ALR-bishop, those are some amazing finds. The '57s and the Kingman are my favorites. Where did you get the '86 Seaver blue streak? I sold mine a couple of years ago on ebay and have been looking for another ever since.

1-3. Yaz RC with washed out back?
4. Schofield mystery. I don't think it's from a marker.
5. Another pic of the Munson RC with white letters.

Would love feedback.

Seaver and Clemons
 

Bought both on ebay. They are scarce but recurring. Here is how it happened, and where it happened again.

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

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

Could that 1960 Yaz be a 1960 Topps Venezuelan Carl Yastrzemski card? That 1969 Topps Schofield is awesome, I have seen Topps 1974 through 1981 cards with that printing flaw but never a 1969.

Still haven't seen a 1986 Topps Terry Puhl with a small section of the the printing flaw, but it has to exist.

I have not found a Puhl either and I have been looking fairly hard for over a year.

Puhl
 

That makes 3. :). If some seller puts it up with a low BIN he will never know what he may have missed out on ;)

Another example of a '70 Munson with white letters. Just found this on my hard drive from a past ebay auction. It's what originally made me think it was a possible variation, since there was another example.

Recurring
 

I have no idea if they are faded cards or recurring print defects. In another thread there is a discussion of the 58 Aaron cards with the blue versus green background. The first couple that showed up went for high dollars on ebay since people thought they might be variants ( if a true variation involves an intentional change in a card, I do not think recurring print defects qualify).

But, then a bunch of the blue Aarons started to show up on ebay, probably manufactured by exposure to light. Of course there is a risk in exposing a higher dollar value card to light damage on the hope it will bring more money than the regular version :)

It might be worthwhile to take a less valuable but similar 70 rookie card and expose it to light and see how it compares to the Munson after such exposure.

The situation with the Aaron card, one of which I have, has led me to believe one would never know for sure if one had a true variant ( recurring print defect) or just a faded card in most cases

As a rule of thumb when it comes to fading due to light/sun, red is the first to go. If that particular card was missing its yellow due to fading, the red would be effected as well.