Show...me...your print variations!

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Congrats Larry.

It is interesting to me how some recurring print defects gained general hobby recognition as variations while the vast majority do not.

Who is in charge of this stuff anyway ?

Thank you Joe and AL....yes AL, in my haste to post about one of the more elusive cards now in my collection, I should have not used the word "variation", but indeed called the card what it is, a recurring print defect.

[ALR-bishop]

My point was that it has in fact achieved hobby recognition as a variation, just like the 58 Herrer or 57 Bakep, and now the 61 Fairly. The thing of interest to me is why a few print defects get hobby recognition as variations while most do not

[4reals]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

My point was that it has in fact achieved hobby recognition as a variation, just like the 58 Herrer or 57 Bakep, and now the 61 Fairly. The thing of interest to me is why a few print defects get hobby recognition as variations while most do not

Exactly. That lack of continuity is head scratching. It's almost as if there needs to be an organization started, maybe the Card Collecting Coalition (CCC) that has a panel who decides what is approved and recognized in different categories. Maybe the categories would include Standard/Variation/Reoccuring print defect (RPDs). Hobbyists could submit applications requesting card approval. Then that trickles down to the hobby publications which trickles to the grading companies. Master set collectors could decide which level of set they are going to collect. I know, crazy talk...don't rock the boat, Joe. Sit down.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

My point was that it has in fact achieved hobby recognition as a variation, just like the 58 Herrer or 57 Bakep, and now the 61 Fairly. The thing of interest to me is why a few print defects get hobby recognition as variations while most do not

There are recurring cards with the same exact print flaw as the 1990 Topps partially blackless from 1958 (back), 1961, 1963, 1967 (front and back), 1974, 1980, 1985, 1986, and 1988 Topps with some of them that are just as rare or rarer than the 1990 Topps cards but are not worth anywhere near or have the demand of what the 1990 cards do. The 1967 Ed Spiezio is the only one that I can think of that has gained hobby acceptance. I know it is because one of the 1990 cards is the Frank Thomas rookie card and the epic thread on the Collectors Universe forum that gradually unveiled all of the cards affected.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

The thing of interest to me is why a few print defects get hobby recognition as variations while most do not

IMO, the manner in which some print defects have been promoted by select folks in the hobby (dealers, bloggers, etc) has helped these more well known defects to gain recognition over other print defects.

Also IMO, the greater the scarcity is for a recurring print defect, the more demand there seems to come with it. Obvious exceptions include 57 Bakep and 61 Farily.



This Lemke blog is a good example of how print defects can be promoted and gain added recognition(demand)....also, notice in this blog the proposal of how scarce this print defect may indeed be:

http://boblemke.blogspot.com/2010/10...-error-or.html



FWIW, how many here have a copy of the 61 293 Golden?

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

FWIW, how many here have a copy of the 61 293 Golden?

I do not have that one, but it is low priority for me. It is extremely rare, no doubt. There was one that was clearly stated as such on eBay a few years ago that went for less than $50, if I remember correctly. ETA: It was January 2018 according to WorthPoint. It was just a perfectly placed piece of debris on the printing plate that made the 8 appear to be a 3. I do have a 1967 Spiezio, though .

[Sliphorn]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

I do not have that one, but it is low priority for me. It is extremely rare, no doubt. There was one that was clearly stated as such on eBay a few years ago that went for less than $50, if I remember correctly. ETA: It was January 2018 according to WorthPoint. It was just a perfectly placed piece of debris on the printing plate that made the 8 appear to be a 3. I do have a 1967 Spiezio, though .

I have one-Tom Billing

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by Sliphorn

I have one-Tom Billing

Showoff .

[Sliphorn]

Notice the vertical blue line at the left. One of the three does NOT have the blue line and I believe most do NOT. They are out there if that is your cup of tea.

[e6phillips]

Here's a variation of the 1956 Haddix - red line in the upper right corner.

I've seen a lot of posts about 1956 variations but have not seen this one mentioned.


IMG_1353.jpg

IMG_1354 (1).jpg

IMG_1355.jpg

[ALR-bishop]

Thanks for posting it Eric

[Sliphorn]

Originally Posted by e6phillips

Here's a variation of the 1956 Haddix - red line in the upper right corner.

I've seen a lot of posts about 1956 variations but have not seen this one mentioned.


Attachment 396721

Attachment 396722

Attachment 396723

It APPEARS to me, after researching this card, that this only occurs on gray back versions. I have not seen it on the white ones. I have a gray one and it has the line. I think I did see a gray back on eBay that did not have the line, but I am not sure. Thanks for posting this!

[timber09]

Pretty happy I found this thread - well sort of, now it looks like I have about a weeks worth of digging through boxes ahead of me.

I stumbled upon these blank backs - I imagine they are pretty standard issue but I haven't been able to find any information on them or similar cards. Any help is appreciated.

Keep up the great work - love the content here!

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by timber09

Pretty happy I found this thread - well sort of, now it looks like I have about a weeks worth of digging through boxes ahead of me.

I stumbled upon these blank backs - I imagine they are pretty standard issue but I haven't been able to find any information on them or similar cards. Any help is appreciated.

Keep up the great work - love the content here!

Nice finds Joe....not sure how common these 1960s blanked backed cards are, however, in many years of going through cards I have come across just this one blank backed Sullivan card. Recently I came across this Harris card with the Essegian back upside down.

[philliesfan]

Here are a few ghosts......
ghosts.jpg

[timber09]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

Nice finds Joe....not sure how common these 1960s blanked backed cards are, however, in many years of going through cards I have come across just this one blank backed Sullivan card. Recently I came across this Harris card with the Essegian back upside down.

Those are great - I just discovered a 1971 Topps card that has a similar issue as your Harris/Essegian except the back is split between two players, will have to dig that one out again.

[sflayank]

What the...is going on here...yesterday on ebay
1967 Topps Punch-Outs Chico Salmon PSA 6 - none Higher! Mickey Mantle Test RARE

[swarmee]

1973 Topps - [Base] #220 - Nolan Ryan
Courtesy of COMC.com

Probably already know about this, but saw two of these on COMC. So it's a recurring print defect. Bought them both so if someone needs it for their collection, let me know.

[ALR-bishop]

Good one on a major star, John

[swarmee]

Looks like a straight color bleed, so it's possible people would think it was water damage if they were looking through a collection and found it. But finding two with the exact same blue smear pattern shows it's a "real" variation a.k.a. recurring print defect. I didn't really browse anywhere else to see if it's already known.
Figured since it was so noticeable and being Nolan Ryan, that it was already cataloged somewhere.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Found this 65 Billy Bryan card with a single white letter "B" (in Bryan) on the card front. Richard D's variation list mentions this card can have "White letters in name on front". There is also a quite small amount of white on the left edge of the "r" to the right of the "B".

My question is that since he seems to infer that there is more than one white letter in the name on front, does anyone have a copy of this card with multiple white letters in the name?

[swarmee]

1975 Topps - [Base] #5 - '74 Highlights - Nolan Ryan
Courtesy of COMC.com

Recurring fisheye print defect under the 300.

[Elberson]

Just started working on my 1969 topps set and found 600 Tony oliva with and without red “cut line” on bottom

[ALR-bishop]

Greg posted a 70 Boccabella 19 back above. Here is a front variant, one of many pinkish 70 variants