Net54baseball.com Forums

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Modern Baseball Cards Forum (1980-Present) (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=34)
-   -   1980-present variations (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=200148)

TAVG 01-19-2015 12:28 AM

1980-present variations
 
figured id post some of the variations ive found...or printing errors. really new to this, even though ive collected cards most of my life (20+yrs)

http://i1366.photobucket.com/albums/...psc93f6ebe.jpg

http://i1366.photobucket.com/albums/...ps8ad01284.jpg

http://i1366.photobucket.com/albums/...ps776842a0.jpg

http://i1366.photobucket.com/albums/...ps63722bf8.jpg

http://i1366.photobucket.com/albums/...ps29571623.jpg

http://i1366.photobucket.com/albums/...ps23295d30.jpg

http://i1366.photobucket.com/albums/...psa0c5ef31.jpg

http://i1366.photobucket.com/albums/...ps32c5404f.jpg

http://i1366.photobucket.com/albums/...psd69deca1.jpg

http://i1366.photobucket.com/albums/...psb051eb13.jpg

bnorth 01-19-2015 07:51 AM

3 Attachment(s)
Cool cards. Plus it was about time someone started this type thread over here.
Here is one of my favorites a 1989 Fleer Bill Ripken. This is known as the Bulls Eye version from the yellow and red spot on his arm.

The card cut from the sheet has a nice yellow circle in the 7 on his uniform and the Desert Storm card is just super cool looking.

mrmopar 01-20-2015 12:04 AM

I took a recent interest in these types of cards after seeing a number of true variations that I was never really aware of, such as the Inc and Inc. on the late 80s/early 90s Donruss cards. Of course the trick is to have enough of any one card to find anything different between them. Also, are those flaws unique to a few cards or are they on ALL of the cards?

Aside from Garvey variations to add to the collection, and he missed the bulk of what I have discovered in the late 80s/early 90s, I really didn't necessarily care a whole lot if I had these for other players, then I thought about all the extra Dodger cards I had from years of buying lots. I started going through them and was finding a fair number of both the "real" variations (* or **, Inc or Inc., letter or no letter on back, etc) as well as the print flaws that you are showing here. I found a number of print dots and ink color differences that almost certainly have to show up in a percentage of the print run, but sometimes they seemed like they would have to be unique. With the Dodgers, there was a lot of blue ink and sometimes you could see more reddish or purple tones. I noticed hats and jerseys that were definitely not like the rest of the cards I had even if it was slight.

I found a lot of print dots in the 85-89 Topps, mainly because I had a pretty good sample size of a lot of the cards. Sometimes the differences were tough to spot and sometimes that jumped out. I hope to scan some once I finish sorting them all out. It's been a slow go, as I need really good light and I have been relying on the natural light from outside, but that only allows a limited timeframe in which to work and only if it is not overcast (and I live in WA). I am in the Ws now.

bnorth 01-20-2015 09:23 AM

4 Attachment(s)
Some more from the 89 Fleer set. Rafael Belliard has a pink stripe by the S on his jersey. Tommy John has a blue spot on his neck. Guillermo Hernandez has a pink moose head by his shoulder. Tom Henke has a black strip over the A in Jays on his jersey. With a little searching all these are easily found.

bnorth 01-26-2015 10:04 AM

1 Attachment(s)
A pair of Randy Johnson rookies with print dots in the stadium.

bnorth 02-03-2015 11:29 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Here is 2 more from the 89 Fleer set. This is pretty much the only modern set I collect this stuff from and mainly just Bill Ripken, Randy Johnson, and Ken Griffey Jr.

For a person that collects the weird suff this Ripken has it all. Nice print offset, real factory saw cut, a huge diamond factory miscut and it says F*ck Face twice.

The Griffey has what looks like a womens fertility symbol on the inside of his left wrist.

