I ran across the 65 Glenn Beckert ink print error on eBay when I looked up 'Topps print flaw' listings, and I noticed that the card below it was also affected. Thanks to the 65 high number sheet scan that Kevvyg1026 posted on another thread I could see that it is Ron Taylor and luckily I found one on eBay. It is recurring because someone else just bought a 65 Beckert ink print error on eBay.

https://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/1956...&size=original
1956 Topps - [Base] #33.2 - Roberto Clemente (White Back) [PSA*3*VG]
Courtesy of COMC.com

Red splotch on right armpit. Looks like they're pretty common, based on the ones I see on COMC. May not be on the gray back version.

Geez John. Did not need to know about that :)

Because of the placement or the expense?

Only kidding. Always dread when variants happen on $ cards:)

For me....Cardinals cards.

Variants on money cards are also much tougher to spot....most folks can't afford multiple copies to compare in hand...most of the variants I spot are on in-hand cards.

Not on my white back version as I just checked.

1954 #96 Bill Walsh
 

I know this is a baseball card group, but I thought I would post this discovery. As you can see in the scan, the left version of the card has malfunction in the "L" in his name. I had seen someone with a pair of these cards on eBay with a different reason (I think) and I saw the L issue. There is one right now on eBay, if anyone wants to go after it.

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
https://www.net54baseball.com/pictur...ictureid=28867

Looks blackless to me.

What was the cause of this variation? Would similar things have happened on cards in theta row or column?

When that particular sheet was being printed it was running low on black ink. At the very least the cards around the Bunning were also affected and are blackless or blacklessing.

1966 Bunning blackless
 

Here are some of the cards around Bunning, in case you are looking for possible errors.

Attachment 418495

Yes, that's what low ink looks like.

Plenty of causes for it, but none I can think of that can be clearly identified form the end product.

https://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/1952...inal&side=back
1952 Topps - [Base] #99 - Gene Woodling [Good*to*VG‑EX]
Courtesy of COMC.com

D-shaped print defect over Home on back.

Intersting because there is a front recurring border irregularity to this card ( listed in Super set and discussed in a past SCD article, Lemke I think). Wonder if this one is recurring.

It is. Multiple copies on COMC confirm it. Take a look at the PSA 3 in Sold Out.

Yeah, the gaps have been mentioned before in this thread. I searched for "Woodling" and saw them, checking to see if the defect I showed had already been listed here.

I do not recall it

Obtained from fellow board member

https://hosting.photobucket.com/imag...080&fit=bounds

1964 #258 Roggenburk
 

I have proof that there are two of the exact same error but the site will not let me upload the scan. What is going on?

Post Cereal Cards
 

The cards are from different cereal boxes. Andre Rogers was on three different boxes. 2 with the traded line. (Grape Nut Flakes and Alpha Bits) 1 with no traded line (Sugar Crisp) The printing process relied on the colors that were to be on the front of the box. Hence the cards on the back would reflect the shading differences. All three of the Rodgers cards are slightly different. (I can scan mine and post) This process is true for all three sets 1961-1963 and the 62 Football set. Depending on the box(es) the player was on the more variation. By the same token there are no variations for players that were on only one box. (Shaw, Woodling et all in 61, Marichal, Spencer et all in 62, Mantle, Maris et all in 63, Martin, Coia in the 62 football set.)

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...69dc490b.plist
Another for the road...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good one Aron

1964 #258 Roggenburk
 

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

Wonder if card below it on sheet was impacted

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.

There was a 64 Roggenburk printed on the bottom row and I would say 99.6% that is the origin of that print flaw on it.

Thanks Cliff

I know this is post 1980, but this thread looks to be where the action is on print errors and variations...I just found this card in my 82 Topps commons box. What the heck happened here? Anyone seen one like this before?

Soaked-in-Windex variation?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/DEWEY-ROBIN...cAAOSwR2RaG3GN I don't know what caused it but there is at least one other one out there, they are both from the E* sheet.

Interesting. Thanks Cliff.

That could be from a couple things.

A dry print, where the plate doesn't get dampened and retains ink everywhere.

During washdown, where they cleaned ink off the blanket with solvent, which smears it at first. But that usually isn't this consistent.

Or, a sheet of paper, or the surface of a sheet got stuck on the blanket, and retained ink since it's porous.

Of those, I think it's probably the last one.

