1961 topps with green inside baseball

[ALR-bishop]

Todd---neat card, Had not seen

Steve---your usual good take

Darren---no one is wrong...or right on this stuff. Too each his own. But value still needs hobby recognition....for good or bad. Since I am just in it as a hobby, I just collect what appeals to me

[nolemmings]

Thanks Al. Those 4 Bolin cards with the bottom print line are not mine-- they all came from Ebay and can be yours. I just wondered what the opinions were about this anomoly vs. the green inside baseball. BTW, there were 105 Bolins in my search and only these 4 carried the stray line, so it seems like a decent sample size from which to conclude that the line is relatively scarce, I wonder what % the green inside baseball vs not is found for those '61s that share this "variation".

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Todd---neat card, Had not seen

Steve---your usual good take

Darren---no one is wrong...or right on this stuff. Too each his own. But value still needs hobby recognition....for good or bad. Since I am just in it as a hobby, I just collect what appeals to me

Ummm...who used the words right and wrong in describing anything?????? I stated what the cards specifically were and left it at that, free of any judgments.

[Tomman1961]

Sorry-I posted I have the Santo with the green. I meant to say The Fairley. Sorry for the mistake. My Santo does not have the green.

[steve B]

The Bolins are interesting examples.

The first one is a printing problem. Overinked, thin ink, or plate too dry or too wet, all have roughly the same result. Unless it's more severe or in a certain spot it's hard to tell.

The ones with the line at the bottom are the sort of thing I collect. While someone else might not call it a variation, it's a difference on the black plate. The line may be either a cutting guideline, in which case there will be another card with the same line at the top, or it might be from the sheet edge and only show on miscut cards. Most of the time, there's another version of the card that even when off center by just as much won't have the line.

I don't chase them all that actively though. And I generally don't pay a premium. Usually the cards are discounted as being poorly centered or otherwise defective

Steve B

[ALR-bishop]

Todd--do not know % but the defect occurs in many 61 cards and is not scarce, maybe something similar to the Bolin %

Darren---you have my apologies , Dude. We share a common interest and I actually agree with you for the most part

[4reals]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

So how would you classify these 1961 Bobby Bolin cards below? The first one has a bottom border bleed that fills in the "P" in Pitcher.

Next is Bolin with the bottom edge stray black line. Are these noteworthy variations or print defects?

Based on the definitions I use it would depend on the print line. If the print line is determined to be a cut line found on every sheet the cards were printed on I would call them miscuts and they would be anomalies. If the print lines were designer errors that found their way on early runs I would call them variations because they were "fixed". As for the P that is filled in with black ink that is definitely an anomaly in my eyes. Cool finds none the less. Here are some from the '63 set that I'm not sure where to categorize. Miscuts, yes, but not all the miscuts of these cards have the same appearance. I'm leaning towards just calling them miscut anomalies because if I start trying to categorize a card based on something that was never intended to be viewed (off of the design area) then I may really have issues.

Here is the correct, the miscut with a yellow bar, and a miscut with a white bar


Here is a similar scenario with the Fairly card


Here are definite unlisted variations, which depict a cropped image of Zimmer. Note the number of stripes on his uniform and the placement of the bat from the inset image on Zimmer's turtleneck and his elbows on the inset image.


Wasn't this a thread about '61 Topps Greenies? How'd I end up in 1963? sorry 'bout that!

[4reals]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Darren---no one is wrong...or right on this stuff. Too each his own. But value still needs hobby recognition....for good or bad. Since I am just in it as a hobby, I just collect what appeals to me

I like this, well said Al.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by 4reals

Based on the definitions I use it would depend on the print line. If the print line is determined to be a cut line found on every sheet the cards were printed on I would call them miscuts and they would be anomalies. If the print lines were designer errors that found their way on early runs I would call them variations because they were "fixed". As for the P that is filled in with black ink that is definitely an anomaly in my eyes. Cool finds none the less. Here are some from the '63 set that I'm not sure where to categorize. Miscuts, yes, but not all the miscuts of these cards have the same appearance. I'm leaning towards just calling them miscut anomalies because if I start trying to categorize a card based on something that was never intended to be viewed (off of the design area) then I may really have issues.