4reals 02-08-2015 11:51 AM

1980 Topps Sequence
 
1980 Topps Jim Bibby #229 - (3) Card Variation Sequence of Blue Overspray at Position Banner getting progressively worse

http://i773.photobucket.com/albums/y...s0zro7isa.jpeg

bnorth 02-09-2015 02:23 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Here is one from my all-time favorite player Wade Boggs. This is a very common print error that is easily found. His 1988 Topps All Star Batting Average AL Leaders Teardrop card(on left). Notice the white tear coming out his right eye. Don't know what he was crying about he hit an amazing .363 to lead the league.

con40 02-11-2015 08:41 AM

Variations?
 
Ben, I truly admire your zeal to discover as many modern "variations" as possible, but none of these cards are true variations in any sense whatsoever. These cards are the results of print quality issues. Presses in the day ran tens of thousands of sheets an hour. At that speed, any dirt, debris, ink density, registration problem, blanket damage, etc., would yield issues on hundreds, if not thousands of sheets before the pressmen could catch it and clean/fix the press issue. The affected sheets would not be thrown away and would continue on into packs. This would occur constantly throughout the press run.

Printing is far from a precise process and all kinds of issues occur on a press run consisting of millions of sheets.

You will keep discovering these anomalies for the rest of your life.

However, your 1988 Wade Boggs All Star is a true variation! It's actually two different cards. I suspect it was placed on the sheet twice, or was printed in two runs of separate printing plates.

How can I tell?

Look at the space between the bottom of the yellow frame and his name in cyan ink. The space is different on each card. Since yellow and cyan are solid CMYK inks, this is not a registration issue (the photo is crisp and it has yellow and cyan ink in it). The only way this could happen is a change in the yellow and cyan plates... or it was two separately stripped cards on the sheet.

bn2cardz 02-11-2015 09:20 AM

Here is a color variation I found a few years back. I have a few 82 Dale Murphy's and they all look like the one on the left.

These were scanned together at the same time, so no color issues from the scanning:

http://www.net54baseball.com/attachm...1&d=1383620186

Here is a link to the thread where I first brought it up.
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=171207


I have been looking through my childhood cards recently looking for variants and miscuts. The most interesting one I recently found was a finger print in the ink. I will have to get those scanned in some time.

bnorth 02-11-2015 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by con40 (Post 1378855)
Ben, I truly admire your zeal to discover as many modern "variations" as possible, but none of these cards are true variations in any sense whatsoever. These cards are the results of print quality issues. Presses in the day ran tens of thousands of sheets an hour. At that speed, any dirt, debris, ink density, registration problem, blanket damage, etc., would yield issues on hundreds, if not thousands of sheets before the pressmen could catch it and clean/fix the press issue. The affected sheets would not be thrown away and would continue on into packs. This would occur constantly throughout the press run.

Printing is far from a precise process and all kinds of issues occur on a press run consisting of millions of sheets.

You will keep discovering these anomalies for the rest of your life.

However, your 1988 Wade Boggs All Star is a true variation! It's actually two different cards. I suspect it was placed on the sheet twice, or was printed in two runs of separate printing plates.

How can I tell?

Look at the space between the bottom of the yellow frame and his name in cyan ink. The space is different on each card. Since yellow and cyan are solid CMYK inks, this is not a registration issue (the photo is crisp and it has yellow and cyan ink in it). The only way this could happen is a change in the yellow and cyan plates... or it was two separately stripped cards on the sheet.

I 100% understand they are just print errors and not separate printings(real variations). They keep the hobby cheap and interesting for me.

I can't speak about all the 88 Topps All Star Boggs cards but the 2 I pictured are not from separate plates. The card on the right has a slight yellow print offset. In hand it is very easy to see.

bnorth 02-11-2015 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bn2cardz (Post 1378876)
Here is a color variation I found a few years back. I have a few 82 Dale Murphy's and they all look like the one on the left.

These were scanned together at the same time, so no color issues from the scanning:

http://www.net54baseball.com/attachm...1&d=1383620186

Here is a link to the thread where I first brought it up.
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=171207


I have been looking through my childhood cards recently looking for variants and miscuts. The most interesting one I recently found was a finger print in the ink. I will have to get those scanned in some time.

