I found this 58 Korcheck card....I was not able to locate another copy, so this "variation" must be "extremely rare"( LOL).

Notice the yellow line above the black box(does not appear on other copies of this card), and then the word "Catcher" in the black box has a small bit of yellow on the bottom while it looks like a red marker was used to color the upper part of the word "catcher" all while the red appears to overlap (more obviously on this card than on other copies) the black print.

Looks like a case of the sheet shifting during part of the printing process when either the red or yellow were supposed to print, as evidenced by the extra yellow on the top of the "W" in the Sentors logo. But what I do not understand is why the yellow line above the black box exists without any offsetting print errors on the upper edge and why the red overlapping the black print is so obvious(as this is not obvious on other copies). .

Korcheck 58 Topps
 

Cool. There was another one similar to it on ebay


http://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/e11400...xe=exe,ext=ext

Looks like the ebay Korcheck slipped in the opposite direction during printing.

Nice pair of print offset cards Al. Down ward red on one and up ward red on the other one. EDIT: After looking at the first card shown by savedfrommyspokes it looks like the black is what is printed offset(down ward) compared to the other 3 colors.

I have noticed that darker red blob showing in the black over the around the player position on some 58's I have.

86 topps blue streak
 

I know everyone is aware of the 86 Topps Clemens blue streak variation and the Seaver blue streak variation from the same year but I just saw this card end on ebay tonight. It sold for $15 at auction. As a Dodgers collector I had no interest in it but thought I'd share its existence for those of you who might want to track one down. From a previous thread I know the layout of these cards on the sheet was discussed and based on those findings I think it would be safe to assume there is a fourth card floating around out there that has a similar blue streak.

http://i773.photobucket.com/albums/y...ps926e63e5.jpg

1986
 

There was some speculation that the Puhl card might have a simialr defect

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...ps2e6b4dae.jpg

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img311.jpg

There is blue on this one....among other issues

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...ps2b74f3b7.jpg

I have been looking for that Terry Puhl card with no luck. The Clemens, Seaver, and Puhl card are extra cool to me because they are all the same exact printing error.

Strangely Al's Winfield and the Flanagan do not interest me and I have paid huge premiums for print spots on a card.:eek:

would love to see an uncut sheet image containing the Winfield and Flanagan cards to see who they butt up against...perhaps each other?

I won the 1986 Topps Mike Flanagan printing error card and a 1986 Topps Alan Wiggins printing error card that fit together like a puzzle, I will show them when I receive them. The 1986 Topps Dave Winfield is from the C* sheet, the 1986 Topps Mike Flanagan is from the F* sheet. There should be a 1986 Topps Dwayne Murphy printing error card missing some of his name floating around out there somewhere.

1986 oddities
 

Congrats Cliff and thanks for the info

Thanks Cliff, appreciate the pic. Does the Puhl actually exist? I've never seen one.

Just picked this one up. I've so seldom seen one come up for sale that I jumped on this one. Paid a pretty penny for it, but I think it'll pay dividends once this card gets recognized as a legit variety. And if my hunch is right, and this one is scarcer than the Campos black star...hoo boy :)

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTAyNFg3Mj...Tw0qr/$_57.JPG

1970 Oddities
 

Congrats on the House Brian

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...g?t=1406497459

Hank aaron 1958 blue background.
http://i765.photobucket.com/albums/x...IMG_0003-2.jpg

Blue Aaron
 

I have one of those, and I think a couple of other guys here have one. There has been some debate about whether these are being "manufactured". If they were recurring print defects you would think other cards like them from the Aaron sheet would show up. Here is a similar Mays that I think could be a fading due to light issue

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img369.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img366.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img367.jpg

Here is the aforementioned 1986 Topps Mike Flanagan printing error card and the card next to it on the printing sheet, 1986 Topps Alan Wiggins with the same flaw. Thank goodness for that mid eighties mass production and poor quality control. Oddly enough, both players met unfortunate and untimely demises after their careers were over.

