Show...me...your print variations!

[LuckyLarry]

normal colored card left vs this recent pick-up on the right. Missing outline around photo also missing color on the name/position background and team banner. What do you guys think?
Larry

[swarmee]

Looks blackless to me.

[aronbenabe]

Another for the road...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ALR-bishop]

Good one Aron

[Sliphorn]

Here is proof that it is not a "one off"

[ALR-bishop]

Wonder if card below it on sheet was impacted

[Cliff Bowman]

I’m going to guess that it was on the bottom of the sheet, will have to look for 64 uncut sheets and miscut Roggenburk’s.

[gracecollector]

1961 Topps Checklist 3rd Series #189. Is this a known variation, or just a print defect? I find these intriguing as I can't figure out what would cause these boxy areas to occur, especially as text underneath them appears, the bottom box is either yellow or white, and the box varies in size. What's also interesting is that there are two recognized printing variations of this card - Type 1 with copyright on back beginning at card #263 and Type 2 beginning at #264. Of these 3 cards, one is Type 1 and two are Type 2. The last card also has the photo cropped very differently, as uniform number 14 is missing.



EDIT 11/20: These turned out to be scanner errors - the cards do not contain the defects. Sorry for any confusion. I dod not want to call attention to the seller if they were real defects, so purchased them without verifying with seller. It was not an expensive gamble, but didn't pan out.

[Cliff Bowman]

That is wild, I can't believe it took fifty nine years to be discovered. My first thought was that it was tape that was holding the sheet in place and they forgot to remove it and that it was a corner card, and sure enough it is the card in the bottom right corner of that sheet. Just a guess on my part. Great find, gracecollector.

[gracecollector]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

That is wild, I can't believe it took fifty nine years to be discovered. My first thought was that it was tape that was holding the sheet in place and they forgot to remove it and that it was a corner card, and sure enough it is the card in the bottom right corner of that sheet. Just a guess on my part. Great find, gracecollector.

Thanks for that Cliff and interesting theory on corner tape (great thought to think sheet corner card). I looked at about 300 copies of checklist #189 between eBay and COMC, and these were the only three that I found with the defect. Bought them all. I had just learned that Don Zimmer was the Cub player in the rundown, and was looking for the card to add to my Zim PC. I spotted one with the boxes and said "What the heck?!" and went looking for more.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by gracecollector

1961 Topps Checklist 3rd Series #189. Is this a known variation, or just a print defect? I find these intriguing as I can't figure out what would cause these boxy areas to occur, especially as text underneath them appears, the bottom box is either yellow or white, and the box varies in size. What's also interesting is that there are two recognized printing variations of this card - Type 1 with copyright on back beginning at card #263 and Type 2 beginning at #264. Of these 3 cards, one is Type 1 and two are Type 2. The last card also has the photo cropped very differently, as uniform number 14 is missing.

Due to the cropping differences, it appears that one of these three checklists are from different sheets and was printed/released with a different series.

So what I find interesting is that both checklists would end up with similar variations. However, after realizing that all three were sold on Oct 3 by the same ebay seller it started to make more sense. The seller is a high volume seller and more than likely uses a Fujitsu sheet scanner to accommodate their volume of scans. These sheet fed scanners are used by many of the higher volume sellers (Deans, GMcards, battersbox, etc). On these scanners there are different "factory" settings that allow for image adjustments and if the user does not have their settings correctly set, image adjustments similar to this will occur.

Several years ago I thought I had stumbled onto a never seen before variation. I bought a 68 Topps LL card from both Deans and GMcards that appeared to have this same RARE variation. When both cards were in hand and no variation was there, I realized what had happened...their scanner settings were off.


Coincidentally the same seller of these 1961 checklist cards sold the exact same 68 LL card I bought several years ago .... and as predicted, the image in their listing appeared identical to the image from the cards I had bought from both GM and Dean.

It appears Sirius needs to adjust the settings on their scanner to prevent variation hunters from thinking they have found some new variations.

If for any reason I am wrong, I apologize...I would love to see in hand images of these three cards posted by the buyer(s) of the cards.

[Fleerfan]

Thanks for the explanation about the scanner issues. That is what I thought might be causing some of these interesting looking variations I saw on some listings for 1965 Topps Football.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by Fleerfan

Thanks for the explanation about the scanner issues. That is what I thought might be causing some of these interesting looking variations I saw on some listings for 1965 Topps Football.

