Ugh, no one bailed me out on the 1986 Topps Johnny Grubb 'Hockey Puck' so I had to dig mine out. I was shocked that it was in the first box I looked at. I didn't name the error/variation, that's how a eBay seller described it twenty years ago or so.

Cliff--How exactly does your filing system work ? :)

Thx for the effort Cliff. You have a good one here, just searched Ebay and not one to be found.

I have a look until you find it system :D.

1966 Topps Bobby klaus 108
 

1966 Topps Bobby klaus 108 can be found with and without “cut line” ??? at bottom of card

Pretty danged streamlined too... :p

Hey, we have the same system!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bobby Klaus was the third card in his row, with Ken Hamlin and Jack Sanford to his left. Looks likely that Hamlin at least would have this line intruding into his card

Found it; Hamlin does have this mark too.

Well done!!!! What’cha thinking? Cut line or something random?

I may be hunting for variations that actually do not exists. Does anybody know if the 2 below can be found:

1970 Marichal #210. There are 2 versions I know of. 1 with wavy line under "SCO" on jersey. 1 with large blob under left elbo. Is there a Marichal without the wavy line?

1971 Da Vanon #32. 3 versions, One with red stripe on shoulder, 1 with finger prints left side, 1 with no red or finger prints. Is ther a Da Vanon with finger prints and no red stripe? All the fp version I have seen have the red stripe. Thx John

I'm pretty sure it's a random line. The cut lines, like on some 1962 and 1970 sheets, go all the way across. I found some 1972 footballs like this we talked about in the football version of this thread. Another member's reasoning convinced me it wasn't the cut line I expected once we found it only went four cards across.

I like these though, cool find

I believe the Marichal wavy line was discussed in this thread, but I've yet to find a card that doesn't have it. Sometimes it's faint, and I suspect some scans think it's a hair or something and alter it, but every single one I go through in hand has the wavy line defect.

Thanks Greg. It can time consuming and frustrating when you never can find a version you need. Especially if it done not exist.

1967 Topps chuck Estrada 537 snake skin back
 

Found another snake skin back to go with the 1967 Topps Owen 582….. 1967 Topps chuck Estrada 537 snake skin back

Does anyone know why Topps did obvious "cut lines" some years, but not others? For example you can find them pretty easily on 1962, and then again on 1970 Topps. Other sets not so much; I would not have known they appeared on '66.

I believe they are accidental and introduced when the mask for the sheet was made.

I can answer that one, in the sixties through at least 1970 Topps made proof sheets in 33 or 44 card blocks, when they assembled 132 card Slits they combined those 33 and 44 card blocks and used the lines to meld the blocks together. On the 1962 cards with lines visible there will always be a different wood grain pattern from the other card showing, on the 1970 cards apparently Topps didn’t want to go through the trouble of airbrushing those lines out.

In regards to the horizontal lines on 1970 Topps cards, here is a Slit that repeats four rows three times, there will always be a line separating the four row blocks. For example, Bill Hands will have a line showing on the bottom of miscut cards unless it's the Hands on the bottom row. The card under Hands, Ron Bryant, will have a line at the top of miscut cards unless it's the Bryant on the top row.

lines on other cards
 

Here are some cards from other years

Attachment 598022

Attachment 598023

Attachment 598024

Attachment 598025

Attachment 598026

more lines, 1966
 

Keough is part of an 8 row pattern, meaning 8 rows printed 3x across the sheet. So, one slit will have 4 rows 2x and 4 rows 1x, while the other slit will reverse that pattern.

The row with Keough is at top of one of the slits.

Attachment 598027

1972 Moe Drabowsky
 

Recurring faded "D"

These two 1965 Topps can be found with different colors…..would they be considered variations?

Variations are, for the most part, in the eye of the beholder.

It all depends on your personal preference. And that is over and above documented examples too IMHO.


Butch T.

One of many prior threads discussing the what constitutes a variation debate

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...n+of+variation

Thanks for the flashback Al.

Nice read.

B.T.

I was shocked no one else put a bid in on this one. I don't think I've ever seen a black ink explosion on a 64.

Nice pickup Cliff.

B.T.

Good one Cliff. Looks a little like Armus from Vagra II

I have one of these cards as well.

It's recurring! :D

https://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/1967...&size=original
1967 Topps - [Base] #244 - Hank Aaron, Dick Allen, Willie Mays
Courtesy of COMC.com

Recurring black football over the name AARON. Oh, and the line on the top border above the RUN is also recurring, and appears on more #244 cards than just this variation.

On the sheet, Azcue has Kaline above him, Angels team to his right, Bill White to his left, and Estrada immediately below him.

Another recurring variation of this card.

Larry and John....you guys are killing me. And I blame Cliff and Thomas too :)

Just noticed on this card from another thread, and confirmed it is recurring. The broken "D" in outfield doesn't appear to be too difficult to find.

I just picked up my Aaron last night for my 1965 set and I guess I have one too lol

And yours is an actual 6! Have to get the regular version now ;)

I have 13 1958 mantles with the error on back now, it’s taken me almost 4 years to get this many

Cliff I love your 1964 in explosion check these out

It's impressive to have found 13 of those, let alone own 13 of them :cool:.

Well, I don't possess any copies of this card. But at least now I know why.
Quite impressive!

I am happy with my one, and one each of the related 58 back defects Cliff helped me find or get. Still might need one. Need to recheck Cliff's list.

I do not see them getting hobby recognition as variations since I think most view them as just fairly scarce back print defects. I think it does help they extend to several cards and not just the Mantle. But when I bought mine the seller viewed it as a defect that lowered the value of the card.

I do think Cliff's posting of the Mantle back and it's relation to the defects on several other 58 cards has given them some hobby recognition, at least among the weird group of us that follows this thread

I wish Ted good luck in getting these defects greater hobby recognition so that he can cash in on his hoard. It does show that they are not rare

The dynamics on error cards is very odd

The best I can say is the sooner in the hobby it was found the more value and “respect” it gets

I have been a huge error nut for the last 6 years and for a new find this mantle checks all the boxes(if it was found 40 years ago it would be one of the biggest cards in the hobby)

Alan I talk about it all over Facebook to get new people interested me and you own them plus 3 other known guys, the 3 other guys who own them paid 4x 5x what a normal one is worth and there’s about 30 other mantle nuts who badly want one that don’t own one….think of how long it will take for 30 of them to get one probably 15 years at this pace….I’m also gonna throw as much money as I can at it when it comes to this card I have more money than brains🤣🤣.

It’s interesting to me that there is way more demand for it from guys who do mantle runs that include every mantle vs the tiny market of guys who collect errors like us

It’s probably the same population wise as 1958 pancho herrer-a but it’s on the most popular card in the hobby

As far as for hobby recognition I think within 10 years Psa will recognize it after years of high sales on eBay that will eventually be too much to deny how special it is

Here’s another I recently found, 1954 bowman mickey mantle with that white cloud line, but I can tell this one will never bring a premium though it’s considerably rarer than the no cloud line 1954 mantle….there’s probably 40 50 of them for every 1958 I see….so I just need 1 for my collection 😂 😃😃

Awesome, did one of you guys buy the 1954 psa2 mantle with white cloud line for $1000? It’s the last error I discovered….but don’t own one yet still need 1

Not me. I checked the one in my set and it it just a boring regular one.

On my Topps sets I like to add recurring print defects. For my Bowman sets I generally stick to recognized variations. As Inspector Callahan observed, a guy has to know his limits

For my sets now, none are complete I just buy the hofers and any error I deem worthy lol

These two beauties were in a lot I bought recently.

Good ones