68T Bill Stoneman variation

[goheels]

Does anyone have the variation that omits the following incomplete sentence on the back: "Bill was used sparingly but still"?

I have looked for this card for decades and haven't seen one. Would love to add to my collection but I will be very happy just to see one.

By my notes it was mentioned by Bert Sugar in the 1970s but I don't know if he found it first.

[ALR-bishop]

I had not heard about that one Carlton. In what form/publication did you see it mentioned ? Sounds a little like the elusive 1959 Hank Bauer yellow letter card, although I have seen a purported scan of that one.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Carlton, you may not have been looking in the right place for this variation, you should be checking the backs of the 68 Topps holiday rack packs listed on ebay.....I know of one collector who had some luck finding one of the rarer 68 Topps variations showing on one of these holiday rack packs.

Richard Dingman's list identifies this variation ....it is just not one that he has located either.

[goheels]

SCB, written by Bert Sugar
2nd edition, p 176

It lists only 6 variations for 1968:

No. 107 issues with "course" (sic) or "fine" 'cloth' background on front
No. 179 issued with or without incomplete sentence at end of biography: "Bill was used sparingly but still"
No. 258 issued with '1968 Rookie Stars' printed in orange or red
No. 278 issued with copyright printed on left or right side
No. 454 issued with two cropping forms of picture of Frank Robinson
No. 518 issued with No. 539 as American League or Major League Rookies

Interesting that it is the first mention of a cropping variation for a CL inset photo.
Only has variations for 4 of the 7 CLs.
As expected, while there are cropping variations for all CLs including the #67 1st series CL with Kaat, only the more blatant difference is mentioned, #107 being plain as day.

Here are the serial historical listings of variations in the Beckett/Eckes Sport Americana Price Guides:

1983, 5th edition, Casey Cox yellow team variation 66a, 66b

Dont have 1984 6th edition

1985, 7th edition adds CL 7 card 518a ML Rookies on 539, 518b AL Rookies on 539

1986, 8th edition adds nothing

1987, 9th edition adds Eddie Brinkman yellow team variation 49a, 49b
adds 107a as tan wide mesh and 107b as brown fine mesh
adds 356a CL 5 as head centered, 356b as head shifted right within circle
adds 454a CL 6 as cap complete within circle, 454b as cap partially within circle

1988, 10th edition adds 400a McCormick YL, 400b McCormick WL

Interesting that the Stoneman 179 card and the 258 are not mentioned. One would think that the list would be rolling and cumulative.

I don't have on hand any SA editions after that. Not sure when the #10 Lonborg/Lonberg was listed.

The Beckett/Eckes SA guide was the standard bearer in its day.

By 1991 with the proliferation of price guides went from books to family Bible size.

The Dick Gilkeson BB Card Variation Book Volume II, September 1989, lists the following 1968 variations:

10 Pitching Ldrs
49 Brinkman
66 Cox
67 1st CL
107 2nd CL
192 3rd CL
258 Cubs Rookies
278 4th CL
356 5th CL
400 McCormick
454 6th CL
518 7th CL

[goheels]

Thanks Larry. Do you know if they specifically found a Stoneman in the rack pack?

I have been looking for that card for almost 30 years. I betcha I have looked at 68 card backs in card shops in over 25 states--not sure if i should be proud or embarrassed about that one. Tons of MBs, a decent number of McCormicks, but not one Stoneman.

It may be the variation collector's Loch Ness Monster.

[ALR-bishop]

...add it to the 1959 Dodger Team card # 457 with Art Houtemann rather that Myer as card 483, and the 1959 Bill White with a traded notation on the back.

[goheels]

At least Gilkeson was doubtful about those 2 1959 cards. The 68 Stoneman had no such qualifier attached.

Chromosome errors that replicate may result in a tumor.

[ALR-bishop]

I do have two versions of every checklist for this set. Here are some other recurring oddities from that set. The Robinson and Arrigo have regular backs. Not sure how the Torborg got a 9 with no mention of the defect

[goheels]

I have three 192 cards with the B on the cap on the front almost intact, on the back it says special playing CARD...to increase YOUR scores.

The other card I have has the B on the cap that is cropped through the upper part of the B; that back says special playing card GAME...to increase THE scores.

Does anyone have a card with the full B on front, GAME on back, or the clipped B on front, and no GAME on back?

[ALR-bishop]

Here is what i have currently with my set

[goheels]

Full B on front, YOUR on back
Clipped B on front, YOUR on back
Full B on front, THE on back
Full B on front, THE on back (dupe)

Missing Clipped B on front with THE on back

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by goheels

Thanks Larry. Do you know if they specifically found a Stoneman in the rack pack?

