What is the origin of Frank Thomas NNOF?

[ALR-bishop]

Great info. Thank you Mr West

[jp1216]

From the CU board:

[West]

I forgot to mention, there is a user named Gigfy on CU and freedomcardboard that has a few of the blackless including the Biggio and the Thomas. All ungraded so not in a pop report. Guy pulled them out of packs in NY in 1990 sometime. Biggio total pop is probably around 6. 3 on PSA, 2 on Beckett, 1, maybe 2 raw copies. I know Ross sent his copies of the blackless in and PSA screwed up and labeled them normal '90 Topps, not sure if he ever got it corrected, so it wouldn't show up in the pop report.

Definitely less out there of the Fisk. Pop 1 on PSA, 1 on BGS, and that's all I know of.

The blackless cards are of more interest to me than the Thomas. The Thomas is out there, it's a known quantity (A BGS 8 ended tonight for $4500). In 1990-1991, Thomas became a star in short order. Because his cards were popular early on, and the NNOF being an obvious oddity and hobby sensation by 1993, meant that probably at least 50% of the total NNOF print run were saved from the trash heap or the attic. I don't think you can say that for the other 13 errors. It makes total sense that they would be so rare. Because so many of those cards from that era are worthless, they get thrown away all the time. That's why I find them so interesting, because probably only 10% of the original print run of those cards is out there. And probably more get thrown away every year.

I would guess the original print run of the NNOF and related errors was 600 sheets. 600 cards of each error. I base that population on the existing pop reports of PSA, BGS and SGC graded NNOFs (around 290 combined), subtracting 10% for crack/resubmits. I figure another 200 NNOFs never saw the light of day - either thrown out by moms, lost by kids, destroyed by water damage, fire or accident, or just stuffed in a box and forgotten about by someone who didn't read Beckett. I'd guess the remaining 150 NNOFs are out there in raw form. I see about 2-3 per year pop up on EBay.

People often estimate the total NNOF population at around 200-300, but the population reports already show that many, and I don't think there are that many crack and resubmits on the NNOF. It's just too coveted a card (I don't think everyone is comfortable cracking open a holder) and I feel like the crack/resubmit game is more for vintage cards. I also feel that people always underestimate the massive size of the 1990 Topps print run.

Chances that there is still a NNOF out there lurking in a wax pack? I'd put them at less than 50%.

[HasselhoffsCheeseburger]

I feel like grandpa Biff Tanner saying this, but, one day, someone's going to be offering 1990 Topps unopened that they themselves have pulled Thomas NNOF cards from. It's going to look like a solid opportunity and they may even have a decent reputation. Stay away. The collation of 1990 Topps is like a Swiss watch. If you know the sequence, you can pull a Thomas rookie 6 or 7 cards out. Meaning, even if you're actually opening legit blackless packs, your odds of getting a Thomas are very low. Got it, buttheads?

Arthur

[swarmee]

Well, lowpopper sent me 5 unopened packs of these when I only asked for the Friendly insert card, so I really appreciate it. I got two packs of Randy Johnson and three commons. Now I have to figure out something I think he will like as a return piece of the trade... it will be mailed tomorrow. Thanks!

[Rich Klein]

I wish I still had the letters we received from collectors in 1990-91 who received the Thomas out of the pack while we were working on exactly what that card was.

I have no doubt from my memory that these cards are legit, were put into packs, and more importantly it was just a printing fluke which make the NNOF. Since we were a publishing company in those days, we had tons of people with printing experience. I still remember we showed one of our pre-press managers the card and he said the error was a printing mistake and was absolutely legit.

Rich

[West]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

I wish I still had the letters we received from collectors in 1990-91 who received the Thomas out of the pack while we were working on exactly what that card was.

I have no doubt from my memory that these cards are legit, were put into packs, and more importantly it was just a printing fluke which make the NNOF. Since we were a publishing company in those days, we had tons of people with printing experience. I still remember we showed one of our pre-press managers the card and he said the error was a printing mistake and was absolutely legit.

Rich

Thanks a lot for your response Rich. I've been working on something - independently of this thread - regarding this card and I may PM you for a bit of information at some point.

An educated opinion from someone with pre-press or plate making experience would be very helpful as I am always looking for more opinions on these cards.

One thing I might note on the print variation vs. printing defect discussion. Many people have termed the NNOF and the other blackless errors a "short run print defect". When I think of print defect, I think of fisheyes, ink run, solvent drips and the like. The most convincing theory that I have seen put forth regarding the cause of the error contends that the error was the result of a bad plate, which in my opinion is quite different from a print defect. According to those with printing experience, that is the only way that this error could be exactly reproduced in quantities in the hundreds. The cause of the plate production error is still in dispute. The most likely hypothesis that I've seen (from forum member Steve B) is that a piece of tape or paper blocked the negatives from being exposed onto the black printing plate when the plate was made. This theory makes a great deal of sense to me given the conditions required to produce an exact replica of the error over a print run of 400-1000 sheets. Also, when looking at the physical shape of the error, it appears that tape or paper could very well be the culprit. Looking at different examples of errors in the "Show me your...print variations" thread that were caused by solvent or water drips, this fact becomes fairly indisputable.

I wholeheartedly agree that the error was indeed a printing mistake and not an intentional move by Topps to recreate the Fleer FF fiasco or generate buzz. At the same time, I think that knowledge of exactly how this error occurred is beneficial to collectors who want to reach an understanding of what constitutes a simple print defect (fisheye, etc), a print variation (an actual change in the printing plates, such as the different Fleer FF versions) or a print error (the player's name mispelled, wrong team, etc).

If we accept the conclusion that the error was produced with its own set of printing plates, and then had to be corrected by producing a new set of plates, I would be inclined to characterize the NNOF and the other dozen errors as true printing variations (not just a random "print defect"), worthy of their inclusion in the PSA registry.