I agree with you John. The vast majority of variants it his thread are really just unintended print defects. I tend to collect any that are recurring or involve a card for which I already have other variants.

My theory is that if you look hard enough and long enough you can probably find some print variance on any card, particularly pre 80 sets.

Here is a good example of a print variant caused by a misaligned plate.....look at Dan Osinski's eyes,,,on the top card his eyes appear "normal", on the middle card his eyes appear to be looking more downward than the top card while the bottom card his eyes appear to be looking up. His eye positions appear to correlate with the shift of the image upwards or downwards. With the top card, the image is centered (equal white around the image). The middle card has the image shifted down while the bottom card has the image shifted significantly upward.

I would call that middle one 'ole crazy eyes.'

I am not exactly sure what to call this....it almost looks like a solar flare on this card.

Something far less dramatic but similar exists on a very few Tom Sturdivant cards from the same set

Always love 62T variations side by side.
RayB

Nice cards Ray, and more dignified than the 59 bird poop variant of Brandt that Bob offered in post 835

Here is another who-dun-it, kind of like the 72 McNertney, except the finger (thumb?) print is on the back instead. On the back of this 71 165 card, to the right of the Cesar's image, there is a limited but recurring print. The print also causes some smudging on Cesar's bio stats.

Cool find, will have to pick one up for my fingerprint collection.

Thank you Ben, figured you would look for a copy of this to add to your FP collection.....once you pick up a copy, let me know if the print on this card matches any of the other prints you have collected.

Ben should send his cards to IAFIS

I grabbed one last night on COMC and noticed there were a couple more. Wish one of the PSA graded cards on there had the fingerprint already.

I sold one like it on Ebay a month or so ago

On or about January 3 to be exact :)

Found this 1960 Neal card with limited, but recurring blue print marks on the left side of his face....

This 63 Fleer BRobby came today as part of a group of cards I won on ebay....in the images for the listing, it appeared someone had colored the front borders of this card, but the green on the front is actually due to the front having the most profound wet sheet transfer I have ever come across. The green on the front border is very crisp and heavy as compared to other wet sheet transfers I have seen. The green on the front of this card is as dark of a green as I have on some backs of other cards from this set. While I have several 60 Fleer FB this has occurred with, I have never seen this with a 63 Fleer baseball card...anyone have any 63 Fleers like this?

1959 Killebrew
 

Here are two more print defects on the 1959 Killebrew, two with a blue comet in the sky and one with a yellow bug at the bottom.

A "squashed" yellow bug. :cool:

Quick tally of 59 Killebrews current and recent on ebay, six yellow bugs and only one blue comet, out of 200 examples.

Bob-- any idea why some bugs in 1959 had yellow and some white innards ?

The "bugs" are the same fault as fisheyes, just caused by more irregular debris. Stuff stuck to the offset blanket get's inked, but causes a dent in the rubber so the area around it doesn't get inked.

If there's a background color like on Killebrew, it shows. Fairly often yellow is left under Magenta to make a nice red.

The one on Brandt is less typical, both for size, and because it doesn't have much of a center. There was probably a larger bit of debris at one time that fell off, but damaged the blanket. Since leaving yellow under the blue would make the card green, there's no background color.

Steve-- I have great respect for and value your printing expertise, but Bob knows his bugs ;)

I have known him to drive cross country and then catalog the results off his windshield....and attach cards to the windshield wipers as test subjects.

In fact, I actually made a Christmas ornament once that turned out so horrible that my kids named it “bugs on a windshield.” Now when we decorate, I get to hear “Okay, who wants to hang bugs on a windshield?” Nobody, that’s who. :rolleyes:

I've been looking for a long time for a fisheye caused by an identifiable bit of debris. There's got to be one caused by an actual bug or moth, maybe even one that still has the bug stuck to the card. No luck so far.


I did see a car once.....
I worked for a Chrysler Plymouth dealer. We got in a Horizon that had a mosquito painted into the top center of the dashboard. Looked like it had just landed when the paint started. When we sold it, we told the buyer we'd have to body shop sand it off and touch up the area so it was perfect.
He declined, he liked the bug being there and wanted to keep it as -is.

Not debris on the printing plate, but a print gap.....the black border around the red "A.L." circle has a break.... about 2 out of the 60 I looked through on COMC had this recurring, but limited, gap.

1960 #405 Richardson
 

Had seen the mis-alignment of red lettering in the lower version, but had failed (until now) to catch the white inside the Yankee hat, which supposed to be blue.

Great catch! After looking at several on eBay, COMC, and Dean's Cards, I can say without a doubt that the white hats are gray backs, and the blue hats are white backs. The Richardson is in the series that was printed with both gray and white backs.

