I noticed the little black mark, but completely missed that the photo is obviously a reverse negative because his hat logo is totally backwards. Being a variation collector is weird.

I don't know the sheet layouts, but related to Gantner, perhaps? I see others online with this same black mark.

card #577

Alright Greg you got me to dig out my box of 87 Topps with your last few posts.
So far I've found quite a few variations but I haven't checked to see if they are recurring. Here are a couple of the better ones and a Guidry with a black mark. There is a wide strip of red from the top to the bottom of the Wilkerson including the top and bottom border, it actually shows up much better in hand than it does in the scan.

Attachment 548286

Attachment 548287

Attachment 548288

Yep, Bilardello is to the left of Gantner.

A pair of Mike Marshall's with a break in the T in Topps and two more Bilardello's.

Attachment 548328

Attachment 548329

You always have the answer to a Topps sheet question!

It's always good to have an excuse to dig into 1987 Topps. Might be worthless, but I love this design. Couldn't find any of these three here on other copies on eBay.

I went to COMC and picked up a Mike Marshall with broken "T". I also picked up this copy with a slash through the "O"; not quite sure if it's a recurring defect yet.

This Juan Bonilla has what looks similar to a laser line through the card and on each side of the line the colors are a different shade.

Attachment 548363

Well...so far in this modern thread the Cardinals variations are not breaking me. I'm heading to the garage to look for 1981 Topps Mike Phillips.

Does anyone know if the 1981 Vuckovich is reoccurring?

After nearly 2 hours of scouring the internetwebs, I have come to the conclusion that a 100% totally clean 1981 Topps Mike Phillips is very, very scarce. Nearly all have some level of smudging of varying degrees. Some look clean until you inspect them closely.

I found a PSA 9 that looks clean in the scan, but I suspect imperfections could be found in the same area if looked at closely. Seller wanted $200, so I passed without hesitation. I also found one raw on Ebay that looks clean and I bought it.

I also bought several others of varying degrees.

For my Cardinals team set, I have notated 7 different distinct variations plus a clean one (hopefully). I'm sure there are more, but those will suffice for me.

I am dizzy! :eek:

In my defense, I posted the Phillips card before we set the no Cardinals rule!

I've kept myself to only the one smear copy, this seems like one of a number of such defects that have essentially unlimited manifestations of the basic printing problem.

:D

I agree with Phillips. You could go on forever with different variations. I only expanded it because they are inexpensive and easily gotten, with the exception of a clean one. That was quite a chore to find a clean one.

It's nice when they are cheap, I hate when some schmuck posts a superstar variant :D

Some of these I just settle for one copy, others I obsessively hoard all the different manifestations I can find. I've got to be up to 20+ different copies of the 1959 Hank Sauer yellow smearing now.

I looked for a clean Phillips and thought I found some, but after getting 2 of them they have turned out not to really be actually clean. I think I'm calling it a day lol

I am sure that my "clean" one will actually not be clean when I get it. It should be the cleanest of the bunch so it will be ok.

I received this sweet little specimen in the mail today.

That one used to go for a fair amount of money at one time

I paid more to have it shipped than I did for the card. I’ll chalk it up to luck.

Depending on the seller is still does.:rolleyes::D

These two cards have a different team name in black over the silver application of the team name. Many cards have issues with missing silver or smearing, but this is different. I got these out of a factory set. 2006.

187 Ryan Klesko (not sure what the word is)
234 Luis Rivas ("Royals" over the silver Twins)

Are those reoccurring? With my Cardinals collection that is always the key for me.

I don't know, I was hoping someone here might know. Unlike a 50's or 60's common, there are not many 2006 Luis Rivas cards online to look at to ID others. It's somehow harder to match defects with high print run more recent cards...

86 Topp Cal Ripken blank and Tom Foley finger print
 

1986 Topps Cal Ripken Blank back and Tom Foley Finger Print.
Thought they were cool.
Both came from rack packs.

That Foley is awesome. I have a few fingerprint cards.

ya i think it's kinda neat.
now that i'm getting into cards again,
i kinda like the weird misprint cards more than the non.
i can see how you could get whole sections of finger print, double print, less ink etc. in a collection.

I do think that Cal Ripken is pretty unique. Too bad no back, it is pretty well centered.

There are some Cardinals players with clear finger prints on the front posted in the long post war pre 1980s variations thread. But no doubt Shane has all of those ;)

1972 Topps Jerry McNertney? Yep! I got 'em. I don't have the "big yeller blob" version, though.

That yellow blob has proven to be real elusive too.

