Rogers, Jones and Williams are registration issues, not actual cropping differences.

Don’t disagree at all. Most of the cards posted in this thread are just recurring print defects of one kind or another.

That is true, however, every so often we are exposed to a nugget. I’ve been out of commission for a while but came out of hiding to share this 1960 Morrell crop variation of good ‘ol Charlie Neal (see scoreboard in background).
In the same set I have also seen crop variations of the Furillo (backstop poles), the Alston (yellow steps/number of fans in seats), the Moon (player jersey number/number of arches), and Koufax (size of flag pole tower).

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...120bb8e38a.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seeing red
 

Not sure if I put this one up or not after looking through over half the post to find it I gave up. Here is an interesting one of the red birds.

That's a true red bird card. Anyone know if that was a DP card. I have seen one seller pointing out a recuring cropping difference on that and other 61 cards in which there is a spacing difference between the names and team designations, or in this case the names and the title

Just picked up this partial red pass on Pete Rose:
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/G8cAA...dlm/s-l800.jpg

I am not a graded collector but if a card was otherwise a 10 what deduction would it get for such a print defect, if any ?

Kind of a grader's discretion. If they consider it a "print defect", it would get a PSA 9 (PD) and count the same for the registry as a 7. If the submitter requested no qualifiers, it could drop even lower. Or it could stay a 10 if the grader doesn't think it's a print defect.

Funny you posted this Rose with the missing red pass, just the other day I came across this 77 A-ROD (the original) card with what appears to be the same missing pass.

Also found this 68 Cap Patterson with tons of extra blue.....his left arm just blends in with the sky.

1961 #393
 

Here is a similar item to the card above only with Cubs. Over printing?

The extra "white cloud" above the trees on this 68 Curt Flood card has been noted as a print variation, but until today, I had not noticed that this print variation has variations. The cloud appears to come in various sizes. I wondered if this cloud was similar to the cloud appearing on the 461-492 68 Topps cards. However, the Belanger card to the left of the Flood card does not appear to have a cloud appearing on it's right edge to match the Flood card's cloud.

Wonder if this defect shows up on any versions of his MB cards. It does not appear on the one in my MB set

The variable clouds do not show up on my MB copy either or on any of the other MB copies of this card I have handled over the years. Based on how the MB cards were produced (on a sheet with FB and HR cards)separate from regular Topps cards, my guess is that this print variation is only going to be found on regular issued cards.

I don't think that is a wet sheet transfer with two colors. More likely explanation is they ran the sheet through to clear the press during some sort of maintenance or set-up and then accidentally used it in the run rather than scrapping it.

Originally, I thought the same thing. But all of the print is mirror imaged (as it would be with a wet sheet transfer). Now, I am not a print process expert, but if the printer ran this sheet through to clear the press and caused this, wouldn't the printed portion appear normally instead of mirror imaged?

This card could also be caused by a combination of a wet sheet transfer (the mirror imaged print) and running the sheet back through the press (the green border) for some reason.

Most of the very clear wet sheet transfers are actually cylinder impressions.

The inked plate prints to the offset blanket, and that prints to the cardstock or paper, backed up by the impression cylinder, basically a smooth steel roller. Without it, imagine the difference between using a rubber stamp on a paper placed on a desk compared to a paper you're just holding.

If there's a misfeed, or some other reason the press runs without a sheet being between the offset blanket and the impression cylinder the offset sheet prints to the impression cylinder.
The next sheet, possibly more, but at a minimum the next sheet gets pressed against the impression cylinder by the offset blanket (Loads of force there!)
And that prints to the reverse side of that sheet.

Is this one well-known yet?
https://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/1953...&size=original
1953 Bowman Color - [Base] #1 - Davey Williams [Good*to*VG‑EX]
Courtesy of COMC.com
Three dots on bottom left corner of 1953 Bowman Color #1 Davey Williams. Recurring print defect. 3 of the 18 or so on COMC have it.

It's much better known now, John :)

For some reason my Copy/Paste buffer still had a Jerry Rice card I posted yesterday. Did you use the "wayback machine" to see the pre-edit or just happen to see it during the minute it was Rice?

Came across this card today....the back caught my attention first. As I flipped through the lot of cards this was card was a part of, I saw #25 and thought I had a Whitey Ford card. Not to be, the back was Tom Surdivant(?), and the front was Pete Runnels. It appears the front of Runnels card may have been pasted on the Sturdivant back. However, still curious about the #25 Sturdivant, I turned this up:


http://keitholbermann.mlblogs.com/2012/02/20/2114902/

This Sturdivant portion of this card is part of a 57 Topps salesman panel....does anyone know what the front of this panel looks like?

...

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...psvgvtowi4.jpg

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...psi60widdj.jpg

Thank you Al, I figured you would have this panel. It looks like someone pasted the Runnels over Hal Smith....not sure why though

Did Hal have an ex wife ?

1957 Ad Strip
 

Seeing the ad strip, lets me know now that the error card I bought was from a strip. I will attach it and, the surprising OV showing Joe DeMaestri. I also am pasting in a card I stupidly had cut out of an ad strip given to me by a rep in 1957 showing Frank Robinson and the back of it. Who knows who were the other two as they were not Reds, and thus not interesting to me as a 10-year old.