Would like to see the fingerprint card. I have 5 different ones in my collection.

con40 02-12-2015 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bnorth (Post 1378881)
I 100% understand they are just print errors and not separate printings(real variations). They keep the hobby cheap and interesting for me.

I can't speak about all the 88 Topps All Star Boggs cards but the 2 I pictured are not from separate plates. The card on the right has a slight yellow print offset. In hand it is very easy to see.

Way to go Ben. There's no rules to enjoying this hobby!

I took a close look at those 88 Boggs cards and you are correct. The yellow rides high on the left card creating a larger space at the bottom between his name than on the right. Also looks like the yellow is running in the lettering on All Star.

bnorth 02-16-2015 01:15 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Here is a color variation on the 1982 Topps #53 Greg Gross card. Card on the right is the normal card.

bnorth 02-16-2015 01:33 PM

4 Attachment(s)
All cards pictured are 1992 Topps blank back proofs.

bnorth 02-16-2015 01:47 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Here is another fairly common print error. 1984 All-Star Set Collectors Edition Wade Boggs #8. The bottom 1/3 of his name is missing on some cards.

bn2cardz 03-22-2015 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bnorth (Post 1378884)
Would like to see the fingerprint card. I have 5 different ones in my collection.

Took me a while but here is the fingerprint scan as well as two others.

The motivation for my scanning finally, though, came from the 1987 Topps Luis Aquino Blue Name. I came across this card today, I don't know how long I have owned this card, but it jumped out to me when I noticed the name wasn't black or white like the other 87 Topps cards. If anyone has any information about other 1987 Topps Name variations it would be appreciated.

http://i1118.photobucket.com/albums/...psoiwfpmnx.jpg

The finger print, 1992 Tyler Houston, isn't as impressive as other finger prints and it would be hard to prove it was factory done, but I pulled the card and it isn't my finger print.

http://i1118.photobucket.com/albums/...psmzvjacgx.jpg

The 1992 Rick Honeycutt has a pink blotch in his upper thigh.


Of the three, though, I think the 1987 Topps is the only true error/variation. There are surface blemishes on the card, yet the edges and corners and edges are NRMT so I am sure the card came this way in the pack as the other cards next to it in the box all looked NRMT.
http://i1118.photobucket.com/albums/...psqaks6z1h.jpg

bnorth 03-22-2015 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bn2cardz (Post 1393204)
Took me a while but here is the fingerprint scan as well as two others.

The motivation for my scanning finally, though, came from the 1987 Topps Luis Aquino Blue Name. I came across this card today, I don't know how long I have owned this card, but it jumped out to me when I noticed the name wasn't black or white like the other 87 Topps cards. If anyone has any information about other 1987 Topps Name variations it would be appreciated.

http://i1118.photobucket.com/albums/...psoiwfpmnx.jpg

The finger print, 1992 Tyler Houston, isn't as impressive as other finger prints and it would be hard to prove it was factory done, but I pulled the card and it isn't my finger print.

http://i1118.photobucket.com/albums/...psmzvjacgx.jpg

The 1992 Rick Honeycutt has a pink blotch in his upper thigh.


Of the three, though, I think the 1987 Topps is the only true error/variation. There are surface blemishes on the card, yet the edges and corners and edges are NRMT so I am sure the card came this way in the pack as the other cards next to it in the box all looked NRMT.
http://i1118.photobucket.com/albums/...psqaks6z1h.jpg

The Aquino card looks like that because of light black ink in that area. The card looks like it got wet in the area where the name is also. Could be the black ink was running low also as the black is very spotty over the entire card.

The Tyler Green card looks to have a little extra black ink to the left of his foot in the border also, cool card.

bn2cardz 03-22-2015 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bnorth (Post 1393260)
The Aquino card looks like that because of light black ink in that area. The card looks like it got wet in the area where the name is also. Could be the black ink was running low also as the black is very spotty over the entire card.

