Quote:
Originally Posted by ocjack
Probably should include the 1957 Topps Gene Baker (Bakep misprint). Before price guides, I searched dealer commons for at least 15+ years and only found 2 in all that time.
|
Ha, I also came across exactly two of the Bakep error cards in all my years of looking as well. Think I paid about $1.25 total for the two of them found at different times, both in about VG to VG+ condition.
There is also the Pancho Herrer error card from Topps in 1958, another long and well-known and listed error card. That one is even harder to find IMO, and I was never lucky enough to come across one while looking through dealer boxes of commons.
But again, is the OP even going that far back in time for his listing of E&Vs? Based on what he originally posted, he seems to be cutting off the dating of his list from about 1965 to the present, which to me would radically affect any listing of truly impactful error or variation cards in the hobby. IMO, quite honestly, aside from the Frank Thomas NNOF and Billy Ripken FF cards, i would think that the balance of any "most impactful" E&V cards on a top 25, or maybe even a top 50, list would predominately be made up of cards pretty much from prior to 1970. And I'm picking that cutoff date primarily due to the 1969 "white letter" cards which include Mantle's last playing year card as one of the most or more well-known and desired errors in the hobby.
And as some others have pointed out, cards like the 1933 Goudey Lajoie, is that really an error card? How do you call something an error that was intentionally done by the card's manufacturer. Or what about cards that mistakenly used a different person's image on some of them, like the W555 error cards that showed Irv Young as Cy Young? Of course, there is also the classic and very well-known E98 cards that are considered as depicting images of Irv instead of Cy, but unlike the W555 cards, there was not also a corrected version of Cy's cards actually showing him on an E98 card like there is for Cy on the W555s. So, does that make those E98 cards of Young actual error or variation cards after all? Couldn't they actually be considered just lousy renditions of Cy, like some E-90 or W9316 player images? Those E98 card images were never changed or corrected, so they technically aren't variations. But as for being an actual error, back then, such pre-war cards didn't always use actual photos, but instead an artist's rendition or representation of supposedly an actual photo. But because such artistic renditions weren't always so perfect (think some E-90 cards or God forbid, the W9316 cards) who is to then truly say what is an actual error or not for an image used if it doesn't look exactly like the intended person? And once again, more reasons we need the OP to chime in on exactly what he is looking for and what he considers as an eligible E&V for what is "his" list according to "his" definition of what a card E&V is.
I'm looking forward to seeing his Top 25 list, at least. I just hope he ends up sharing it with us, because I can't think of any reason he should hesitate to.