It might not be recurring. Probably not a candidate for the top 100 thread ;):)

kirby puckett , greg maddux, benny santiago, others
 

Here are a few 1990's I got a mess of theses I'll post a few more wally joyner randy johnson etc later.
I like the blue splotch ones.
Not sure if they are double print or what but they are interesting.
Thanks

Oh, really!?!? I understood it from the other thread to be reoccurring. If it is not reoccurring, then it doesn't exist to me!

:p :D

Those are a real puzzle.

Usually that sort of thing is from the foil roll not advancing and the foiling equipment trying to apply foil that isn't there anymore.

You can sort of see where the foil panels on the sides are incomplete too.

The question though is what card the foil was put on. I'm not familiar enough with 2006 Topps to know, but the font is different, and it doesn't affetct the bottom half of the card.

Foil problems are pretty common in 2006, where the foil is a little incomplete in a small spot, or slightly goes outside the lines. This is pretty unusual, but so few common cards are online, unlike vintage base, that it might be recurring and even fairly common. I did expect to find two more cards from this sheet misprinted wherever this stray text came from, but everything else on the sheet was printed right (since it came from a factory set, all the cards on that sheet is in this box). Odd.

1980 Topps Fred Stanley
 

I found this in a box of 1980 Topps. I haven't seen anything like it on any other cards from the set.

There are a number of different versions of the name color variants in the 80 set.

Nice find.

Cheers,

Butch

You just aren't looking hard enough then. Many cards in 1980 Topps can be found with this exact type of printing error in their names. Poquette, Braun, Wathan, McEnany, etc.

Several others who only have blue printed names can be found with all or part of their name missing.

The Stanley was first up in SCD over 10 years ago but there are several similarly affected. Braun, Whathan, Poquette and Washington among them. Mr Bowman ( Cliff) I think has mapped them and the Pryor no name progeny in here in one thread or another

Good find

Got these two delivered in the mail today. The only one that counts for this thread is the 93 Russ Swan with the double print Major League Record line. Another variation checked off.

Jr. will adorn my binder edge for the 94 Stadium Club Members Only set.

Cheers,

Butch

I went through my 92 Topps recently looking for variations and I found dozens of the typical stray print mark and color shift type of variation but I also found one variation that was a catalog type variation.

The 92 Topps don't have the registration symbol above the Topps logo but I have a Carlos Quintana card that has one.

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...ale/img359.jpg[/IMG]


I also found different degrees of the variation in the cards that I have ranging from a clear symbol to where you can barely see a faint outline of the symbol
to no sign of it at all.

All of these except the bottom example came from packs that I opened 30 years ago.

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...20-%20Copy.jpg[/IMG]

A few of the more interesting 92 variations I found. There a lot of name shifts like the Palacios but most aren't as severe and the black letters aren't broken up like the Palacios.

Attachment 552494

Attachment 552495

Attachment 552496

Attachment 552497

Nice find. Definitely a legit variation.

I picked up a factory set a couple weeks ago at a local show. The Quintana in it is the one without a trace of the registration logo.

Pretty cool to see a new, true variation found

The best I could find with 1992 Topps is Geronimo Pena #116 which has a perfectly straight top border and one where there is a section of the line that is off kilter. Both are super plentiful however.

Found and purchased another variation of the Quintana registration mark. With this one the R is partially covered making it look more like an N.

Attachment 553085

Attachment 553086

I sure do not have much for 1992.Can not recall if Bachman is recurring. On card 126 at one time I thought print size varied, but maybe not.

Had not been aware of the Pena or Quintana

I'm just going through the cards I received today and have the 92 Backman that has a smidge missing at the top border of the card. The 92 Murphy #706 I got from a pack.

The 94 Watkins is missing the copyright information and the 94 DeShields is the Red team and position variation. Babe is the 95 with Topps variation.

The Watkins, DeShields and Ruth used to be listed in the SCD Standard Catalog when it still did post 1980 listings. There are at least 4 versions of the Ruth, logo, no logo, date of birth and a co brand Topps/Conlon

Watkins is a 1994 Topps card BTW

Fixed, thanks.

Al,

are you saying there is a version without his birthdate on front?

I know of:

Topps w/ logo
Topps w/o logo
Topps / Conlon

All have the birthdate on front. Which one can be found without it?