The Tyler Green card looks to have a little extra black ink to the left of his foot in the border also, cool card.

I have just learned my lesson about posting outside of net54. After getting sarcastic answers my thread was blocked when I asked about the Aquino card on Blowoutcards. :eek:

I think the Aquino is a light black that was printed on the light blue that caused the dark blue hue. Same time I is this a known variant, or just a one off printing flaw?

The Tyler Green also has some ink on the right border as well. Though I didn't get that in the close up.

bnorth 03-22-2015 07:21 PM

In my opinion the Aquino is a printing flaw. Like with all printing flaws there could be 1 or several 100 copies.

Blowout is fun to read because of all the little kid drama but little help unless it is a new highly overpriced card.

EDIT: LOL went and checked out the BO thread and it was exactly as expected.

steve B 03-23-2015 08:01 AM

I also think the Aquino is a printing flaw caused by the black being printed lightly. Topps did that a lot, more in the early 80's and 70's. And they especially did that on the card backs.

The other possibility that's harder to figure out is if the black was printed under the blue for some reason. The 1981 Fleer star stickers come with dark and light blue, and the light blue has the colors in the wrong order.

With black you'd look for the black being solid everywhere but looking like blue or another color showing through. Or blocking it entirely which would be a lot cooler, and something I've never seen. The black is weak on a lot of places on the Aquino which is why I think it's just weak black.

Steve B

bn2cardz 03-23-2015 08:27 AM

I am not a huge junk era collector, I was just sorting through cards (mainly retrieving plastic entombing junk cards) and I came across this. I originally just kept going until I realized all the names were in black or white and I thought I had seen a blue one and went back.

When I pulled it out I originally was thinking the blue was printed on top of the black. Yet the horrible surface abrasions led me to think that what ever caused that caused the hue shift. The card getting wet and possibly diluting the black at the factory may be a good theory. I did a close up and it is noticed that the Topps logo is see through as well.

http://i1118.photobucket.com/albums/...ps4igpwscg.png


I just didn't know if this was a known variant of the set or just a stand alone flaw. I find it intersting that most flaws from the time were basically just printing flaws, some of them got recognized and categorized (Comstock Yellow and Thomas NNOF) while hundreds never did. I just didn't know for sure where this landed on that spectrum.

steve B 03-23-2015 03:12 PM

The printing process at the time was mostly manual and very hands -on. Lots of mistakes could make for different appearances, even the ones nearly everyone would call variations. Like the 79 Bump Wills , someone had to manually make the mask the plates were made from. And I'd bet the team banners were made in bulk and taped into place on the right mask. A bit of confusion, or a bit of a hurry at the end of the day and the wrong one gets put on. Most of the mistakes weren't that bad, stuff like names in white or yellow is just a matter of someone blocking out the name area on the yellow plate when they shouldn't.

Thomas NNOF is a special case, Until I read the thread about the matching cards I'd thought it was an isolated piece of stuff blocking a card, or a jam damaging the plate. But it's a plate made wrong and used when it really should have seen the scrap pile instead of the press.

Sometimes telling a print flaw apart from a difference on the plate isn't easy.

Add in some sloppiness with the inks - and for some reason they were very light on black often enough that it's fairly common - and you've got a lot of interesting cards.

The light black can be
-underinking, the layer is thinner and when it gets thin enough it isn't solid anymore.
- Disengaging the inking for black and the sheets after that get used. Not unusual on multi color presses. The offset blanket carries enough ink for a light pass or two. And if you shut down by shutting off the ink and letting a few sheets run through which makes cleaning the blanket easier or simply leaves it in a state where it's not covered in dried ink for the guy on the next shift. ....There you go.
- Actual lighter ink. The ink is sort of like grease only stickier. It's a base with color added, usually some form of carbon for a good solid black. If they used a cheap ink that had less pigment, or added a bunch of base to save a few bucks that would do it too.

