What is the origin of Frank Thomas NNOF?

[West]

Posting scans here so folks can discuss.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1990-TOPPS-...D/372496340533










Looks like a legit card to me.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by West

Posting scans here so folks can discuss.
Looks like a legit card to me.

Looks real to me too; maybe it got a heavy blue color pass or something so the name is partially showing up. Kind of like the 1982 Blackless"ing" cards that had some black ink on the card. If it's a real 1990 Topps card, I have no problem calling it a NNOF error. Maybe BGS or SGC will holder it.

[swarmee]

*double post; hate this computer*

[HasselhoffsCheeseburger]

West, is that your card? I would think it would need to be examined in-hand to really form a judgment. Tough to see the surface of a card in a scan or photo. The accuracy of the area is pretty good though.

Arthur

[West]

Not my card. I have a partial blackless Thomas, the John Hart blackless error and the Jim Acker error so I am still looking for the Thomas and the 10 other errors.

Very true that the card would have to be examined by an expert under magnification to verify it has not been altered in any way. I'm guessing there are ways to recreate this error either by using a regular Thomas, a blank front or altering a NNOF, though the latter method would be questionable as the NNOF in what looks to be PSA 6 or 7 is already worth in excess of $1500.

[HasselhoffsCheeseburger]

I'm sure someone could do it with carefully placed paper tape and the proper chemical. Just a matter of what the surface would look like after the procedure. I also don't know what a proper NNOF surface looks like under magnification. Did the process of leaving out the black ink also leave a different surface gloss? I imagine only someone who has examined one would know.

Arthur

[West]

Originally Posted by West

There was discussion earlier about whether Topps farmed out printing to other print shops. We can now say with 100% certainty that the entirety of the 1990 Topps set was printed at the facility in Duryea.

------
"Only 100 cards were made, and they were all presented to President Bush,'' Topps spokesman Ken Liss said.

Yet Hull said he found one in a wax pack.

Liss said that was impossible, because the regular baseball cards were printed in Duryea, Pa., and the president's cards were printed in New York. Topps has demanded that Hull return the card, but he has refused.
------

http://community.seattletimes.nwsour...5&slug=1059335

I must correct the record on this. Tonight I spoke with a former Topps employee who wishes to remain anonymous. According to him Topps did NOT have printing capabilities at Duryea in 1990. They subcontracted out to other printers and had a company representative doing quality control at the printing house. The uncut sheets were then sent to Duryea to be cut up and assembled into packs, boxes and cases before being shipped out to retailers.

Additionally, despite rumors to the contrary, this person did not believe that the NNOF was a "first run" printing error. His reasoning was that there was meticulous attention to detail for the first print run and more than a few people had to sign off on the first proofs. He believes that the error occurred sometime later in the production cycle as a result of some obstruction in the printing press. I didn't get into the finer details of the theory of the error causation (obstruction in the press vs. obstruction on the negative during plate exposure) as he was not directly involved in platemaking and printing.

He estimated that quality control at the printers pulled a sheet once every 1000 sheets to check for errors. This may explain how 500-1000 NNOFs slipped out into packs.

He did not remember the error itself which is not unusual considering the massive amount of production occurring. 1990 was probably one of the peak years in terms of total base set production run. Also, this person was employed at Duryea and the error would have been caught at wherever printing was occurring.

The conversation was illuminating and it was quite interesting to speak to someone who was on the inside back then. This person gave me permission to share this information but otherwise wishes to remain anonymous and enjoy retirement and I will respect his wishes and not share any other details regarding him or his employment.

[sthoemke]

Does anyone know which of the 1990 baseball packaging were distributed first/last in the production run?

-wax packs
-cello packs
-rack packs
-factory sets

[Sierra79]

Originally Posted by HasselhoffsCheeseburger

I'm sure someone could do it with carefully placed paper tape and the proper chemical. Just a matter of what the surface would look like after the procedure. I also don't know what a proper NNOF surface looks like under magnification. Did the process of leaving out the black ink also leave a different surface gloss? I imagine only someone who has examined one would know.

I'm not a printing expert...not even close, but I can't imagine how someone could replicate the ink's color set against the print dots, especially under magnification. The color loss (or in the case of the subtle increase of value) on the arm would seem virtually impossible even if altering an actual NNOF since you would have to match (at a magnified level) the gradual change in shade. As far as the gloss surface, I would think it would lead to some kind of variance in the surface of the card by changing the finish even if only to a small degree. I would think it would be easier to forge a Van Gogh than forge a card like that - under magnification.

