Some pretty cool new(?) 1963 Topps Printing Error/Variations

savedfrommyspokes · #1 11-12-2015, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Yes, but so is the 57 Bakep and the 58 Herrer, and maybe the 52 Campos black star or missing front border. All famous "variations".

What is the hobby definition of a true variation anyway ?

What is your definition ? Intentional change made to a card ? What about double prints with differences like the 52 Mantle ? Intentional ? Variation ?

PSA has been listing a 61 Fairly with a smudge of green in the baseball on the back as a variation. Is it just a print defect ? Who is to say ? Who is the arbiter ?

No wrong views in my mind. Hobby conundrum. Some variants catch on, others do not. If you have one, it tends to be a variation, or you want it to be

+1

Sliphorn · #2 11-15-2015, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

+1

Note the backs of these 1957 cards with "Bakep" type errors. Why have they not been as sought after?

ALR-bishop · #3 11-15-2015, 04:15 PM

Tom --it's because you have them and we don't

Sliphorn · #4 11-15-2015, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

+1

Here is an example of printing errors that sometime go wacko with collectors. These have the same type errors as "Bakep" with red paint overlying some of the white lettering. These should not be pricy but sometimes are.

Cliff Bowman · #5 11-15-2015, 05:32 PM

That 1957 Topps Sal Maglie with the over inked back went for a hefty price on eBay a while back if I remember correctly, if it's the same exact one.

Cliff Bowman · #6 11-15-2015, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sliphorn

Here is an example of printing errors that sometime go wacko with collectors. These have the same type errors as "Bakep" with red paint overlying some of the white lettering. These should not be pricy but sometimes are.

Found a couple of them. Do you think I would have any luck lobbying PSA to designate the Bailey "Side Of B/B Is Red"?

Gr8Beldini · #7 11-16-2015, 07:07 AM

Is that the actual image of the card?

Sliphorn · #8 11-16-2015, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

Found a couple of them. Do you think I would have any luck lobbying PSA to designate the Bailey "Side Of B/B Is Red"?

I doubt PSA would be interested but you never know. I have a feeling being the tip of the iceberg with these things would dilute overall interest, except for the addict collectors like me.

ALR-bishop · #9 11-16-2015, 09:17 AM

Tom-- hope Cliff does not get infected by whatever your have.

Wait....never mind

JTysver · #10 11-16-2015, 11:30 AM

The Bakep and Herrer are known as errors because someone didn't understand the printing process when they designated them as such and now it is Dogma.
An error is when there is an intentional change to a card. The 1966 Alex Johnson traded, not traded line is an error. The 1958 Yellow Letters are intentionally changed, not because of poor presswork. A printing blob or a piece of tape left on a negative is not an error, its lousy presswork.

Sloppy presswork happens in every print shop. I've 22 years working in the print industry. Pressmen try to throw bad copies away. It's called waste copies and one usually pays for it when you get bids for a job. That is why it costs a lot more for your first 1000 copies of anything than it does for your second 1000. Because you are paying for the waste in both cases before they pull any good copies.
If you ask me, I would bet a badly registered Herrera card may be as uncommon as the Herrer error. That wouldn't garner a higher price, nor would it be deemed an error card, but they both would be because of shoddy press work.

ALR-bishop · #11 11-16-2015, 04:59 PM

Everyone of course is entitled to their own view based on their own expertise and qualifications. But there is not an accepted hobby definition of any of these terms.

It is true the Herrer and Bakep are hobby lore "variations" that would not likely make the cut in today's world of Internet scans.

Errors that are intentionally corrected are clearly variations, and that is my definition from a personal standpoint. But even today, the 61 Fairly posted above, the 52 Campos black star, 52 House and the Thomas No Name may not have been intentional corrections, but they have still achieved hobby recognition. The differences in the 52 Mantle, Thompson and Robinson were not intended per se, but resulted from the decision to double print. There are examples of such differences in almost all sets. The 68 Milton Bradley cards and the 62 greenies are are whole series examples. Some are recognized by the hobby and some are not. The Mantle, Thompson and Robinson are listed in SCD

Anyone can have their own definition of any of these terms, but the hobby decides what has value in the market. Many of us here collect variants, cards that differ in some way from their normal counterpart. The differences may be recurring or not, or intentional or not.