I have been looking for that card for almost 30 years. I betcha I have looked at 68 card backs in card shops in over 25 states--not sure if i should be proud or embarrassed about that one. Tons of MBs, a decent number of McCormicks, but not one Stoneman.

It may be the variation collector's Loch Ness Monster.

Carlton, I am not aware of the Stoneman variation being found, but it was hopeful with the luck that you had finding a pack with the WL McCormick on top that it would carry over for you on locating the Stoneman.


With the #192 Yaz CL, what is the cause of the 4 variations?

Understandably, there would be two variations of this #192 CL as many CLs from the 1960s were produced/released with both the previous and current series. Do the additional two variations mean that each of these #192 checklists were actually DPs within each series(making them essentially Quadruple Prints-QPs) ?

[goheels]

Top 2 cards are same: clipped B on cap (also sliver of yellow at lower left part of inset circle from cropping), with THE on back

Bottom left: full B on cap, YOUR on back

Bottom right: clipped B, YOUR on back

Therefore there ARE four verified variations, I am missing full B on cap with THE on back.

Looks like lucky Al will have his done if he sends me his address for my duplicate.

Larry I would guess you are correct. We need to see a good picture of this 3rd (and second series) sheet, not the grainy ones I have seen before. Need enough detail to look for the cropping and would also need to see the back of the sheet.

Curious as to why Topps felt the need to change the message on the back slightly. The "GAME" on back version offers a little more clarity than the other version as to how the kid might play the game. Were both 2nd series (the 3rd series would have been a "chase" card in that sheet) and 3rd series sheets printed simultaneously? If Topps made an editorial decision to change the back message, at what point in the production would they have made the change?

When they have caught errors before and changed them, it was typically early on so that the error card is a little more rare (400 McCormick WL comes to mind, etc).

[savedfrommyspokes]

Carlton, I must now debunk my theory of this card being a DP within the 88 card second series print run...here is a second series sheet with 88 unique cards (this sheet should be one of the two unique sheets for this series: 88+88+88=264/132=2), and the Yaz CL card appears only once in the 88 card series. Now it is possible(but not likely) on the second unique sheet for this series that the two Yaz CL cards that appear on it are different than the one appearing on the sheet pictured.

Since this card is not a DP within each series, one can only wonder on why there are four variations of this card?

[steve B]

There really should be a second sheet. That's how the Topps sheets were on the press, two 132 card sheets side by side.

So there are probably 6 versions of the card, three with "the" and three with "your".

Steve B

[goheels]

This much we know:

The 2nd series had no DPs; 1st HALF sheet you show has rows 1-8, and then rows 1-4; 2nd HALF sheet would have rows 5-8 and 1-8.

We don't know what is on the back of the half sheet shown.

The front cropping differences occur when the Yaz card is placed with different cards in a different row, on a different series. You would expect that the 2 Yaz cards in the second HALF sheet 2nd series on rows 2 and 10 would have the same inset appearance. Without a close up of the sheet you don't know which one it is.

The game cards were inserted in the 3rd series. The messages on the Yaz CLs were different, why is that? We need to see the backs of sheets of the 2nd and 3rd series. The message changed not from a misspelling, it just seems to explain the game a little better. Once the "improved" version came out, they wouldn't likely produce the older message. The problem is that most likely the 2nd series run would have been completed before the 3rd one began. I don't understand then how there could be a change in the back message in both series unless their printing schedules overlapped. We need a printing/production expert to help us here as well as finding more uncut sheets.

[goheels]

Didn't see your post Steve. What do you think the six different cards look like?

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by goheels

Without a close up of the sheet you don't know which one it is.

I found this "reprint" 44 card sheet from the second series on ebay and it shows a closeup of the Yaz CL with the "B" cropped. If this Topps half series reprint sheet is correct and is an accurate portrayal of the original sheet, we would likely know where the "cropped B" comes from, the second series printing. Unfortunately, the backs are not printed for this reprint sheet.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1995-Topps-R...-/370891185087

[steve B]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

I found this "reprint" 44 card sheet from the second series on ebay and it shows a closeup of the Yaz CL with the "B" cropped. If this Topps half series reprint sheet is correct and is an accurate portrayal of the original sheet, we would likely know where the "cropped B" comes from, the second series printing. Unfortunately, the backs are not printed for this reprint sheet.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1995-Topps-R...-/370891185087

That's also a reprint of a proof sheet so it might have very little in common with a production sheet.

