|
1986
Steve---I have seen a few of the Seaver/Clemons blue defects, which are another matched pair. I am not sure what happened on the Winfield, which has a blue defect but also some missing ink similar to the 90 Thomas. I find it interesting because there seems to have been 2 defects in play.
Since the Seaver/Clemons did recur, at least for a few runs, is it likely the same would have happened on the Flanagan/ Wiggins ? Would these blue defects from 1986 have been self correcting without any intervention ? There is a very good thread on CU about the Thomas card and the related cards around it that are also missing the black ink. Somewhere in that tread there is a scan of all the cards on an uncut sheet with a diagram of the fairly large piece of debris or tape that cause it. |
Seaver/Clemens is more like the 90 Thomas. Probably not as severe, If I remember that thread right there's something like 15 cards affected by the same object that caused the Thomas.
I have some 77 Topps cloth checklists that have the same problem as the Flanagan/Wiggins. It's possible that it recurred over a few sheets, but no more than a few. When the operator adds water sometimes it drips onto either the plate or the offset blanket. If it drips on the plate it would probably only be on one sheet since the plate is wet and inked each rotation, and the pressure should squeeze out enough water to keep it to one sheet. I can see water getting on the rubber blanket maybe lasting a couple rotations under the right conditions. If it was solvent, which is used occasionally to remove ink buildup on the rollers, then it might last a bit longer on the blanket. But again probably only one or two turns on the plate since the water would float it off and the pressure would push it out. I do have one card showing where the ink floated on a very overwatered plate. Pretty odd effect. Steve B |
3 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Steve B, You're right in regards to the solvent/debris on plate difference...I suppose comparing the Thomas NNOF to the 86's was a mistake, however, there ARE many examples similar to the NNOF that are not recognized, like the '63 ERA Leaders card I showed earlier in the thread, and most notably, the other partial blackless '90 Topps cards from the same sheet like these: |
I didn't explain that very well.
The group of 90T related to the Thomas are from something causing the plate to be made incorrectly. The plates are made from a set of large negatives called the mask. It's usually a bunch of negatives taped to an opaque paper or plastic sheet. The plate is exposed much like a photograph would be, then developed. If something like a hunk of tape or strip of paper was between the mask and the plate that part wouldn't get exposed and that portion of that color wouldn't print. I think the 90T and the Seaver/Clemens were both caused that way. The 90T is the most extreme example I've seen. Very sloppy work by the platemaker. Other cards missing areas of color may be similar, but it's just one way of having missing color in an area. Incorrect original Incorrect mask Bad plate Solvent/water drips Debris in the press. Too much wetting of the plate Underinking Damaged/stained paper stock Misfeed of a sheet Partial print of the sheet - Impression cylinder not engaged for the whole rotation Sheet not fed through at all I think that's it, there could be others I missed. And some of those have related errors. Debris in the press can sometimes wrap around the plate, get inked and print what looks like faded solid color. If there's too little water instead of too little the entire plate can get inked to varying degrees and will also print a light solid layer. All are pretty cool, but the only one I'd call a variation is the incorrectly made plate. Steve B |
Variants
|
1959 Don Zimmer #287. From what I've tracked, about 90% of printing has unbroken "O", 9.5% has broken "O", and 0.5% has a partially broken "O".
Unbroken "O" in Dodgers. http://www.baseballcardstars.com/zim...ds/59TOPPS.jpg http://www.baseballcardstars.com/zim...59TOPPSBIG.jpg Partially broken "O" in Dodgers. http://www.baseballcardstars.com/zim...IALBROKENO.jpg http://www.baseballcardstars.com/zim...BROKENOBIG.jpg Broken "O" in Dodgers. http://www.baseballcardstars.com/zim...ULLBROKENO.jpg http://www.baseballcardstars.com/zim...BROKENOBIG.jpg |
Zimmer
Good one Brad. Has Don ever looked better than on that card :)
|
Steve, thanks for the explanation, your reasoning makes sense to me. Do you think the other 90's from that sheet will ever be recognized like the Thomas?
Here's a Podres variant...some can be found with a section of pink in the top border where there should be orange. On ebay the pinks are about 20:1. Not too hard to find. http://i773.photobucket.com/albums/y...s2b35b1e7.jpeg |
I think the other 90's related to the Thomas should be recognized. Each is just as tough if not tougher because commons don't get much attention. (Took me more than 2 years to find an 88T Canseco to finish the set and he's not exactly a common)
But I don't think it will happen anytime soon. The Thomas was an obvious error on a really popular card and was in guides early on. The first time I saw one the seller wasn't sure of it and to me it looked like a print error. So the others would have been treated the same way if they'd been noticed. And for better or worse, pricing and acceptance revolved around Beckett and they always downplayed print errors. Obviously neither they or the standard catalog could list every difference, especially once the huge production of the late 80's began. And even now there are dealers that put minor print errors out there as "variations" often with what I'll politely call "imaginative pricing". If a major price guide began listing actual small differences to an audience with no understanding of the technical aspects that sort of thing would only be worse. Especially for stuff in the questionable category. I have a couple 1991T partial wrong backs. Player cards with the underlying pink that's not a player card background but a manager background. Are they ones where they were printed on a sheet intended to be a different sheet? Like one printed with the pink from say the A sheet then finished with the blue and front from the C sheet? Or was the pink back plate made wrong. Eventually I'll compare the sheet layouts and see if any normal sheet matches up. If it does, they're probably the first, and "just" print errors - uncommon but errors. If none of the normal layouts match they're likely actual major variations that escaped notice for years. Steve B |
1961 topps hoeft variation
Broken borders in upper left corner, one with a single break and one with a double. The double is somewhat tough to find.
http://i773.photobucket.com/albums/y...ps1898b7e1.jpg |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:56 AM. |