1986
 

Neat combo Cliff

Yes Cliff, very nice!

I understand the excitement surrounding the 90 Thomas NNOF card (star RC) and the missing ink is in an important location of the card (name). However, when you simplify it down to the type of error it is (similar in nature to the 86's shown) it really shouldn't be recognized by the publications as a legit variation. In theory, they should then go and add all of the other examples we've found over the years and that just is never going to happen. It would be easier to strip the NNOF Thomas of its master set residence but I'm afraid the reaction at this point would not be positive. Logically it doesn't make sense to me but I don't see that it's ever going to change.

making sense of variation
 

We need to elect someone to be in charge of this hobby. We are in a sate of anarchy :)

The 90 Thomas and the Wiggins/Flanagan pair shown are entirely unrelated errors.

The Wiggins/Flanagan is from water or solvent dripping onto the plate or blanket in the press. It's a fairly common error for the era, but finding a matched pair is very cool. It's also the sort of error that is probably unique or nearly so.

The Thomas is from some debris, probably tape blocking some of the black plate from being exposed when it was being made. A printing error, but a recurring one. Probably uncommon since the plate would have been replaced pretty quickly. I'd call it a variation, since it's the result of a different plate. Others might not because of the unintentional nature of the error.

Steve B

1986
 

Steve---I have seen a few of the Seaver/Clemons blue defects, which are another matched pair. I am not sure what happened on the Winfield, which has a blue defect but also some missing ink similar to the 90 Thomas. I find it interesting because there seems to have been 2 defects in play.

Since the Seaver/Clemons did recur, at least for a few runs, is it likely the same would have happened on the Flanagan/ Wiggins ? Would these blue defects from 1986 have been self correcting without any intervention ?

There is a very good thread on CU about the Thomas card and the related cards around it that are also missing the black ink. Somewhere in that tread there is a scan of all the cards on an uncut sheet with a diagram of the fairly large piece of debris or tape that cause it.

Seaver/Clemens is more like the 90 Thomas. Probably not as severe, If I remember that thread right there's something like 15 cards affected by the same object that caused the Thomas.

I have some 77 Topps cloth checklists that have the same problem as the Flanagan/Wiggins.

It's possible that it recurred over a few sheets, but no more than a few.

When the operator adds water sometimes it drips onto either the plate or the offset blanket. If it drips on the plate it would probably only be on one sheet since the plate is wet and inked each rotation, and the pressure should squeeze out enough water to keep it to one sheet. I can see water getting on the rubber blanket maybe lasting a couple rotations under the right conditions.

If it was solvent, which is used occasionally to remove ink buildup on the rollers, then it might last a bit longer on the blanket. But again probably only one or two turns on the plate since the water would float it off and the pressure would push it out.

I do have one card showing where the ink floated on a very overwatered plate. Pretty odd effect.

Steve B

Steve B,

You're right in regards to the solvent/debris on plate difference...I suppose comparing the Thomas NNOF to the 86's was a mistake, however, there ARE many examples similar to the NNOF that are not recognized, like the '63 ERA Leaders card I showed earlier in the thread, and most notably, the other partial blackless '90 Topps cards from the same sheet like these:

I didn't explain that very well.

The group of 90T related to the Thomas are from something causing the plate to be made incorrectly.

The plates are made from a set of large negatives called the mask. It's usually a bunch of negatives taped to an opaque paper or plastic sheet. The plate is exposed much like a photograph would be, then developed. If something like a hunk of tape or strip of paper was between the mask and the plate that part wouldn't get exposed and that portion of that color wouldn't print.

I think the 90T and the Seaver/Clemens were both caused that way. The 90T is the most extreme example I've seen. Very sloppy work by the platemaker.

