1961 Topps #405 Lou Gehrig Benched "black tooth" variation?

[swarmee]

I figured a highly visible recurring print defect of a Hall of Famer in a commonly collected set would have more known about it. But you're right, the fact that one of the cards has articulated teeth and the other has a straight line of white teeth, makes me think that this was a change during the printing process, not just a print defect.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Seems like the print variations of the HOFers are tougher to discover as most collectors typically do not have multiple copies of these higher dollar HOFer cards to compare one copy to another like they would be able to do with a lesser valued common which they are more likely to have multiples of.

[JollyElm]

Personally, I highly doubt it was a deliberate change at the time of printing. It's too insignificant of a detail to have been altered, especially with the stone age printing equipment that was used at the time. My guess is that the spaces between the teeth were such a tiny detail that they came and went depending on the amount of black ink (and possibly other colors) on the plates and how good everything was aligned during the printing process. The 'black tooth' versions were most likely the result of ink pooling in that area, because the amount seen there seems to vary pretty greatly.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Personally, I highly doubt it was a deliberate change at the time of printing. It's too insignificant of a detail to have been altered, especially with the stone age printing equipment that was used at the time. My guess is that the spaces between the teeth were such a tiny detail that they came and went depending on the amount of black ink (and possibly other colors) on the plates and how good everything was aligned during the printing process. The 'black tooth' versions were most likely the result of ink pooling in that area, because the amount seen there seems to vary pretty greatly.

Hard to tell from a normal scan, but random recurring dots are usually from flaws in the mask or ones that happen during the making of the plate.

White spots or non-printed areas are "stuff" blocking part of the plate from being exposed during the process of making it.
Spots in color are either stuff on the original art, or on the negative or in the air between the art and the camera. If it's multiple colors it's usually from stuff on the art.

I spent a nice couple days in the department with a bottle of touchup fluid (Like whiteout, but reddish) After the cameraman photographed an entire job after a bit too much of a liquid lunch one day. Big negatives applied to a roughly 24x36 piece of plastic paper, and they all had probably hundreds of white flecks in the negatives. Apparently he'd decided to sweep up the floor and stirred up some dust right after lunch and everything he did for the nest 4 hours was horrible.
Four guys in the department usually, and they had the platemaker and me doing the fixing as well and it still took two days to fix it all.


Since the Topps cards for many years were in two or more places on the plate I'm fairly sure there will be at least 2-3 versions of each card. Add in multiple sets of plates and the occasional bit of wear and there could easily be more.

Steve B

[ALR-bishop]

Good points as usual Steve on the printing process. I do not know if this card was a DP, but it seems most DP cards do have differences, sometimes just cropping differences, biut sometimes more. Well known examples are the Mantle, Robinson and Thompson cards from the 52 set. In an SCD article George Vrechek highlighted several 63 DPs with cropping differences, and there are a bunch in the 56 set he identified as well. And all the Topps CL cards from the 60s sets were DPs and have differences.

I tend to view those differences a true variations since though not intended specifically, they do result from intentional differences in how the card was printed. But since there is no real hobby standard , to each their own. Hobby recognition in general is what causes value to rise, but I enjoy finding them or hearing about discoveries by others and then seeking them out. It's a fun part of the hobby for me and glad the OP brought it up