Steve B

[steve B]

Originally Posted by goheels

Didn't see your post Steve. What do you think the six different cards look like?

I think it's likely the language change was done between series two and three.

So series 2 would have "the scores" while series 3 would have "your scores"(Just a guess, it could be the other way around.

The cropping difference is probably on both series.

That leaves the third version for each as the mystery prize

I believe there is probably some small difference, maybe a very small one between two positions of whichever is more common - full B or partial B.
If it's a very tiny cropping difference, it may not show since the registration of the black can change how the cropping appears.
If you look at Als cards you can see that in the three full B cards. The triangle of sky at the upper left changes size, and the amount of the B that's visible also changes. That's probably the registration rather than the cropping.

I think each card in any of the 88 card series will have three versions. (Technically this is already a fact) But most will be nearly undetectable.

For 68 the key may be the burlap like border. If it was done by putting the card images onto a full background there may be an identifiable difference in the grain.

Steve B

[JollyElm]

Here are my four variations. I have found that the best way to determine the clipped 'B' versions is to look to the lower right portion of the circle (I highlighted it on the card in the bottom row) to find the 'colorless arc,' as I call it.

It's also worth noting that in the regular version of both the 'playing card' and 'playing card game' variations, there is often a tiny, hairline occurrence of this 'colorless arc.' Here, it is seen in the bottom left 'playing card game' card. (In Al's post #10, you can see it in his 'playing card' version at top left.)

yaz1.jpgyaz2.jpg

[JollyElm]

Whoops…here's a slightly better look at the 'hairline'…
yaz5.jpg

[goheels]

...by a long time Cubs collector I messaged yesterday. He has been looking for this as long as I have.

He brings up a good point: Topps corrected in mid 1968 4 cards. Those would be the Lonborg/Lonberg AL Pitching #10 card and McCormick #400 WL card, both fixed during the series run. Correction of the Brinkman and Cox White Team Letters did not occur until MID year after the full print run; the team letters were properly made yellow in the Milton Bradley and Venezuela versions of the cards. This collector has never seen a Venezuelan Stoneman card. If the half sentence would have been corrected at the very end of the 2nd series run to give us a findable variation, then you should expect that it would have been corrected on the Venezuelan back.

I went back tonight and looked again at all of my Stoneman Milton Bradley cards. None have the corrected version. These were produced around late May or early June.

Several years ago I checked out a card shop in the North Chicago area--this guy had about 100 1968 Stonemans. I found nothing there.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Carlton, not sure if you regularly check COMC, but of the 20 68 #179s they have listed, none are the corrected version. I had 7 copies total, and none were the corrected version. Like you, I would like to see a scan of the back also. Surprised Al does not have a copy of the infamous corrected #179???

[goheels]

If Al doesn't have it or hasn't seen it then it likely doesn't exist.

I went back and looked at all 24 of my Milton Bradley 1968 AL #10 cards. None have the Lonberg variation on the back. By scarcity I believe this was corrected in the regular 68 series about 2/5 of the way through the regular print run (by early 1968). I think the value is about 2:3 which is what I am basing my guess on.

[JollyElm]

It seems highly likely a corrected '68 Stoneman never actually existed.

To me it's reminiscent of the 1964 Topps Clemente card. Although some people's need lists include a version where his 1960 stats on back have "Pittsburgh" spelled correctly (instead of "Pittsburfh"), it has never been verified.

[goheels]

I think you are correct, Darren. If nobody on this board has one, it is very unlikely it existed.

The date of the MBs being May/June 1968 AND uncorrected puts a stamp on it, I think.

Beautiful work on the Yaz CLs. Do you think that sliver on the inset is a variation?

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by goheels

I think you are correct, Darren. If nobody on this board has one, it is very unlikely it existed.

The date of the MBs being May/June 1968 AND uncorrected puts a stamp on it, I think.

Beautiful work on the Yaz CLs. Do you think that sliver on the inset is a variation?

I personally wouldn't call the hairline 'colorless arc' a variation, because it seems to simply be a tiny misalignment of the printing plates. Something that theoretically could happen to any card during the printing process. But to each his own!

[steve B]

The colorless arc is actually the edge of his bat.

The ones with just the sliver showing could be just the registration, or they could be an actual difference. It's almost impossible to tell from a typical scan.

I'll have to get my 68 Cl s out and see which ones I have.

Steve B

[JollyElm]

Dammit…I can't believe I now have to change 'colorless arc' to 'bat' in all of my need lists!!!

[steve B]

No need to change. Call it whatever you like.

Steve B