I wonder if the grading companies (assuming they determined it was authentic) steered away from it because they would have a difficult time deciding how to label it. I honestly think, if it's legitimate, they should give it it's own designation like 'faded name FNOF' just as the 1937 D 3 1/2 legged Buffalo is designated as such versus the '37 D 3 Legged Buffalo nickel (for anyone who collects coins).

[steve B]

Originally Posted by West

Posting scans here so folks can discuss.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1990-TOPPS-...D/372496340533










Looks like a legit card to me.

I've looked at a bunch of stuff, and I think it's real too. I also have it on good authority that fading black without fading the surrounding ink is very difficult.


I actually can't figure out for sure what caused it.


The others are almost certainly from a big bit of debris, probably tape obstructing the plate while it was being exposed.

If it wasn't then, the next likely problem is a bit of debris in the press preventing that part of the plate from being inked. But the most common of those would be a bit of paper, which of course gets inked, transfers, and looks totally different.

Maybe a bit of saran wrap type stuff? That should take ink too, but might not. Usually to repel ink the obstruction has to also hold enough water.

Most stuff like that is very transient, not usually hundreds or 1000+ impressions.


If it's something blocking the inking, then this could be within the first few impressions. Maybe in the first 5? I have a card that has an additional 4 uninked impressions, so it can extend that many at least.


But there doesn't seem to be a shadow of the border, which I'd think should be there.

I can't think there was enough damage that a strip of plate got ripped out. With the pressure required, I'd think the underlying cylinder would have been inked but printed poorly.


It could be a different blue plate that for some reason had the name on it when the rest didn't. That would be pretty strange, but then, it's Topps...

Fortunately, the card has clues!
There's a line from what's probably a plate scratch right near the left of the name plate. If it's an on-press obstruction, there should be cards with the same line.
Unless the plate got changed right after the obstruction.

And Topps wasn't great with registration, if the blue plates ever had the name on them, there should be cards misregistered showing a blue shadow of the name alongside the black printed name.

[West]

Hey Steve,
Thank a lot for the response. Always like hearing from someone with printing experience.

The line (plate scratch) you are talking about - are you referring to the dark line below where the "F" in "Frank" should be? Nearly all the regular NNOFs have this scratch, if that helps at all.

You mentioned the number of impressions (population) of the NNOF. One person with 35+years in the printing industry said that the error was likely caught at the printers after 10 minutes. He speculated that this would have created 700-1000. He said that if it were a small number caught, say 100, then the sheets would have been pulled and sent to the bailer.

What is consistent with this count is the former Topps employee told me that QC pulled uncut sheets every 1000 or so to check for mistakes and print quality.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by West

Hey Steve,
Thank a lot for the response. Always like hearing from someone with printing experience.

The line (plate scratch) you are talking about - are you referring to the dark line below where the "F" in "Frank" should be? Nearly all the regular NNOFs have this scratch, if that helps at all.

You mentioned the number of impressions (population) of the NNOF. One person with 35+years in the printing industry said that the error was likely caught at the printers after 10 minutes. He speculated that this would have created 700-1000. He said that if it were a small number caught, say 100, then the sheets would have been pulled and sent to the bailer.

What is consistent with this count is the former Topps employee told me that QC pulled uncut sheets every 1000 or so to check for mistakes and print quality.

I would add that IMHO there is no way to alter a regular Frank Thomas card to look like the one you posted. I am no expert but did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

It would be a very cool card to look at under a microscope and see what is going on with it.

[HasselhoffsCheeseburger]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I would add that IMHO there is no way to alter a regular Frank Thomas card to look like the one you posted. I am no expert but did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

It would be a very cool card to look at under a microscope and see what is going on with it.

There's always a way. I've seen people remove the back from a non-baseball tobacco card and attach it to a T206 so well that PSA couldn't tell it was rebacked. If there's enough money to gain, nothing is impossible.

Just because we can't imagine how, doesn't mean the how doesn't exist.

Arthur

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by HasselhoffsCheeseburger

There's always a way. I've seen people remove the back from a non-baseball tobacco card and attach it to a T206 so well that PSA couldn't tell it was rebacked. If there's enough money to gain, nothing is impossible.

Just because we can't imagine how, doesn't mean the how doesn't exist.

Arthur

Rebacking a card is easy if you know how. Removing a layer of black ink without doing anything to the ink below/around it in that specific year/brand card would be impossible in my expert opinion.

This card could be many different things but it is not a real 1990 Topps Frank Thomas card that was altered by just removing some black ink.

PSA has put many altered/counterfeit cards in slabs. Getting something by them is really not that hard. They are better than nothing but far from perfect.

