![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The Roe variation, and the similar Erskine variation in the same set, are listed in the SCD Standard Catalog and discussed by Bob Lemke on his Blog. They seem to involve errant autos from cards above on the sheets they were on
Last edited by ALR-bishop; 09-04-2015 at 05:04 PM. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Green print is over the black mark scribble which is dull. I'm glad I saved it
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Normal back
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Are you certain the black is legitimately under the green text?? With the relative 'slickness' of the green ink as compared to the super absorbency of the dull, non-coated cardboard, it seems likely the card was written on by a kid with a magic marker and it isn't some bizarre printing variation. That would account for the black marker being murky on top of the green words. Occam's razor and all that. Plus, there was no black ink (black plate) involved in the printing of 1975 Topps backs.
__________________
All the cool kids love my YouTube Channel:
Elm's Adventures in Cardboard Land ![]() https://www.youtube.com/@TheJollyElm Looking to trade? Here's my bucket: https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706 “I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.” Casey Stengel Spelling "Yastrzemski" correctly without needing to look it up since the 1980s. Overpaying yesterday is simply underpaying tomorrow. ![]() |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I have found that a 1200dpi or better scan works much better than a small 10X loupe. Also compare the black ink on the back of your card to the black ink on the front of another 75 Gibson card under a cfl, halogen, and black light to make sure the ink reacts the same under those 3 different light sources. Some swear by only black lights, I find them to be the least useful unless the card was altered by a modern marker/ink.
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
2 more scans
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Scan quality is greatly reduced when posting. Do you have a cfl bulb in a dark room? If so go in there and hold the front of the card right by the bulb and tilt it back and forth and notice how the black is still a nice dark black. Now do the same with the black on the back. The blacks front/back should look EXACTLY the same when doing this. Most black markers will look more greyish than dark black when you do this.
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
last one
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Somewhere here there is a thread with the same issue involving a different card. If I can remember the card I will try to find the thread
|
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
1966 Topps High # Print Variations | 4reals | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 9 | 04-27-2014 06:05 PM |
Are these variations or print defects? | savedfrommyspokes | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 16 | 02-09-2013 11:52 AM |
Well known print defects. Do variations exist without? | novakjr | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 9 | 01-28-2011 04:32 PM |
Wanted: T206 Print Variations and Errors | Archive | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 1 | 01-04-2007 07:23 PM |