Printer's Scrap?

[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.