You're welcome....it appears the 65 Topps FB cards you pictured are from the same larger volume seller who probably is using a Fujitsu 7160 and does not have his settings set correctly for card scanning.

A few years ago when I received my 68 LL card, I checked the settings on my Fujitsu scanner and I believe I had figured out that it was the "hole punch removal" option needed to be turned off to avoid these unique and random occurrences from appearing on scans of cards. Most of these sheet fed scanners are primarily designed for use with regular 20LB paper which may or may not have hole punches in them from being stored in a binder, however, with the correct use of options these scanners are great for scanning large volumes of cards front/back in a short period of time (2000/hr).

[ALR-bishop]

“Fascinating”.... Spock

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Fleerfan

Thanks for the explanation about the scanner issues. That is what I thought might be causing some of these interesting looking variations I saw on some listings for 1965 Topps Football.

Here's a Dean's Card listed on COMC.

1966 Topps - [Base] #373 - 1966 Rookie Stars - Jack Hiatt, Dick Estelle [EX]
Courtesy of COMC.com

[Sliphorn]

These likely were parts of three-card salesman samples. The correct versions are on the top left of the two sample cards and the error right under it. The two right versions of each are the correct # and info versions from the correct cards. The ones at the bottom are the cartoon that is also used on the errors. Notice that the error cartoons do not have all of the red ink. The cartoon on the correct Whitey Ford has the answer on two lines only, while the error card above it uses three lines with a hyphen. I did a lot of research using COMC to find the Billy Martin cartoon that was used in the DeMaestri error card. I believe the sample cards had two of these on either side of a third player who had the commercial on the back, as is seen on the Frank Robinson card back.

Notice on the closeup of the cartoons, that there is some difference in the colors as well as sentence structure on one.

[gracecollector]

savedfrommyspokes was exactly correct. These turned out not to be true defects. The seller's scanner was to blame. Sorry for any confusion.

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

Due to the cropping differences, it appears that one of these three checklists are from different sheets and was printed/released with a different series.

So what I find interesting is that both checklists would end up with similar variations. However, after realizing that all three were sold on Oct 3 by the same ebay seller it started to make more sense. The seller is a high volume seller and more than likely uses a Fujitsu sheet scanner to accommodate their volume of scans. These sheet fed scanners are used by many of the higher volume sellers (Deans, GMcards, battersbox, etc). On these scanners there are different "factory" settings that allow for image adjustments and if the user does not have their settings correctly set, image adjustments similar to this will occur.

Several years ago I thought I had stumbled onto a never seen before variation. I bought a 68 Topps LL card from both Deans and GMcards that appeared to have this same RARE variation. When both cards were in hand and no variation was there, I realized what had happened...their scanner settings were off.


Coincidentally the same seller of these 1961 checklist cards sold the exact same 68 LL card I bought several years ago .... and as predicted, the image in their listing appeared identical to the image from the cards I had bought from both GM and Dean.

It appears Sirius needs to adjust the settings on their scanner to prevent variation hunters from thinking they have found some new variations.

If for any reason I am wrong, I apologize...I would love to see in hand images of these three cards posted by the buyer(s) of the cards.

[ALR-bishop]

Brad-- glad you posted those. I for one learned something about that scanning issue

[savedfrommyspokes]

"Blackless-ing"?

[4reals]

Awesome Cliff! That’s a top notch find!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ALR-bishop]

Great discovery

[aronbenabe]

Anyone know how common this is with the 1971 Topps?

[swarmee]

You mean the oversaturated orange? My guess would be it got a second pass through one of the inking stages.

[aronbenabe]

Originally Posted by swarmee

You mean the oversaturated orange? My guess would be it got a second pass through one of the inking stages.

Ah, thanks for the explanation...seems right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[swarmee]

For future questions, I would recommend 1) uploading smaller scans and 2) giving us your actual question, instead of making us figure it out based on your crazy oversized scans... ;-)

[steve B]

I for one like the crazy oversized scans! There's so much I can see that just can't be seen on smaller scans.

[aronbenabe]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ALR-bishop]

Tommy looks a little out of sorts....and big, really big

[swarmee]

How do those "no blobs" get graded as straight 8s without a PD qualifier?

[aronbenabe]

Does anyone know how common these print variations are for the 1970 Topps Baseball set?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[steve B]

The overly dark 70 Topps are a bit unusual, but they are out there.

