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

[ALR-bishop]

Congrats on the House Brian

[mrmantlecollector]

Hank aaron 1958 blue background.

[ALR-bishop]

I have one of those, and I think a couple of other guys here have one. There has been some debate about whether these are being "manufactured". If they were recurring print defects you would think other cards like them from the Aaron sheet would show up. Here is a similar Mays that I think could be a fading due to light issue

[Cliff Bowman]

Here is the aforementioned 1986 Topps Mike Flanagan printing error card and the card next to it on the printing sheet, 1986 Topps Alan Wiggins with the same flaw. Thank goodness for that mid eighties mass production and poor quality control. Oddly enough, both players met unfortunate and untimely demises after their careers were over.

[ALR-bishop]

Neat combo Cliff

[4reals]

Yes Cliff, very nice!

I understand the excitement surrounding the 90 Thomas NNOF card (star RC) and the missing ink is in an important location of the card (name). However, when you simplify it down to the type of error it is (similar in nature to the 86's shown) it really shouldn't be recognized by the publications as a legit variation. In theory, they should then go and add all of the other examples we've found over the years and that just is never going to happen. It would be easier to strip the NNOF Thomas of its master set residence but I'm afraid the reaction at this point would not be positive. Logically it doesn't make sense to me but I don't see that it's ever going to change.

[ALR-bishop]

We need to elect someone to be in charge of this hobby. We are in a sate of anarchy

[steve B]

Originally Posted by 4reals

Yes Cliff, very nice!

I understand the excitement surrounding the 90 Thomas NNOF card (star RC) and the missing ink is in an important location of the card (name). However, when you simplify it down to the type of error it is (similar in nature to the 86's shown) it really shouldn't be recognized by the publications as a legit variation. In theory, they should then go and add all of the other examples we've found over the years and that just is never going to happen. It would be easier to strip the NNOF Thomas of its master set residence but I'm afraid the reaction at this point would not be positive. Logically it doesn't make sense to me but I don't see that it's ever going to change.

The 90 Thomas and the Wiggins/Flanagan pair shown are entirely unrelated errors.

The Wiggins/Flanagan is from water or solvent dripping onto the plate or blanket in the press. It's a fairly common error for the era, but finding a matched pair is very cool. It's also the sort of error that is probably unique or nearly so.

The Thomas is from some debris, probably tape blocking some of the black plate from being exposed when it was being made. A printing error, but a recurring one. Probably uncommon since the plate would have been replaced pretty quickly. I'd call it a variation, since it's the result of a different plate. Others might not because of the unintentional nature of the error.

Steve B