Net54baseball.com Forums

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Show...me...your print variations! (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=187722)

swarmee 10-06-2020 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swarmee (Post 2018473)
D-shaped print defect over Home on back.

Similar to the 1952 Topps Woodling above, here's another recurring splotch in the text box in 1952 Topps:
https://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/1952...inal&side=back
1952 Topps - [Base] #28.1 - Jerry Priddy (Red Back) [Good*to*VG‑EX]
Courtesy of COMC.com

ALR-bishop 10-06-2020 01:02 PM

Like Woodling, the Priddy can be found with scarce front defects as well....a blue blob in lower left bottom front border or a red slash in bottom front center border. One of the blue blobs is on ebay now at a wishful thinking BIN. It also has the back defect seen on the COMC card, but the COMC card does not have the blue blob, so I guess they are not concurrent

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-TOPPS-...wAAOSwf15aZAC~

savedfrommyspokes 10-07-2020 07:47 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by gracecollector (Post 2022857)
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 10-07-2020 09:29 AM

4 Attachment(s)
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 10-07-2020 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fleerfan (Post 2023708)
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 10-07-2020 11:47 AM

“Fascinating”.... Spock

JollyElm 10-07-2020 04:31 PM

1 Attachment(s)
I ran across this odd and timely print anomaly today...

Attachment 421038

Surely, I kid. :D

swarmee 10-07-2020 05:20 PM

It did remind me of the possibility. There was a Magic the Gathering set in the 90s where the equipment wasn't fully cleaned after printing some Charlie Brown cards, and some of the Charlie Brown images were lightly imprinted in the background.

Cliff Bowman 10-07-2020 06:46 PM

It might all be a plot by a few high volume sellers to sell ordinary run of the mill cards to unsuspecting error collectors that would otherwise just sit in their inventories.

71buc 10-13-2020 11:43 PM

1 Attachment(s)
I dont generally collect such things but this card fits nicely in my collection. The team photograph is printed on the non gloss side of the card stock and the back of the card is printed on the glossy side of the card stock. There is also a wet transfer of the back of the card on the front of the card. This is the first version of this card with these printing anomalies I have encountered.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:02 PM.