Printer's Scrap?

[brob28]

Very cool Alan. Do you remember where you picked it up?

[Exhibitman]

I have a 67 like that as well. Pretty dramatic stuff when the printer flips the sheet between color runs



Leaf was notorious for it; check out the top 3:

[brob28]

Neat stuff Adam. What amazes me is how much of a premium people pay for this type of thing in the T206 "world". This type of thing (at least to my knowledge) does not command a premium in the post-war world. Still to me those are really interesting and in particular those '67's have a great look!

[steve B]

I think a lot of that goes back to Beckett.

Their stock answer about printing problems is that they're curiosities with little or no added value except maybe to player collectors.

For some of the typical mistakes and minor mistakes that's about right.

But for the more spectacular examples it's really not.

I think for T206 collectors some of it is that the set can be "completed" -at least to 520 or 518 fairly easily if you've got the money.
Backs can be had fairly easily too, at least to the level of around 12-13 of 15 brands, (Or 13-14 of 16 if you count the Ty Cobb back ) And 31 of 35 if you go by series and factory.
But misprints are a lot tougher, and add some interest.

I think eventually some errors will get attention in postwar cards. The trick is that some errors are more available for some years/companies than others. 71s missing the black on the back are more common than the same error for most years. Blank backs are pretty tough until about the mid 80's, late 80's early 90's they're common. That makes figuring out a value more difficult.

The ones I regret passing up were a handful of 72 Baseball printed on the wrong sides of the card - so fronts on the cardstock back, and backs on the white finished front. I only saw them mentioned in one small auction in SCD years ago. But the minimum bid was something like $200 each which was just way too much at the time.

Steve B

[Exhibitman]

I dunno, Bill, those damned Leaf misprints cost me 20x what a comparable condition card of the same guy would have. Not that I'm griping--they are unique and eye-catching. Leaf is so bad that I'm assembling an all-mistakes set: misprints, missing colors, wrong backs, miscuts.

I think the attraction of printing freaks when it comes to a mainstream set is that it gives you something no one else has and no one else can really hope to have. If you carefully assemble a collection of them it is really quite a sight. An added bonus is that unless/until the set gets hot, the cards are considered trash and are sold for pennies on the dollar compared to a 'better' version. A PSA 8 1971 Munson can run you several hundred dollars; I paid five bucks for this one:



And if the freaks pick up interest, wow, you can make a ton on them if you sell into the wave.

I try to collect one really FUBARed card of each type--misprinted front, bad miscut, blank back, wet sheet transfer, etc.--for each set and I prefer HOFers, just to make it interesting, but I take the ones I can get. Like, here is my 1969 group:





As for scraps, I find the ones that actually got out more interesting than the stuff that went out the back door of the factory. I suppose the 'oops' factors into that preference; I love the idea that someone's screw-up wasn't caught and is forever immortalized.

[steve B]

That Jackson fascinates me.

From all the Topps sheets I've seen it shouldn't have the black bit at the right. It almost looks like part of a card from a totally different set.

Sort of like the Milton Bradley 68's.

Is the back normal ?

Steve B

[brob28]

Good information and thoughts Adam. I like the idea of collecting a few "freaks" from each set to mix it up, I may have to start that. Perhaps the difference I'm trying to reconcile between pre-war and post is that these are not as openly celebrated by the post war collectors but premiums in some cases do exist.