And in some cases it is virtually impossible to tell whether a card was intentionally changed. Collect what you like.

Sliphorn · #12 11-18-2015, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Tom-- hope Cliff does not get infected by whatever your have.

Wait....never mind

Chortle, chortle.

jsrgale · #13 02-15-2017, 06:58 AM

Anyone heard about a 1963 Bud Daley card (should be #38) instead the back is #68 Friendly Foes Snider and Hodges?

savedfrommyspokes · #14 02-15-2017, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsrgale

Anyone heard about a 1963 Bud Daley card (should be #38) instead the back is #68 Friendly Foes Snider and Hodges?

That would be interesting, as the Daley card is not immediately adjacent to the 68 Foes card on the uncut sheet, but it is two cards below the Daley card......could have been a severe misprint on the back portion of the sheet to have caused this. I can't recall seeing a wrong back due to a back misprint of anything more than an immediately adjacent card. Certainly would be unique....obviously, most of the cards from that sheet would have the same wrong back so maybe someone else has at least seen one of these other non-adjacent wrong backed cards.

1963Topps Set · #15 02-16-2017, 08:50 PM

Here is a list of wrong backs in my 1963 Topps Set. Interesting first card as neither lived to see the beginning of the 1964 season!

Ken Hubbs (15) / Jim Umbricht (99)
Bob Allison (75) John Buzhardt (35)
Jim Hickman (107) / Jim O'Toole (70)
Bomber's Best (173) / Juan Pizzaro (160) and Bubba Phillips (177) miscut wrong back
Joe Amalfitano (199) / Power Plus (242)
Mickey Mantle (200) / Billy O'Dell (235)
Red Sox Team (202) / Chico Fernandez (278)
1963 Rookie Stars (208) / Bob Miller (261)
Sandy Koufax (210) / Harvey Haddix (239)
Gene Conley (216) / Bob Allen (266)
Willie Davis (229) / Orlando Pena (214)
Pete Runnels (230) / Jim Grant (227)
Eli Grba (231) / Ed Mathews (275)
Casey Stengel (233) / Al Dark (258)
Jim Coates (237) / Ron Santo (252)
John Tsitouris (244) / Don Nottebart (204)
Jack Lamabe (251) / Sammy Taylor (273)
1963 Rookie Stars (253) / Billy Smith (241)
Bob Shaw (255) / Hank Aguirre (257)
Hank Aguirre (257) / Bob Shaw (255)
Johnny Logan (259) / Cookie Rojas (221)
Jim Gentile (260) / Leo Burke (249)
Bob Miller (261) / 1963 Rookie Stars (208)
Ellis Burton (262) / Phil Linz (264)
Vada Pinson (265) / Joe Jay (225)
Felipe Alou (270) / Mike Roarke (224)
Danny Murphy (272) / Don Demeter (268)
Sammy Taylor (273) / Jack Lamabe (251)
Ed Mathews (275) / Eli Grba (231)
Chico Fernandez (278) / Red Sox Team (202)
Bob Del Greco (282) / Lee Stange (246)
Roy Sievers (283) / 1963 Rookie Stars (228)
Del Crandall (460) / Phil Regan (494)
Wally Post (462) / Charlie Neal (511)
Lou Brock (472) / Jerry Adair (488)
Gus Triandos (475) / Felix Torres (482)
Paul Brown (478) / Roland Sheldon (507)
Ed Brinkman (479) / Ray Sadecki (486)
Jim Landis (485) / Indians Team (451)
Walt Bond (493) / Joe Schaffernoth (463)
Curt Flood (505) / Jay Hook (469)
Roland Sheldon (507) / Paul Brown (478)
Bob Clemente (540) / Don Mossi (530)
Al Worthington (556) / Jose Tartabull (449)

Collectorsince62 · #16 02-16-2017, 10:45 PM

Check out the top border on these two. The blurriness is the actual card, not my scanner.

