottom left corner of green is a sharp square on most of the cards but a select few have a soft rounded corner and wavy bottom. I also found a green in ball (variation) for the Dodgers Southpaws card #207 which is on a completely different sheet. Couldn't find a 61 topps sheet with the Fairly on it to see what other cards are around it.

These are to me the weirdest things to be accepted as variations.
Most are overinking, and won't really be consistent.
The Amalfitano is a registration problem.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by steve B

These are to me the weirdest things to be accepted as variations.
Most are overinking, and won't really be consistent.

I couldn’t agree more, in my opinion the 61 Fairly green in ball is the worst vintage postwar variation that PSA recognized, with the 57 Bakep being the next. They recognized the 73 Earl Williams border gaps for a short time but then wisely stopped it. Hopefully they stopped recognizing the 73 Bahnsen and 73 Bell single border gaps as well.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Congrats Larry.

It is interesting to me how some recurring print defects gained general hobby recognition as variations while the vast majority do not.

Who is in charge of this stuff anyway ?

Thank you Joe and AL....yes AL, in my haste to post about one of the more elusive cards now in my collection, I should have not used the word "variation", but indeed called the card what it is, a recurring print defect.

[ALR-bishop]

My point was that it has in fact achieved hobby recognition as a variation, just like the 58 Herrer or 57 Bakep, and now the 61 Fairly. The thing of interest to me is why a few print defects get hobby recognition as variations while most do not

[4reals]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

My point was that it has in fact achieved hobby recognition as a variation, just like the 58 Herrer or 57 Bakep, and now the 61 Fairly. The thing of interest to me is why a few print defects get hobby recognition as variations while most do not

Exactly. That lack of continuity is head scratching. It's almost as if there needs to be an organization started, maybe the Card Collecting Coalition (CCC) that has a panel who decides what is approved and recognized in different categories. Maybe the categories would include Standard/Variation/Reoccuring print defect (RPDs). Hobbyists could submit applications requesting card approval. Then that trickles down to the hobby publications which trickles to the grading companies. Master set collectors could decide which level of set they are going to collect. I know, crazy talk...don't rock the boat, Joe. Sit down.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

My point was that it has in fact achieved hobby recognition as a variation, just like the 58 Herrer or 57 Bakep, and now the 61 Fairly. The thing of interest to me is why a few print defects get hobby recognition as variations while most do not

There are recurring cards with the same exact print flaw as the 1990 Topps partially blackless from 1958 (back), 1961, 1963, 1967 (front and back), 1974, 1980, 1985, 1986, and 1988 Topps with some of them that are just as rare or rarer than the 1990 Topps cards but are not worth anywhere near or have the demand of what the 1990 cards do. The 1967 Ed Spiezio is the only one that I can think of that has gained hobby acceptance. I know it is because one of the 1990 cards is the Frank Thomas rookie card and the epic thread on the Collectors Universe forum that gradually unveiled all of the cards affected.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

The thing of interest to me is why a few print defects get hobby recognition as variations while most do not

IMO, the manner in which some print defects have been promoted by select folks in the hobby (dealers, bloggers, etc) has helped these more well known defects to gain recognition over other print defects.

Also IMO, the greater the scarcity is for a recurring print defect, the more demand there seems to come with it. Obvious exceptions include 57 Bakep and 61 Farily.



This Lemke blog is a good example of how print defects can be promoted and gain added recognition(demand)....also, notice in this blog the proposal of how scarce this print defect may indeed be:

http://boblemke.blogspot.com/2010/10...-error-or.html



FWIW, how many here have a copy of the 61 293 Golden?

[e6phillips]

Here's a variation of the 1956 Haddix - red line in the upper right corner.

I've seen a lot of posts about 1956 variations but have not seen this one mentioned.


IMG_1353.jpg

IMG_1354 (1).jpg

IMG_1355.jpg

[sflayank]

What the...is going on here...yesterday on ebay
1967 Topps Punch-Outs Chico Salmon PSA 6 - none Higher! Mickey Mantle Test RARE

[Jcfowler6]

Recent pickup from a fellow member that traded with me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[swarmee]

That's usually referred to a "wet sheet transfer" since it was adhered to the back of the card from the sheet below it when they were stacked on each other when the ink was still wet. It would get more oohs and aahs in the pre-war section...

[ejstel]

Hi yes don't usually see. I surprisingly saw this one as well via a heritage box insert.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[Cliff Bowman]

I saw a 1978 Topps Bump Wills Black Circle error card a few years ago with that stamp on it, it was off grade otherwise it would have been a shame. This is the only stamped card that I own, a real neat 1977 Topps Pete LaCock print error ruined by the stamp.