EDIT: To ask, Arthur who are those people you watched reback cards?

[Sierra79]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Rebacking a card is easy if you know how. Removing a layer of black ink without doing anything to the ink below/around it in that specific year/brand card would be impossible in my expert opinion.

Agree 100%...minus any authoritative experience on my part. If it could be done then why not just completely remove the ink and send in a gem 10 example for grading. Removing an entire layer of ink would have to require altering the ink underneath/on top/and around it. Whether someone used a blank front, added ink on an existing NNOF, or removed ink from a regular card, under magnification (or frankly the naked eye) I just don't see it possible to hold up when examining each print dot. I can't even imagine the FBI being able to pull something off like that...unless they had the original printing plates.

If anyone can pull off something like that then please post some pictures.

[HasselhoffsCheeseburger]

Originally Posted by bnorth

EDIT: To ask, Arthur who are those people you watched reback cards?

It wasn't nefarious. They were doing it to prove a point, as well as altering the ink in numerous fashions on other cards and getting them into PSA slabs, again, to prove a point. They changed colors, removed text, just about everything you can think of. This is why I say that not being able to conceive of a procedure isn't the same as the procedure not existing.

All of those cards were cracked out of PSA slabs.

Arthur

[steve B]

Originally Posted by West

Hey Steve,
Thank a lot for the response. Always like hearing from someone with printing experience.

The line (plate scratch) you are talking about - are you referring to the dark line below where the "F" in "Frank" should be? Nearly all the regular NNOFs have this scratch, if that helps at all.

Yes, that's probably a short plate scratch, or a flaw on the mask (A giant negative the plates were made from.) And it should be on almost all of them, if not actually all of them. It would be interesting to see a regular one with the same mark.

Originally Posted by West

You mentioned the number of impressions (population) of the NNOF. One person with 35+years in the printing industry said that the error was likely caught at the printers after 10 minutes. He speculated that this would have created 700-1000. He said that if it were a small number caught, say 100, then the sheets would have been pulled and sent to the bailer.

What is consistent with this count is the former Topps employee told me that QC pulled uncut sheets every 1000 or so to check for mistakes and print quality.

That sounds entirely plausible. We probably didn't pull sheets for QC as often as that, but we also weren't doing the sort of production Topps was - especially in 1990. Especially when I was on the press, although I did get almost up to speed with the regular guys.
What's especially good to know is that Topps was still using sheet fed presses, rather than web fed. (If the web press had a cutting station they still could pull sheets, so it's not 100% )

I'd be a bit surprised if Topps sent anything to the Baler in 1990. 87 through 91 there's so much out there for misprints. One Ebay dealer had a 5000 ct box of blank front/back cards, all from the same year.

[Rdelmonico]

Originally Posted by steve B

I've looked at a bunch of stuff, and I think it's real too. I also have it on good authority that fading black without fading the surrounding ink is very difficult.


I actually can't figure out for sure what caused it.


The others are almost certainly from a big bit of debris, probably tape obstructing the plate while it was being exposed.

If it wasn't then, the next likely problem is a bit of debris in the press preventing that part of the plate from being inked. But the most common of those would be a bit of paper, which of course gets inked, transfers, and looks totally different.

Maybe a bit of saran wrap type stuff? That should take ink too, but might not. Usually to repel ink the obstruction has to also hold enough water.

Most stuff like that is very transient, not usually hundreds or 1000+ impressions.


If it's something blocking the inking, then this could be within the first few impressions. Maybe in the first 5? I have a card that has an additional 4 uninked impressions, so it can extend that many at least.


But there doesn't seem to be a shadow of the border, which I'd think should be there.

I can't think there was enough damage that a strip of plate got ripped out. With the pressure required, I'd think the underlying cylinder would have been inked but printed poorly.


It could be a different blue plate that for some reason had the name on it when the rest didn't. That would be pretty strange, but then, it's Topps...

Fortunately, the card has clues!
There's a line from what's probably a plate scratch right near the left of the name plate. If it's an on-press obstruction, there should be cards with the same line.
Unless the plate got changed right after the obstruction.

And Topps wasn't great with registration, if the blue plates ever had the name on them, there should be cards misregistered showing a blue shadow of the name alongside the black printed name.

Just a question. Is the NNOF semi transparent? Like a tiffany stock??

[Rdelmonico]

Is the NNOF semi transparentlike a tiffany????

Originally Posted by West

Posting scans here so folks can discuss.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1990-TOPPS-...D/372496340533










Looks like a legit card to me.

[swarmee]

I've seen some people call it a "blacklessing" version similar to the partially black 1982 Topps cards.