It could have been his arch nemesis, the "other" Hal Smith of the Cardinals.

Thomas, is the DeMaestri on the front side of the Sturdivant back card? If so, I wonder how many different combinations of these sales man strips are out there?

If they printed the backs onto regular sheet fronts, probably 36, depending on the exact layout and if they used a full 264 card sheet or a 132 card half sheet.
If they used a different size sheet it could be just about any number.

That could then possibly explain the 3 versions of the Hal Smith 1960 Leaf card, including the black out version...retailiation

1957 Ad Panel
 

YES, DeMasetri is on the front and that is why I pasted it into the little collection. Why Robinson has an ad back instead of some other back, like the one we both have, is beyond me. This is great to learn though as I was always wondering why the card back had the wrong number, different cartoon, etc. Now it makes sense. I also passed on buying other versions of these cards due to price so there are many more most likely.

Not really a variation, but a 1960 Topps Ernie Banks with the bottom edge of the sheet showing some of the margin notes from the full sheet. Banks must have been on different positions of the sheet as very few examples with extra large bottom borders have the notations.

It has been discussed here a few times, here is one that shows more of it to where it can be made out to be 'SECTION I'.

Certainly not an intended change but not really a print defect either. Something else. Agree several versions appear in here somewhere :)

I may have officially jumped the printing flaw/variation shark with these, but they are fun and challenging to look for. A recurring print flaw on the 1977 sheet with Robin Yount and Carlton Fisk affected about 48 cards, four vertical rows of 12. I still need examples of Larry Biittner, Charlie Williams, Robin Yount, Bruce Boisclair, Andres Mora, Gaylord Perry, Jim Bibby, Eric Rasmussen, Gary Thomasson, and Ron Hodges.

https://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/1977...&size=original
1977 Topps - [Base] #635 - Robin Yount
Courtesy of COMC.com

This is probably the Yount: item 5109687 because the photo is washed out. Hard to tell on this one because there's not a lot of red in the image. But it sort of looks like the 1962 Green Tints with less definition throughout the image. Do you need the Rose I posted?

As always, nice work Cliff....I have about 25k 77 commons in my attic I have not touched in 15 years, guess I should take some time and go through them.

The picture of the sheet helps a lot Cliff! I have obtained a couple different versions of the E-Rod for my Dodgers collection over the years.

+1 on the picture helping. I just picked up the Fisk for my Fisk error collection.:)

That's cool Ben, but just how many Fisk errors are out there?

I just pick up weird print errors of some players. I picked up a Fisk rookie with a print offset a few years ago. Now I add his print error cards when I see them cheap. The very strange part is most of the players I do that with I don't even like. As an example I have an insane Randy Johnson collection and I hated him as a player.:eek:

1958 #263 Bressoud
 

In the style of Bequer from the same set, Bressoud's bat appears to be more into the margin at left.

To me, this variance appears to be caused by a print shift

1958 #263 Bressoud
 

Here is a scan showing three versions, one of which IS a color shift.

If a card differs from it's counterparts in some way for any reason is that enough for some here to collect it ? Does it matter if it is recuring or not ? Does the cause of the difference matter ? Cropping differences ? Registration error ? Does it matter how much the defect stands out ? How many collect miscuts ? Blank fronts/backs ? Wrong front/backs ?

Does anyone have a set of parameters they use ? All years or just some years ? How many end up picking up the ones that show up here if they were unaware of them previously ?

I collect just about anything that makes a card not normal. No overall parameters because it varies by player, set, and even era what type of errors I collect. My collection is a very unfocused mess.:D

Too many questions for this early in the morning.....I enjoy collecting all of the options that you noted above, including print shifts.

I also like to understand what the cause of the difference is on each card like this that I come across....some are caused by print shifts, some are true variations, some are random ink marks, some are missing colors, etc .

To me, the cause of the difference does not make a card any more or less desirable, if the difference appeals to me, I'll collect it.

I collect nearly all of it.

And I do have parameters on some stuff, but they're hard to explain.

Anything that is from some difference on a plate I save with a set, The same for other stuff that's recurring.
A few examples
93 Upper deck has for a portion of the set, either
gloss only over the picture on the back.
Overall gloss on back
gloss over he picture but then covered by all over gloss.

88 Score the cards were "cut" from the sheets by 3 different die cuts
AND
have screening differences both front and back.

Most of the Gypsy queen sets are on two different types of cardstock, it's a very subtle difference.

different inks like 91 Topps

Any thing that's a printing error, I usually keep in a different box. Blank backs blank fronts, wrong backs, bad registration, creased before printing, die cut at the wrong end, missing foil stamps, wrong foil stamps....

Some of those are always really obvious. Some I don't actively go after anymore.
Others, like registration errors have to be pretty severe for the issue for them to be interesting to me. Like the cards above, the one on the right with red printed low would probably get saved, the one on the left and previous with a for the 50's trivial shift wouldn't. That same shift on a 2018 card would get saved, registration is so much better today that it would be interesting.

BTW, none of that says that someone who likes different stuff in either direction shouldn't collect it anyway they like.

Steve-- I have been trying to reign in my own collecting parameters for oddities, which currently is limited to I know if I want it when I see it :)

If only I could be so concise and accurate....