Steve B

ALR-bishop 03-24-2015 07:32 PM

variations and variants
 
Keith and I have had this discussion before. There is no accepted hobby definition of a variation that I know of, and some of the most expensive "variations" in the hobby are no more than the minor print defects of which he speaks.

I view a variant as any card that differs in any respect from it's common counterpart. I agree with Keith that if you look long enough you might find some print deviation in every card out there

I tend to view true variations as cards intentionally changed by the manufacturer for some reason. The 59 trade/option variations are an example. But I think I agree with Keith that DPs or cards printed on two different sheets that have cropping or other differences can be true variations , for although not specifically intended, the difference in the printing process was intended. The 52 Mantle or 62 greenies are examples.

But in terms of future value it does not matter what Keith or I think if the hobby as a whole decides that the 58 Herrer or 57 Bakep....or more recently the 61 Fairly...print defects are true variations.

I think the thread here and in the pre 80 forum are great at pointing out all the cool "variants" out there :-)

PS-- hello from St Bart's

mrmopar 03-28-2015 10:35 PM

Bought some cheap boxes to rip today and pulled this. i was lucky to even notice it, but the grey box caught my eye when i opened the pack. Sure enough, it was not right and the correct version has the black box. The rest of the back has a washed out look too, as there is a lack of black ink all around. No other cards in the box looked like this. For those of you with organized cards, see if you have this or others like it.


http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81...psdnleh3l4.jpg

rgpete 03-31-2015 02:42 PM

2 Attachment(s)
Portion of a 6 six card sheet. I noticed differences of the bottom gold foil line were it comes close to Griffey Jr

bnorth 04-06-2015 06:04 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Got these 2 in the mail today. Johnson has a print error above Expos logo on his shirt. Bill ripken has yellow circle in logo on his hat.

4reals 08-01-2015 06:36 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Wow, check out this print variation! Stray ink?

Tripredacus 10-02-2019 10:49 AM

Looks like I won't have to make a new thread, we can just use this one. Here is the rest of the Yankees errors that I took pictures of.

1987 Topps Willie Randolph printing error (back is ok)
http://i.imgur.com/fPpjrEUl.jpg

1992 Babe Ruth Collection miscut
http://i.imgur.com/2Cj7fvHl.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/B6xI4kXl.jpg

1993 Leaf Spike Owen / Eric Young severe miscut
http://i.imgur.com/llnJ6Cel.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Dp4xTvMl.jpg

2000 Topps Bernie Williams miscut (back is ok)
http://i.imgur.com/cfGuJ2bl.jpg

steve B 10-02-2019 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bnorth (Post 1378881)

I can't speak about all the 88 Topps All Star Boggs cards but the 2 I pictured are not from separate plates. The card on the right has a slight yellow print offset. In hand it is very easy to see.

That's what I thought at first. There is a registration issue, but using my incredibly scientific (Ok sort of half assed) method*, I compared the distance between the yellow and blue, and the difference is substantial. Enough that I think it's an actual difference.

*I compare the gap using the cursor on screen. In this case, the gap on the left card is just the size of the arrowhead part of the cursor. The same gap on the right is much larger.

steve B 10-02-2019 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve B (Post 1920906)
That's what I thought at first. There is a registration issue, but using my incredibly scientific (Ok sort of half assed) method*, I compared the distance between the yellow and blue, and the difference is substantial. Enough that I think it's an actual difference.

*I compare the gap using the cursor on screen. In this case, the gap on the left card is just the size of the arrowhead part of the cursor. The same gap on the right is much larger.

Flip that, the LEFT gap is larger. And still bigger than it should be.

Also, I'm way late, and probably already commented.....

Daughter #2 is demanding the computer, maybe she should get it.... :o

bigfanNY 10-03-2019 11:19 AM

1 Attachment(s)
This is I think a real error card from the 2012 Topps set. When the set was issued someone found one of these and tried to get a hundred bucks for it. No one bought it and then a few more turned up and I bought 3 or 4 for $3-$5. They came from all over the US Ca, Al, CT so it was not like it was a regional thing. I kept them all because I know hor rare it is to have a real modern error card.