I should give mine another closer look and see if I can spot what actually caused them.

[savedfrommyspokes]

I am not sure which is rarer....charcoal grey 70s or the use of grossly oversized images w/o any description....appears they are both fairly common and recurring.

[aronbenabe]

Thanks Steve and Spokes for your replies


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ALR-bishop]

There is a thread or discussion within a tread ( maybe this one) on the charcoal 70s

[ejstel]

Saw this on eBay this week..the almost white 'yankees' at the bottom has me very interested but the top left looks like the old rounded rectangle sticky tags put on a penny sleeve left some resistance to fade? I didn't see this on others I searched for...maybe it started out light already as the rest of the card is still sharp? Thoughts?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by ejstel

Saw this on eBay this week..the almost white 'yankees' at the bottom has me very interested but the top left looks like the old rounded rectangle sticky tags put on a penny sleeve left some resistance to fade? I didn't see this on others I searched for...maybe it started out light already as the rest of the card is still sharp? Thoughts

At first glance the Stottlemyre looks faded and does not appear to be missing a print run....I have found other cards that look as though a print run of one of the primary colors (yellow) was partially missed. This card below, at least in hand, appears to be missing the yellow run on part of the card creating a unique WL card not due to fading.

[ejstel]

Found these 2 1972's this week while sorting commons. I have to look closer at the Williams re the 3 red blotches.

Also sharing the '80 clark...might be one here already.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[nwobhm]

Gene Stephens green tints.

[4reals]

1974 Topps Schmidt card can be found with a partial left border missing. It's reoccurring. I see about a half dozen on ebay right now.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by ejstel

.

Also sharing the '80 clark...might be one here already.

Jack Clark and Graig Nettles were side by side on the 1980 Topps D* sheet and both were affected by the blue ink explosion, but while the Clark is relatively easy to find the Nettles is near impossible. Of course Al has one .

[ALR-bishop]

[Sliphorn]

In the process of upgrading both versions of 1963 Fleer #64 Bob Dougherty, I have come to this conclusion:

I know that the set was printed in one sheet, with # 1 down to #8, #9 down to #16, etc., up to #88. There was also a sheet that, for some reason, used #5 down to #8 and #1 down to #4. There was no red stripe on the bottom most card, meaning every card divisible by 4 has both a red stripe version and a no stripe version.

I had decided to replace both of these back-stained cards and had no problem finding a no stripe version. In checking on the card WITH a red stripe, I can find only one or two with lots of no stripes available.

My theory therefore is that they likely removed both Dougherty and Long in order to insert the checklist later in the run, using the second cited sheet with Dougherty in the fourth spot down and with the red stripe as a result being removed. Thus there is a shortage of the #64 WITH the stripe. I believe that the other version is not really a big SP after all since it likely stayed in the run from the beginning.

I am not expecting everyone to follow this, but this is what I am seeing.

[aronbenabe]

Anyone else see this variation in the 75 Set?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by aronbenabe

Anyone else see this variation in the 75 Set?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The second Aaron is either low ink or more likely sun faded.

[Exhibitman]

1969 Topps Jim Grabowski blackless and missing some yellow ink



1969 Topps Jimmy Johnson blackless and missing yellow ink.

The backs are perfect.

[frankhardy]

I just ran across this one recently. Take a look at the back where it says Topps above the card number. See the difference in location?

Can anyone confirm if this one is reoccurring? I just checked all of the backs on COMC and could not find the variation. It is not like it is a print dot or print smudge. Seems like this one would almost have to be reoccurring. Thoughts?

= = =

I'm editing this post because I just noticed something right after I posted it. Looks like all of the green on the back is shifted down. Now maybe I'm thinking this might not be reoccurring. Possible, I guess, right?

[ALR-bishop]

Neat find Shane. Have not yet seen another

[aronbenabe]

Notice that all of the green print has shifted downward on the back of the variant card.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bobsbbcards]

Is this "mermaid tattoo" on Lou's sleeve recurring or a print defect. Curious collectors want to know! (I apologize if I've axed this before--I'm old)

[irv]

Originally Posted by bobsbbcards

Is this "mermaid tattoo" on Lou's sleeve recurring or a print defect. Curious collectors want to know! (I apologize if I've axed this before--I'm old)

This is the first time I've ever seen a print defect/anomaly like that on Lou.

Interesting.