1958 Topps Hank Aaron - BLUE background??

[Harliduck]

Here is one on Ebay right now...and no one bidding. Interesting read from the link, pretty cool.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1958-Topps-3...item5899a88197

The seller has no idea it might be special...

[ALR-bishop]

The Herrer and Bakep were recognized as variations years ago before the days of ebay scans which have revealed hundreds of similar print defects, front and back, in virtually every baseball card set. I think similar print defects now normally get very little recognition. But there are exceptions, usually the result of someone being persistent.

My source for getting variants recognized used to be Bob Lemke at SCD, who has now retired, and over time, with the proliferation of additional "finds" on ebay, Bob's definition of what he would list in SCD got more restrictive. He even took many prior listed variations out of the book. Border gaps come to mind. I do not think the Herrer or Bakep, or maybe even the Campos black star would make the cut today. But they are now part of hobby history.

On the other hand, PSA has now recognized in slabs and in their master registry list for 1961 Topops a Ron Fairly card with an errant green print
smudge on the back of the card within the baseball. This print defect exist on other 1961 Topps cards as well...but so far not recognized.

If one's definition of a variation of a variation is a card that the producer intentionally changed for some reason, such as the Topps 1958 option/trade or not cards, then none of these print defects would make the cut. But no one definition prevails out there.

I think there has been some doubt on the Aaron as to whether it was a defect in a print run, which would lead to a small number of them out there, or was caused by sunlight fading. Finding more of them lends to it being a print defect, but not necessarily a variation...again depending on your ( or someone's) definition.

Print defects are endless out there

Still, if PSA is going to recognize the Fairly as a variation, the door seems wide open. Maybe you should submit it along with information on other examples form threads like this and see what they do.





[IMG][/IMG]

[steve B]

I like that 69 rookie stars card!

Some of the variations that are recognized are indeed just printing mistakes.
And there are some that aren't recognized that are differences on the printing plate. Some from damage, some from mistakes in making the plate.
That's how I define a variation, a difference caused by the plate being different. There aren't many people that go with that for good reason. With the access to the internet images a vast number of differences get noticed. Unfortunately, lots of the ones listed on Ebay are just transient print defects. And that added to how inconsequential most of the actual ones are makes collecting them seem silly to many collectors.
The Thomas NNOF is a mistake in making the plate, somewhere along the line a chunk of debris got between the mask (negative) and the plate causing missing areas.

The top two cards could be similar, or might just be cards where a bit of paper or something got into the press and blocked the black layer.

I'm working at typing up a list of variations for 81 topps. Nearly all of them really trivial, but actual plate differences. (I had lots of time, and about 15 thousand of the things to look through. )

The Blue Aarons might be fading, but usually either the red goes first or the colors fade a bit more evenly. If they're not fading then it's just a missing color. A nice and really interesting print error, but not a variation even by my loose standards.

Steve B

[ALR-bishop]

I have a lot of respect for Steve's opinions on this stuff., although I lean to defining true variations as cards the producer intentionally changed, even though I tend to collect any significant or interesting print defects as well

Here is something similar to the blue Aaron in a 66 Mays. It would be helpful to see the back of the Aaron as well

[doug.goodman]

Here are front and back scans of all three variations, you will note that there is no color variation on the back like there is on the 66 Mays.

I actually have two of these Aaron blue background cards, and the other one is the same, with no back color variation.

I do not believe them to be sun faded.

They pop up fairly often on ebay.

Doug


PS - my definition of a "variation" involves printing different cards using purposely different printing plates. The the 52 Mantle stitching differences and the 63 cropping variations qualify, but the 58 Herrera and 90 Thomas do not. Using my own definition, the 58 blue background Aaron does not qualify, it is nothing more than a huge print dot, but I still like it.

[ValKehl]

While I collect only pre-War nowdays, I picked up this Ripken rookie with a color error/variation (missing the yellow print pass, I assume) many years ago.
Val

[Allen]

With all due respect, if the '58 yellow letter variation is indeed a "variation", in this set, then the '58 Blue Background Aaron is a "variation" as well! An error card is caused by a group of cards, (more than one) that are the same, but being different than the other cards in a set, caused by either the machine's malfunction, or the human operator's error on a paticular run, on a paticular day, (A dripped "ink spot" does not apply here). This is true with many different collectibles from all over the world, including, mis-stamped coins, errors in printed currency, stamps, cards, and etc.
With the 1958 Topps yellow letter variation, a group of cards had a different color of ink from the standard cards in the set. Also, with the 1958 Topps Aaron card, a group of cards had a different collor of ink from the standard cards in the set. Plain and simple...the 1958 Topps Aaron card with the "Blue Background" is in fact an error card, and a variation within the set! As more collectors share their "Aaron Bluebacks", the industry will in fact one day, recognize this variation, as an error card! I am 54 years old, I hope it happens in my lifetime.
Congrats to those of you who have been lucky enough to find one of these Aaron "Blue Background" cards.

I was lucky enough to secure an OC example about 40 years ago in Atlanta, (shown below). I also saw another one about 10 years ago at a Charlotte card show., but it was very rough. After doing an on line search, and reading these two threads, I know that at least 8 of these cards existed at one time. I'm very sure more are out there although very rare, and I hope people will continue to post them.



http://

It was never about the bubble gum...

[ALR-bishop]

Different folks define the term variation in different ways, and in my view none are wrong. I like the term variant to describe cards that differ in some respect from each other, whether by design or accident.

I tend to view a variation as a card that was intentionally changed ( 59 trade/option versus not, or 59 Spahn DOBs, or 52 red versus black backs). Sometimes such changes occur from an intentional change in the print process ( 62 greenies ). Sometimes multiple changes are made to get a card right ( 66 Landrum, 69 Popovich, 89 Fleer Ripken)

I collect variants of interest to me, or the hobby in general, and posted some earlier in this thread. I think I have all variations listed for Topps in the Standard Catalog. But I have collected many variants not in the book, including this blue Aaron

But I agree with Doug, who also has one, that it is unintentional printing error, and I view my 58 Herrer , 57 Bakep, 3 different 59 H Sullivans, 4 different 52 Campos cards as similar print defects and not "true" variations.
But they all have historical hobby recognition as variations in the hobby.

With the internet and ebay, it is now clear there are hundreds of such print defects in virtually every major baseball set ...and new ones turn up everyday....many more distinctive and interesting than those above. But they have little or no hobby recognition or interest

Recently George Vrechek has written articles on DP printing /cropping differences in several 1963 and 1956 cards. Such differences in the DP 52 mantle. Robinson and Thompson were listed as variations in the last editions of SCD

I have come to not worry whether they are print defects or variations. They are variants and if they have hobby recognition or are interesting to me, I collect them. But their value is determined by hobby recognition as evidenced by the ridiculous run up in value of the 61 Topps Fairly with the green smudge in the bottom of the baseball on the back after PSA include it as a variation in it;s Registry master list ( But I confess I have one of those too )

If you do a search for Topps Variations or Errors on ebay it is obvious that there are numerous recurring and unreported print/color defects or differences/variants in every Topps set, at least through 1994 when I stopped trying to accumulate any that were not catalogged. The internet and ebay have greatly facilitated both finding and sharing print oddities over what was the case earlier in the hobby


Nice to meet another variations collector Allen