ALR-bishop 10-03-2019 02:02 PM

I think this one has been posted in here somewhere before, maybe in the long pre 80 thread. Neat card

Deadman31 10-04-2019 06:11 AM

Ive asked about this on various areas of internet for a long time. It appears to be a silver variation.


https://i.ibb.co/LpR2LY1/5474-D1-B8-...-BFE0522-D.jpg

Tripredacus 10-04-2019 02:47 PM

Maybe that is just a silver version... but I wonder if it is also possible for there to have been bad batches of whatever they used to print that foil on there. Such as with 1993 Topps Gold parallels and the variations in shades of foil.

Deadman31 10-04-2019 04:19 PM

I’ve only ever seen one other silver it was a common. I’m not sure, I’ve had this Griffey for as long as I can remember.

Bigdaddy 10-05-2019 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadman31 (Post 1921263)
Ive asked about this on various areas of internet for a long time. It appears to be a silver variation.

The error on that card belongs to whoever gave Jr. the bunt sign.

tschock 10-09-2019 06:49 PM

1 Attachment(s)
I love these 1997 Leaf cards. The cards were stamped as you can see the indentation, but the foil was not applied.

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1...921/6tqSHI.jpg

rgpete 10-10-2019 03:50 PM

3 Attachment(s)
Ken Griffey Jr a print spot on his pants leg

insidethewrapper 11-03-2019 06:31 PM

1 Attachment(s)
1981 Topps # 453 Rob Wilfong ( No black line on top).

Cliff Bowman 11-04-2019 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper (Post 1928258)
1981 Topps # 453 Rob Wilfong ( No black line on top).

That’s one of the 1981 Topps double print missing border cards, there are about 25 that I know of. Some are completely missing the top border line and others have varying degrees of partially missing top border lines. Why it only affected cards in the double print horizontal rows I have no clue. There are also quite a few 1979 Topps double print cards with the same flaw, no clue why it only affects the double printed rows. I will post some scans when I get a chance.

ALR-bishop 11-04-2019 03:27 PM

I think I have 20 of them, or thereabouts. Several as a result of Cliff's generosity

Cliff Bowman 12-04-2019 08:39 PM

18 Attachment(s)
I happened across my stack of 1981 Topps double print missing top border cards yesterday, half of my stuff I have no clue where it is. Some of the cards are completely missing the top border line, others are in varying degrees of partially missing the top black border line.

Cliff Bowman 12-04-2019 08:48 PM

7 Attachment(s)
The rest of them.

Exhibitman 12-05-2019 05:04 AM

I picked up a large lot of 1996 Pinnacle Summit Above and Beyond inserts. Two of them are missing the gold embossed name plate and team logo. Anyone seen one of these before?

Tripredacus 12-05-2019 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exhibitman (Post 1936244)
I picked up a large lot of 1996 Pinnacle Summit Above and Beyond inserts. Two of them are missing the gold embossed name plate and team logo. Anyone seen one of these before?

No, but those are some of my favorite kinds of errors.

Is the embossing present but just missing the foil?

Exhibitman 12-05-2019 02:43 PM

Nope. No embossing at all. Looks like that entire process was missed. I have Boggs and a common both from the same lot with the same error.

bnorth 12-05-2019 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exhibitman (Post 1936376)
Nope. No embossing at all. Looks like that entire process was missed. I have Boggs and a common both from the same lot with the same error.

If you want to trade the Boggs I am your huckleberry.:)

Cliff Bowman 05-13-2020 07:49 PM

1 Attachment(s)
This is one of my favorite types of print flaw error cards, and what is cool about this one is the final black ink run wasn't affected by whatever blocked the rest of the printing process, it adhered with no problem.

ALR-bishop 05-13-2020 07:53 PM

Neat one Cliff. Spilled milk


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:42 PM.