Other cards missing areas of color may be similar, but it's just one way of having missing color in an area.
Incorrect original
Incorrect mask
Bad plate
Solvent/water drips
Debris in the press.
Too much wetting of the plate
Underinking
Damaged/stained paper stock
Misfeed of a sheet
Partial print of the sheet - Impression cylinder not engaged for the whole rotation
Sheet not fed through at all

I think that's it, there could be others I missed.

And some of those have related errors.

Debris in the press can sometimes wrap around the plate, get inked and print what looks like faded solid color.

If there's too little water instead of too little the entire plate can get inked to varying degrees and will also print a light solid layer.


All are pretty cool, but the only one I'd call a variation is the incorrectly made plate.

Steve B

Variants
 

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img250.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...psbe3acf4f.jpg

1959 Don Zimmer #287. From what I've tracked, about 90% of printing has unbroken "O", 9.5% has broken "O", and 0.5% has a partially broken "O".

Unbroken "O" in Dodgers.
http://www.baseballcardstars.com/zim...ds/59TOPPS.jpg http://www.baseballcardstars.com/zim...59TOPPSBIG.jpg

Partially broken "O" in Dodgers.
http://www.baseballcardstars.com/zim...IALBROKENO.jpg http://www.baseballcardstars.com/zim...BROKENOBIG.jpg

Broken "O" in Dodgers.
http://www.baseballcardstars.com/zim...ULLBROKENO.jpg http://www.baseballcardstars.com/zim...BROKENOBIG.jpg

Zimmer
 

Good one Brad. Has Don ever looked better than on that card :)

Steve, thanks for the explanation, your reasoning makes sense to me. Do you think the other 90's from that sheet will ever be recognized like the Thomas?

Here's a Podres variant...some can be found with a section of pink in the top border where there should be orange. On ebay the pinks are about 20:1. Not too hard to find.

http://i773.photobucket.com/albums/y...s2b35b1e7.jpeg

I think the other 90's related to the Thomas should be recognized. Each is just as tough if not tougher because commons don't get much attention. (Took me more than 2 years to find an 88T Canseco to finish the set and he's not exactly a common)

But I don't think it will happen anytime soon. The Thomas was an obvious error on a really popular card and was in guides early on.
The first time I saw one the seller wasn't sure of it and to me it looked like a print error. So the others would have been treated the same way if they'd been noticed. And for better or worse, pricing and acceptance revolved around Beckett and they always downplayed print errors.

Obviously neither they or the standard catalog could list every difference, especially once the huge production of the late 80's began. And even now there are dealers that put minor print errors out there as "variations" often with what I'll politely call "imaginative pricing". If a major price guide began listing actual small differences to an audience with no understanding of the technical aspects that sort of thing would only be worse.

Especially for stuff in the questionable category. I have a couple 1991T partial wrong backs. Player cards with the underlying pink that's not a player card background but a manager background. Are they ones where they were printed on a sheet intended to be a different sheet? Like one printed with the pink from say the A sheet then finished with the blue and front from the C sheet? Or was the pink back plate made wrong. Eventually I'll compare the sheet layouts and see if any normal sheet matches up. If it does, they're probably the first, and "just" print errors - uncommon but errors. If none of the normal layouts match they're likely actual major variations that escaped notice for years.

Steve B

1961 topps hoeft variation
 

Broken borders in upper left corner, one with a single break and one with a double. The double is somewhat tough to find.

http://i773.photobucket.com/albums/y...ps1898b7e1.jpg

This is not my card nor is it my auction. It is currently on eBay. If I'm not supposed to do this, somebody please let me know. I was wondering if anyone has an opinion on it. I'm guessing that someone in the past 45 years whited out the Clarence Gaston square and colored in the circle with a marker. It is a very neat job if someone did, though. The back of the card has the normal printing, the seller put up a scan of both sides on the listing.

The 2 major red flags for me is the added yellow in the logo area isn't even the same yellow in the name. Now for the even bigger give away. Right below ROOKIE STARS you can see were they got as little carried away with the solvent and messed up the red ink. There are a few more red flags but those 2 give me the most concern.