I am guessing that these two cards were next to each other on their original sheet. While I did not do the best job to line it up perfectly on the scanner, the little black line in the white blemish line up. I found at least one copy of each card with (nearly) the same print blemish which continues from one card to the other.

Yes, I have one or two 1982s that have most of the card covered in that blue color. Although, if memory serves, it does not cover the entire card like yours, more like 2/3 or card.

Here is the 1982 Topps E* sheet, Glenn Hubbard is the third card on the fourth row and Dewey Robinson is the fifth card on the fifth row. Undoubtedly at the very least the cards surrounding them were also printed with the same defect.

print defect?
 

What type of print error is this blue streak? Is it recurring across the sheet? I saw about 12% of the cards listed for 1966, #381 with it this morning, but did not see others.

Attachment 420229

Probably a defective red plate so the blue shows through instead of being seen as purple.

If it's on the edge there might not be others. if it's in the middle somewhere the card to the right of it might also have a defect.

Was aware of blue line defect, but is that a green smudge on his face too ?

the card is, I believe in column 9. Card 391 is in col 10, and 363 is in col 11

I didn't see that smudge on any of the other blue defect cards, so I assumed it was just a scan artifact. However, most of the blue defect cards also have a line streak on his cheek.

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.

http://www.baseballcardstars.com/1961-1.jpg http://www.baseballcardstars.com/1961-2.jpg http://www.baseballcardstars.com/1961-3.jpg

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.

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.

Awesome Cliff! That’s a top notch find!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Great discovery

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.

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

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~

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.

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).

“Fascinating”.... Spock

I ran across this odd and timely print anomaly today...

Attachment 421038

Surely, I kid. :D

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.

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.

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.

Interesting: a real "flip stock" as they're called in Topps Heritage.

Thanks for that information. I was unaware that Topps is currently intentionally making "flip stock" cards. Although it is unlikely to possess much value, is it safe to assume this one in my collection is a rarity?

Very nice find Mike. While I have seen many examples of wet transfers over the years, this is the first flip stock anomaly from 60s/70s I have seen.

I saw a handful of 72s like that offered years ago. Maybe in the 90's?
The asking price was way too high for me at the time.

It's really nice to see one.

Here's a Dean's Card listed on COMC.
https://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/1966...&size=original
1966 Topps - [Base] #373 - 1966 Rookie Stars - Jack Hiatt, Dick Estelle [EX]
Courtesy of COMC.com

1957 Error Cards
 

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.

Neat stuff Tom.

The #37 that was recently sold on eBay (Early Wynn front, Don Drysdale back, Frank Torre card #) was one I gave the seller the identification of being a salesman sample in a Facebook group. Sold for $150 as a BIN/BO. I was predicting a sale price closer to $50.

https://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/1957...&size=original
1957 Topps - [Base] #294 - Scarce Series - Rocky Bridges
Courtesy of COMC.com

Blue splotch on left border is a recurring print defect.

Here's an odd one that is quite easy to find.

The 1972 Series 6 checklist can be found with a pair of smudgy dark areas interfering with the names near the bottom. They are usually quite similarly placed across multiple cards, but there is some variation to where they appear (I believe).

Attachment 424058Attachment 424059Attachment 424060

This card has two version; copyright left or copyright center left on back. In checking those two in my set the defect Darren highlights is on my center left card. Does it appear on both versions or just that one ?

1972 checklist
 

Perhaps one version of the checklist is from series 5 printing and the other from the series 6 printing

Those pics are just screengrabs, so I don't know which version(s) of the back they have, but there are undoubtedly some found on COMC where the backs can easily be seen.

Show...me...your print variations!
 

Anyone know how common this is with the 1971 Topps?https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...3277039bfc.jpg

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

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... ;-)

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

There are some minor back variants in some of the Leader cards in the 91 Topps set involving either a complete or broken circle around the MLB copyright. Neither are apparently hard to find, but if you have old eyes, they are hard to see. I could not make them out with the scans on eBay or COMC. A fellow board member was able to send me what I needed ( the Hasselhoff Cheesburger man), and even in hand I needed a light and magnifying glass to see the differences.

It is of course ridiculous to care about such differences in cards, but since I do, I appreciate bigger scans as I get older. But they do distort threads when posted. I can still remember, as a low tech guy, being stumped early on in how to size pics for posting. It still presents problems for me on occasion

Like Al, I like the larger scans when details are hard to see .... even in hand.

But if there is a need to use a larger scan to see specific details on a card, at least crop down the image to just the card itself.