[David W]

Darrel Chaney "Green Tint"
Brant Alyea "Spot on left eye"
Jim Nash "Red spot on hat"
Phil Gagliano "Partial blackout on team, name and infield"
Bobby Valentine "Psychadelic blurred version"

[Sliphorn]

We are all familiar with the copyright vs. NO copyright on this one. A late discovery is the card with a blue slash at the lower left side. I just bought an extra version of it and found that the blue slash was on a COPYRIGHT PRESENT version while the others were on the NO copyright version. Therefore, this is a mystery as to how the slash, an obvious error, appears on both versions of the copyright.

[ALR-bishop]

Neat discovery Thomas. Similar to the 52 House yellow tiger showing up on regular and gray back cards. Seems to be a cropping differences on the two you just posted too

[Sliphorn]

Originally Posted by Sliphorn

We are all familiar with the copyright vs. NO copyright on this one. A late discovery is the card with a blue slash at the lower left side. I just bought an extra version of it and found that the blue slash was on a COPYRIGHT PRESENT version while the others were on the NO copyright version. Therefore, this is a mystery as to how the slash, an obvious error, appears on both versions of the copyright.

What cropping can you see on this pair? This is a scan showing only the no copyright with and without slash. I did not bother to include the two versions WITH the copyright for now. Thanks.

[mrmopar]

I have a Wills buyback with the circle. I didn't recall picking it up, but came across it the other day.

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

I saw a 1978 Topps Bump Wills Black Circle error card a few years ago with that stamp on it, it was off grade otherwise it would have been a shame. This is the only stamped card that I own, a real neat 1977 Topps Pete LaCock print error ruined by the stamp.

[4reals]

I love those! The Roe seems to be more available and can also be found with a dark loop and a faint loop. The Erskine is definitely more prominent with the double loops and may be why more collectors have gobbled them up over the years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kdixon]

I don’t have Roe . I would take $300 if anyone had interest . Thanks

[aronbenabe]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by aronbenabe

Giant sized 1968 Topps card of Orlando Pena

What are we supposed to be looking at? Blemish on the collar?

[aronbenabe]

The first name is supposed to be in black, as it is on all cards in this set.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by aronbenabe

The first name is supposed to be in black, as it is on all cards in this set.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Light printing of a specific color, in this case black, is common .... if there was missing print versus light print, than that would be uncommon, IMO.

[ALR-bishop]

blacklessing ?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

Light printing of a specific color, in this case black, is common .... if there was missing print versus light print, than that would be uncommon, IMO.

I agree. The border also has the same light printing.

[aronbenabe]

Saved From My Spokes,

Thanks for your response, but i beg to differ. Firstly, this is a sliver color, not an expert but it seems to be at the opposite spectrum of black. Second, I’ve probably seen over 10,000 Topps 1968 cards in my adulthood and never came across another one from that set....it seems indeed quite rare.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by aronbenabe

Saved From My Spokes,

Thanks for your response, but i beg to differ. Firstly, this is a sliver color, not an expert but it seems to be at the opposite spectrum of black. Second, I’ve probably seen over 10,000 Topps 1968 cards in my adulthood and never came across another one from that set....it seems indeed quite rare.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OK...I wasn't aware that silver was one of the four colors used in the printing process. In my experience, it is not uncommon for sheets being printed by Topps to be printed when one of the four ink colors were running low during the printing process producing a lighter than expected appearance of what was printed.

Light black print, or any light print from any of the other three primary colors is common.... occurrences of such would not be considered "quite rare". Overall print quality with 68s in regards to color levels, IMO, is better than other years.

Not really big into light print anomalies, but here are few "light" and missing print anomalies which I more enjoy. The 68 Schofield card appears to have the same lightness in it's black print as your Pena card. The Ricketts has both missing and low ink. The Marichal has low red ink as does the 80 Hassey card. The 82 Ozzie has low black ink as do many other cards from the 82 set. The 73 FB card is missing an entire color ....

[ALR-bishop]

[Cliff Bowman]

I ran across the 65 Glenn Beckert ink print error on eBay when I looked up 'Topps print flaw' listings, and I noticed that the card below it was also affected. Thanks to the 65 high number sheet scan that Kevvyg1026 posted on another thread I could see that it is Ron Taylor and luckily I found one on eBay. It is recurring because someone else just bought a 65 Beckert ink print error on eBay.

[swarmee]

1956 Topps - [Base] #33.2 - Roberto Clemente (White Back) [PSA*3*VG]
Courtesy of COMC.com

Red splotch on right armpit. Looks like they're pretty common, based on the ones I see on COMC. May not be on the gray back version.