1958 Topps Hank Aaron - BLUE background??

[scooter729]

Hi guys, posting this one on behalf of a friend who's not a member....

He recently picked up the pictured 1958 Topps Hank Aaron card. Typically the card has two variations - white letters or yellow letters for his name. However, in both cases, the card's background is GREEN.

In my friend's variation, the name is white, but the entire background is BLUE! I have never seen a version like this.

Has anyone ever seen anything similar on a '58 card, Aaron or otherwise? The card definitely seems legit, so maybe there is a version where along with the yellow missing from the name, it's missing from the run to make the green color (since yellow + blue = green, so no yellow would just be a blue background).

Would love to hear some thoughts on this one. Pictured is the standard card along with the blue background variation. This isn't just a scanner issue or something - this is really how the blue background card appears....

[CobbSpikedMe]

It looks like the card simply missed the entire yellow print pass since all the yellow is missing from it. I don't think it would be a variation to chase or anything, but it is pretty cool all the same.

Best,

AndyH


.

[pclpads]

Hit the search button. There was an extenisve thread about 2 years ago on this. I think Doug Goodman contributed a lot of info.

[ALR-bishop]

This is the second appearance here for this card. He shows up in a prior thread thanks to Doug. Doug will be pleased to know his card has company. I have a similar blue Mays from 1966. Could be a print defect. Could be a sunlight issue

[scooter729]

Thanks guys - my cursory search didn't return any results on this, so thanks for mentioning. Here is an old thread on the same topic:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=133119

I think this begs the question though: why ISN'T this a recognized variation? If cards like the "Herrer" from the '58 set or the Gene Bakep in '57 can be recognized variations, then why not a significant issue (not a print dot) like a totally different colored background be considered and recognized as a variation?

I'd love to hear from others - we now have at least three of these Aaron cards like this, and I'm sure there are more - what is enough to constitute a variation, if the answer is not three?

[Harliduck]

Here is one on Ebay right now...and no one bidding. Interesting read from the link, pretty cool.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1958-Topps-3...item5899a88197

The seller has no idea it might be special...

[ALR-bishop]

The Herrer and Bakep were recognized as variations years ago before the days of ebay scans which have revealed hundreds of similar print defects, front and back, in virtually every baseball card set. I think similar print defects now normally get very little recognition. But there are exceptions, usually the result of someone being persistent.

My source for getting variants recognized used to be Bob Lemke at SCD, who has now retired, and over time, with the proliferation of additional "finds" on ebay, Bob's definition of what he would list in SCD got more restrictive. He even took many prior listed variations out of the book. Border gaps come to mind. I do not think the Herrer or Bakep, or maybe even the Campos black star would make the cut today. But they are now part of hobby history.

On the other hand, PSA has now recognized in slabs and in their master registry list for 1961 Topops a Ron Fairly card with an errant green print
smudge on the back of the card within the baseball. This print defect exist on other 1961 Topps cards as well...but so far not recognized.

If one's definition of a variation of a variation is a card that the producer intentionally changed for some reason, such as the Topps 1958 option/trade or not cards, then none of these print defects would make the cut. But no one definition prevails out there.

I think there has been some doubt on the Aaron as to whether it was a defect in a print run, which would lead to a small number of them out there, or was caused by sunlight fading. Finding more of them lends to it being a print defect, but not necessarily a variation...again depending on your ( or someone's) definition.

Print defects are endless out there

Still, if PSA is going to recognize the Fairly as a variation, the door seems wide open. Maybe you should submit it along with information on other examples form threads like this and see what they do.





[IMG][/IMG]

[Exhibitman]

You could also get the card slabbed then fade it in the sun, I suppose. It wouldn't say blue variation but you could pass that off as a TPG error. You could even protect the flip by covering it while the card is exposed. Allegedly

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

You could also get the card slabbed then fade it in the sun, I suppose. It wouldn't say blue variation but you could pass that off as a TPG error. You could even protect the flip by covering it while the card is exposed. Allegedly

I would think you might get away with that on a lower grade card. I assume in the holder the card would seriously warp. I would think the card would get very hot in that sealed plastic holder out in the sun.

Any body got a high end 58 Aaron they would donate to testing.

[ALR-bishop]

Ben-- can I hire you to turn my blue one back to green ?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Ben-- can I hire you to turn my blue one back to green ?

Yes but it would cost a lot more than turning a green one blue.

[ALR-bishop]

Here is a Blue Gibson up on ebay now.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/PSA-4-BOB-GI...item1e9e35a797