Thomas-- as I recall my uneven letters are on a white back and the white marks in the hat on a gray back. ( could be other way, will check). Also it card be found with red printers mark in upper left border on gray and white back. Do you know if the white marks and uneven letters can be found on both backs ?

Oops, did not see Cliff's post

The same thing affects the other Yankees in the 1960 Topps 375-440 series, Roger Maris and Duke Maas have white hats on the gray backs and blue hats on the white backs, and Art Ditmar has a partially white hat on the gray backs and a completely blue hat on the white backs.

Damm Yankees. I ended up doing that entire series in both backs for my set.

Nice catches on these Yankee cards....guessing that neither back is less rare than the other.

Does anyone have a Yankees card with one of the "pure" white backs to see how it's front will compare to the GB and regular WB fronts?

In looking through some of the GB/WB cards from this series, some appear to have some very subtle cropping differences, especially in the small image to the left on each card. Likely most of the cards in this series will exhibit some sort of minor variation between the GB/WB copies....here are the 383 Wagner GB/WB cards, the GB copy has a small area of white behind his lower right leg, while the WB has a small slice of blue in the same spot. Interestingly, outside of the Yankee cards I looked at, I noticed no differences with the team logos on the cards I viewed (I do not have the entire series with both backs in hand, so I have not viewed all of the cards).

I have both backs for the entire series but in sheets in a binder and not side by side or one atop other. Rather the white back series is behind the whole set with grays. Not sure why I did that. Will try to get up the motivation to compare them for other differences

Quick run through. No scans

392 S Jones---red on top of baseball on white, white above baseball on gray

414 Williams--blue at arm on insert right side on gray

427 Grunwald--dot by cap in insert on white

432 Rodgers---noticeably more white shows above logo on gray

Edit---card numbers above are wrong. Will post scans soon

It could be my imagination but it might be that Mossi's ears are bigger in white back than gray ;)

Mossi's ears are always bigger in my right side view mirror......

I actually contacted the director of IAFIS about a fingerprint card once and asked him if they would help. They said no. I figured they'd like good publicity. What did I know.

Can someone please post a scan of a 1967 Topps Joe Moeller white streak variation? I thought I knew what I was looking for, but PSA says otherwise. :rolleyes:

67 Moeller
 

Bob---as you know the Standard Catalog mentions white streak between M and cap, but the only thing I have found so far for my set is like the one in this listing

https://i.ebayimg.com/thumbs/images/...ivd/s-l225.jpg

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1967-TOPPS-...AAAOSwK6RZGivd

Moeller
 

Found this

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...d4wwjIE_iJJSNu

I've always understood the "white streak" to be the one on the left, a faint white streak that goes through the E and R of his last name and through the LA on his cap.

Apparently PSA agrees with you Cliff. The blob version seems more distinctive to me

Not all the time. I sent one to PSA a few months ago that completely matches the one on the left, and I marked it WHITE STREAK. PSA slabbed it as NO WHITE STREAK. :mad:

It is one thing for a person who really does not know much about cards to grade their condition, but when it comes to odd ball stuff and variations I have little faith in graders to know what they are grading.

Neither the blob or streak versions of the Moeller card would have made Lemke's updated view of a variation. Both are scarce print defects just like hundreds of others in this thread not recognized by PSA. In fact, the Moeller is far less distinctive than most of them....like your squashed bug Brandt :)

http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/ba...49bMoeller.jpg


:mad:

I would sympathize with the graders that this one is tough to spot , and likely should not be a variation either in SCD or the Registry, but if PSA is going to include they should have someone on staff that knows what it is or isn't.


To me the blob version is more distinctive and easier to identify. In fact ,even the blue dot by the cap thing posted by Cliff above is more interesting to me :eek: Is that recurring too ?

I like collecting variants but this one is a dud even for me.

Here are the 4 Topps 1960 cards I mentioned in post 985. In each case the gray back is on top and white back on bottom

--On Grunwald 427, there is dot to right of his cap in insert on white back

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...ps6ohxjkqq.jpg

--On Rodgers, 431, the white mark just above the logo in lower left is bigger in gray back version

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...psnbow0lgu.jpg

--On Jones, 410, there is minor white area above the logo on gray back and a red area in the ball within the logo on white back

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...pstagho5xm.jpg

--On Williams, 414, there is a line/mark at end of his truncated arm in insert on gray back. Looks blueish to me in hand

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...pssmu9h8ze.jpg

I have not looked at the backs of all the cards in the series to see if there are differences beyond the stock differences. And would not be surprised if I missed other front differences

That makes no sense. I mean why even have "no white streak" on the flip. Are they going to designate all regular versions as "no white streak" ??????

Just curious are there other "no XXXXXX" labels with regards to versions?

,,,,to tick Bob off. It worked :)