1961 topps with green inside baseball

ALR-bishop · #1 05-27-2013, 10:39 PM

Another good catch Cliff. What should PSA do ?

Cliff Bowman · #2 05-28-2013, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Another good catch Cliff. What should PSA do ?

If PSA only recognized the version of the 1961 Topps Ron Fairly with the whole bottom part of the baseball neatly filled in with green ink up to the stitches there wouldn't be a problem, but when they allowed any version with just a random smattering of green ink in the baseball it opened up a can of worms.

ALR-bishop · #3 05-28-2013, 09:10 AM

That may have given them an out but I have seen a DeMint with a pretty full bottom.... as bad as that sounds

Northviewcats · #4 06-01-2013, 08:51 AM

Went through a lot of 1961 Topps this morning and found a Turley with the Green smudge.

Another fun thing to look for when buying lots on eBay.

Best regards,

Joe

Tomman1961 · #5 06-01-2013, 11:37 AM

I have to agree with Cliff. I see far to many print differences to call them varitions. When I was collecting the set, the variations listed were mainly the checklists. The green bleed on these, and print defects where dust landed on the plate and no ink, is getting to be a bit much to list them all as variations.

doug.goodman · #6 06-03-2013, 03:25 AM

I am happy to report than a grand total of none of my 598 different Topps 1961 baseball cards have even a hint of green inside the baseball on the back.

These are print dots, not variations.

Give me 50 different copies of a specific card from this set, and I will show you 50 different "variations" based on similar happenings in the print process.

I'm happy for the ebay sellers who make money selling these "newly discovered variations" to those who weren't around for PT Barnum to sell things to.

I'm also happy that the people who get paid for their opinions are deciding to note these differences, and not because they make more money doing so, I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

Happy collecting,
Doug

Tomman1961 · #7 06-04-2013, 12:51 PM

My first older set I completed was the 1961 set. The year I was born. I have the Santo rookie card with green. So if I get this graded I can sell it for a bazillion dollars? I would replace it with a Santo without the green. Is it that easy for me to turn a few bucks? If so, I will. But I think this variation stuff is getting nuts. As I posted before-Luis or Louis is a variation. Ink drool is not a variation. Color difference is not a variation. We are talking about a time when the cards were printed and no one really cared about a piece of dust eliminating a letter. But if my Santo is worth it- I will grade it and sell it, and buy one without this green. This is nuts. If I go through all my 19671 cards I just might be able to retire because of a green spot

savedfrommyspokes · #8 06-04-2013, 01:08 PM

I would certainly flip it....I do not even think I would get it graded, just sell it as is. I sold one of my extra ungraded Fairly green smudge cards recently for $200, so there is not telling what one of the most popular cards in the 61 set with a green smudge might sell for. On top of that, I have yet to see a Santo with a green smudge, so the sky is the limit.

As Doug has mentioned, some ebay sellers are profiting from these cards....the only reason these GS cards are selling and some ebay sellers are profiting is because there are some collectors willing to buy these GS cards. Whether these GS cards are or are not considered variations by individual collectors, some collectors have placed their own value on them, likely due to their (perceived) scarcity.

Could you also post a scan of your Santo?

ALR-bishop · #9 06-04-2013, 02:45 PM

Doug---even over here in Ireland they know these are "blobs", not dots

JollyElm · #10 06-04-2013, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomman1961

My first older set I completed was the 1961 set. The year I was born. I have the Santo rookie card with green. So if I get this graded I can sell it for a bazillion dollars? I would replace it with a Santo without the green. Is it that easy for me to turn a few bucks? If so, I will. But I think this variation stuff is getting nuts. As I posted before-Luis or Louis is a variation. Ink drool is not a variation. Color difference is not a variation. We are talking about a time when the cards were printed and no one really cared about a piece of dust eliminating a letter. But if my Santo is worth it- I will grade it and sell it, and buy one without this green. This is nuts. If I go through all my 19671 cards I just might be able to retire because of a green spot

Well said.
A 'variation' is when a card company or the printer makes a purposeful change (a variety of unintended mistakes also count) to the layout of the card during or in between print runs. Name changes, adding additional information (like a player being traded or optioned) or changes to the layout and/or color scheme fit the bill. Stray flecks of color or overly inked areas do not.

If you followed the logic of many ebay sellers, then you would literally have to own every single card printed that year to have all of the so-called variations. If the same card is printed a million times with the same printing plates, there are still going to be minor differences to each and every strike. Some might say they're as unique as fingerprints.

Every time I read another idiot on ebay proclaiming "Newfound Variation!! Rare!! Look!!!" for a stray bit of color on the front of a card, I simply block their auctions from appearing in my searches.

buymycards · #11 06-04-2013, 05:00 PM

I'm looking at my SCD right now. #492 Fairly is not listed as a variation. So, why did PSA slab it as a variation but they won't slab any of the others?

Inconsistent.

steve B · #12 06-05-2013, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Well said.
A 'variation' is when a card company or the printer makes a purposeful change (a variety of unintended mistakes also count) to the layout of the card during or in between print runs. Name changes, adding additional information (like a player being traded or optioned) or changes to the layout and/or color scheme fit the bill. Stray flecks of color or overly inked areas do not.