Would like to check it out in hand for the slim chance it is real but would not pay anywhere near the opening bid to do it.

I asked the seller a couple of very specific questions. We'll see how he answers them.

http://i1309.photobucket.com/albums/...psc40bfaec.jpg

A 1976 Joe Rudi with almost invisible black lines and team name. Under magnification it looks light grey, probably low on black ink.

The 1969 rookie card above, with the missing picture, can easily be created with a common pencil eraser, and some careful masking. What makes me thick of a pencil eraser is the area under the word "rookie stars", some of the sky of the picture to the left, the red area that says "Bill Davis" and even parts of the black line seem to have parts where they got a little wild with the eraser. Someone else mentioned chemical removal, maybe bleaching. But it's pretty obvious it is a "creation" meant to deceive, maybe by the seller, or maybe by someone in the past and it has just been passed along in collections. Who knows.

http://i1309.photobucket.com/albums/...ps1f4a4260.jpg

I've had these 2 cards since the early 70s. As a kid I always thought thy were magical, like I was seeing through the card, to the printing on the back. I eventually realized they were most probably "kiss prints". These probably occurred by placing one printed sheet on top of another, when the ink was not totally dry, so the image of the back printing of the top sheet got transferred to the top of sheet under it.

Not cards, but lots of slight variations on these photos:

http://1978theyearitallbegan.blogspo...b-picture.html

Have only scanned the collection for Garvey variations so far, but would guess other players have them too:

http://1978theyearitallbegan.blogspo...or-photos.html

My fingerprint collection. The McNertney cards have varying amounts of the print shown, I have found 3 main variations with the print showing.

Ben, can you tell if the prints match on the McCovey and McNertney cards....could it be Sy on both cards????

Happy Vito Valentine's Day : 1957 Topps #74
 

http://imagehost.vendio.com/a/204295...57VITO_NEW.JPG



.....not quite the fame of the Gene Baker/Bakep but I love the serendipity ...or maybe the printers were just bored one day....

...the slab is the old ''PGS'' from the early days of grading companies in the 1990's ; they are no longer in business , for many years now..

Vito
 

Hey Mike. good one. Can not tell from scan, is the word, pitcher messed up too ?

Yes it is
 

----yup , good eye--- the bottom of the ''p'' is gone , the cross of the ''t'' is missing and the bottom of the ''r'' isn't there either...looks like ''Diicher''...

In flipping through some 71's, I noticed this #251 Reberger card has a small loop on the upper right area of the white border around the image. This variation seems to be just a small one, but I found just one copy on COMC, and following a very quick scroll through the ebay listings I saw just a few there.

The 1971 Topps Frank Reberger can also be found with a recurring large ink blob next to his face.

1966 Topps Lumpe
 

The 66 Topps Jerry Lumpe apparently has an unlisted "white wedge" variation with a white streak in the yellow box just above his position. They don't seem too extremely difficult to find but some sellers have them listed high to see who will bite.

Here is a nice PSA8 graded example for those completing master set runs:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1966-Topps-1...item2c8a5e0b39

Here is a decent autographed one I would jump on if I were a Tigers collector or auto set collector:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1966-TOPPS-J...item35be23fc69

Couple of Blobs
 

Love your blob, Cliff! Whatta ya think of mine?

http://i773.photobucket.com/albums/y...sb849a61e.jpeg

Campenella
 

There is a recurring print defect in his 52 cards as well. It was listed in the 52 Super Set by Huggins & Scott

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...g?t=1410019015

The Lumpe and the 2 Rebergers are not too hard to run down

Nice, Al. Tough to find those cards with back defects since mist ebay sellers don't provide back scans anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1956 Topps Teddy Ballgame
 

http://imagehost.vendio.com/a/204295...6TEDDY_NEW.JPG



....don't know if this was reported before : the line above the name box is yellow on the white back and a thinner blue on the gray back...see it ?