Here is the correct, the miscut with a yellow bar, and a miscut with a white bar


Here is a similar scenario with the Fairly card


Here are definite unlisted variations, which depict a cropped image of Zimmer. Note the number of stripes on his uniform and the placement of the bat from the inset image on Zimmer's turtleneck and his elbows on the inset image.


Wasn't this a thread about '61 Topps Greenies? How'd I end up in 1963? sorry 'bout that!

Not to continue to stray OT, but the Zimmer is a part of the group of 63s that feature the two different inset image croppings.... IMO, not a true variation as these are actually two different cards.

http://www.oldbaseball.com/refs/1963_New_Variations.pdf

[4reals]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

IMO, not a true variation as these are actually two different cards.

Funny, because in my opinion it's the perfect example for a true variation.
To each their own I guess.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by steve B

Varieties - A term I borrowed from stamps. (I collect constant plate varieties of the US official stamps from the 1870's) It's basically any difference that is a) A difference on the plate And B) consistent over at least a portion of the press run. These can be really minor, but they are "different" cards. It might just take a magnifying glass to see the difference easily. And most of them would be classed as just errant dots by most people. I have a pair of 71 High numbers that the only difference is that since they're miscut you can see that one was on the edge of the sheet and the other was in the middle. It's only visible when the cards are miscut, but they're technically different cards.


Steve B

To me, the Zimmer matches up to what Steve has dubbed a "Variety" as these two Zimmer cards are actually two "different" cards. The subtle inset photo differences in these two cards are consistent through the entire print run as it was Topps' intent to have these two Zimmer cards to both appear together on a single sheet. Since they likely did not notice the subtle difference between the two cards on their sheet, as neither did many collectors, Topps made no attempt to "correct" the subtle difference between these two cards as they appear to have an equal population. To me a variation would be the 66 Bob Uecker (trade statement on or not on back)....the production of this card was not consistent through the print run and it was Topps' intent to produce this card with updated information on the back making this card available in two variations.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by 4reals

Funny, because in my opinion it's the perfect example for a true variation.
To each their own I guess.

Yep, that's a text book example of "variations" if you ask me.

[4reals]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

To me a variation would be the 66 Bob Uecker (trade statement on or not on back)....the production of this card was not consistent through the print run and it was Topps' intent to produce this card with updated information on the back making this card available in two variations.

I would call that an error and correct. But I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong or anyone else for that matter. That's the reason we have to be flexible with the way sellers list them on ebay, because everyone has a slightly different interpretation. Let's just call it what it really is - a good time!

[ALR-bishop]

I agree with Doug and Joe...boy that was hard to admit.

The Zimmer and other 63 double prints have front cropping differences and some of them have distinctive back differences as well. They are similar to the 52 double prints of Mantle, Thompson and Robinson, which were listed as variations in the last issue of SCD.

But even if they are just variants, they are fun to look for on ebay. There is an on line article by George Vrechek that appeared in SCD that pictures and describes the differences in the 63 cards

[cobblove]

Hey guys. I just went though my 5000 count 61s and I found these 5 with green in the baseball. I have a 3rd Turrley but it was a little faded.
Thoughts? Are these what yall are talking about? Also the Vic Powers has a water spot on the bottom left corner. It didnt cause the green in the ball, but thats why the bottom stats are faded.
I found a Vic Powers with green. I had about 10 but this was the only one with green in it.

[Tomman1961]

If the Fairley is recognized by PSA as a true variation, and it commands a higher price, does PSA recognize the others? And then a higher price? I have the Fairley but have not looked at my entire set.

[ALR-bishop]

I do not think they have recognized any others. Not sure if any have been submitted. The Fairly can be found with just a touch or green, or with the full bottom of the ball green. PSA seems to grade any of them as a variation. Dumb in my view, even though I have on with the full bottom green