If you followed the logic of many ebay sellers, then you would literally have to own every single card printed that year to have all of the so-called variations. If the same card is printed a million times with the same printing plates, there are still going to be minor differences to each and every strike. Some might say they're as unique as fingerprints.

Every time I read another idiot on ebay proclaiming "Newfound Variation!! Rare!! Look!!!" for a stray bit of color on the front of a card, I simply block their auctions from appearing in my searches.

So if a card is a doubleprint on the sheet and you can tell the two apart would that count?

Or if there were two plates and one had a small flaw but the other didn't?
How about if the plate was damaged and then replaced with a new one?

Or if a completely different ink was used?

Or a different type of cardboard?

Yeah, a lot of what those Ebay guys find are printing mistakes. But there's a load of stuff that isn't. Sometimes it's hard to tell if it's a printing error, or just where in production a mistake happened. Was that bit of dust something that got into the press and stayed for maybe only a handful of sheets? Or was it in when the plate was exposed and every card fro that plate has the flaw. Or was it between the art and camera when the negative was taken and every card should have it but it got noticed and fixed?

Just where do you draw the line?

Aside from not knowing in some cases where a small error came from I have examples of all the stuff above. Some of it can't even be scanned.

Like 93 Upper deck has 3 different sorts of back. All over gloss, gloss only on the photo, and gloss over the photo covered with a lighter overall layer.
Obviously it was done as a deliberate change.

I have an 81 fleer where there's a red line across part of the card. Not an ink smear, but from a scratch on the plate.
Obviously not deliberate.

Or this pair? Totally normal, but one is like the 62 green tints. Deliberate? Just a mistake?

Steve B

4reals · #13 06-06-2013, 12:52 PM

Ah, the classic grudge match is back, variation vs. glorified print dot!

It's fun to read about this topic every time it gets brought up. Nobody will ever completely agree on the exact definition but the debate over the semantics is never tiring in my eyes and is what I believe helps make the collecting community vigorous and healthy.

As for my personal opinion, I use three categories.

Errors
Variations
Anomalies

Of course, the line is blurry between each so it really comes down to personal interpretation.

An error in my eyes, regardless of what SCD or Beckett says, is a correction made by the manufacturer to present what was actually intended. I limit this to the design elements and their composition and do not include execution during the printing process. Examples would be misspelling, reversed negatives, airbrushings, etc.

A variation as I see it, is a MAJOR deviation from the manufacturers intention occurring DURING the printing process, having nothing to do with the design layout. These major types of deviations are supposed to be pulled out of the delivery tray by the pressman once the inconsistency is realized to ensure quality control, however, some fall through the cracks and not all of them are caught, finding their way into distribution. Your '82 blackless cards or '73 partial border cards would fall under this category. As would the '80 redless banners that have frequented saved searches recently. Cards depicting different levels of ghosting (poor registration) would. Personally, I would consider the famous Herrera error and 1990 Frank Thomas NNOF rookie error as variations. Variations that may not have necessarily been printing mistakes but rather a way for the manufacturer to save money on materials are cards with different types of card stock (white back/gray back) or '52 Topps red/black ink backs.

With this in mind, an error card can have multiple variations and a correct card can have multiple variations. Cards possessing recognized variations on both the error and correct I call "compound" cards. An example of this would be the '91 Topps Fernando Valenzuela #80. Both the error and correct (with/without diamond) can be found with a bold and faint topps watermark logo on back.

An anomaly in my eyes is a card possessing a MINOR print flaw that occurred during the printing process or cutting process which gives very few examples a distinction but was not considered drastic enough to be removed by the pressman from the delivery tray during quality control prior to distribution. Examples would be hickeys/fisheyes/donuts, dust specks, low ink, miscuts, solution spills, ink blob/drool, etc. I would consider the '61 Greens anomalies.

There will always be exceptions to these rules but they are the guidelines I've found work best for me.

Others have voiced their displeasure with sellers on ebay using improper terminology but I would say since there is no clear cut definition it only makes sense for sellers to fit as many of the buzz words in their title as possible to reach as many different potential buyers as possible. I, for one, appreciate the key words being there even if it's not how I would describe it, at least then I'm given the opportunity to decide one way or the other.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
1961 Topps Baseball lot of 37 different	vintagetoppsguy	Live Auctions - Only 2-3 open, per member, at once.	7	01-28-2013 08:58 PM
How many cards inside a 1961 Fleer Basketball unopened wax pack ?	probstein123	Everything Else, Football, Non-Sports etc.. B/S/T	1	03-18-2011 09:12 PM
WTB: 1973 and 1975 Topps Baseball HOFERs Needs List Inside	vintagegem2	1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T	0	03-12-2011 06:44 PM
F/T: 1961 Topps baseball	SmokyBurgess	1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T	1	02-09-2011 08:41 AM
WTB 1961 Topps Baseball Lot	Archive	Everything Else, Football, Non-Sports etc.. B/S/T	1	08-03-2007 03:12 PM