Collectorsince62 · #17 02-16-2017, 10:56 PM

I'll try a closer look this time.

Collectorsince62 · #18 02-16-2017, 11:23 PM

One more time

Cliff Bowman · #19 12-05-2020, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Collectorsince62

Check out the top border on these two. The blurriness is the actual card, not my scanner.

Those are out of register cards, I have seen several of them from 62, 63, 65, 66, 68, 69, and 70. 63 was a particularly bad year for them, I have seen some spectacular ones. Poor quality control in the 60�s.

Cliff Bowman · #20 12-05-2020, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1963Topps Set

Here is a list of wrong backs in my 1963 Topps Set. Interesting first card as neither lived to see the beginning of the 1964 season!

Ken Hubbs (15) / Jim Umbricht (99)
Bob Allison (75) John Buzhardt (35)
Jim Hickman (107) / Jim O'Toole (70)
Bomber's Best (173) / Juan Pizzaro (160) and Bubba Phillips (177) miscut wrong back
Joe Amalfitano (199) / Power Plus (242)
Mickey Mantle (200) / Billy O'Dell (235)
Red Sox Team (202) / Chico Fernandez (278)
1963 Rookie Stars (208) / Bob Miller (261)
Sandy Koufax (210) / Harvey Haddix (239)
Gene Conley (216) / Bob Allen (266)
Willie Davis (229) / Orlando Pena (214)
Pete Runnels (230) / Jim Grant (227)
Eli Grba (231) / Ed Mathews (275)
Casey Stengel (233) / Al Dark (258)
Jim Coates (237) / Ron Santo (252)
John Tsitouris (244) / Don Nottebart (204)
Jack Lamabe (251) / Sammy Taylor (273)
1963 Rookie Stars (253) / Billy Smith (241)
Bob Shaw (255) / Hank Aguirre (257)
Hank Aguirre (257) / Bob Shaw (255)
Johnny Logan (259) / Cookie Rojas (221)
Jim Gentile (260) / Leo Burke (249)
Bob Miller (261) / 1963 Rookie Stars (208)
Ellis Burton (262) / Phil Linz (264)
Vada Pinson (265) / Joe Jay (225)
Felipe Alou (270) / Mike Roarke (224)
Danny Murphy (272) / Don Demeter (268)
Sammy Taylor (273) / Jack Lamabe (251)
Ed Mathews (275) / Eli Grba (231)
Chico Fernandez (278) / Red Sox Team (202)
Bob Del Greco (282) / Lee Stange (246)
Roy Sievers (283) / 1963 Rookie Stars (228)
Del Crandall (460) / Phil Regan (494)
Wally Post (462) / Charlie Neal (511)
Lou Brock (472) / Jerry Adair (488)
Gus Triandos (475) / Felix Torres (482)
Paul Brown (478) / Roland Sheldon (507)
Ed Brinkman (479) / Ray Sadecki (486)
Jim Landis (485) / Indians Team (451)
Walt Bond (493) / Joe Schaffernoth (463)
Curt Flood (505) / Jay Hook (469)
Roland Sheldon (507) / Paul Brown (478)
Bob Clemente (540) / Don Mossi (530)
Al Worthington (556) / Jose Tartabull (449)

Holy smokes! I didn�t even know these were on this thread. Those are the first 1st series wrong backs that I have heard of existing. There is something odd about the last one, either it is a misprint or it is the first 63 Topps wrong back that I am aware of that has a different series printed on the back than was printed on the front. Every 63 Topps wrong back that I have ever seen otherwise is simply the whole back sheet was printed upside down and the card on the back is the mirrored opposite of the card on the front on the sheet.

Kevvyg1026 · #21 12-05-2020, 12:30 PM

If it's real, then a 6th series back sheet was in fed into a 7th series front

Kevvyg1026 · #22 12-05-2020, 12:38 PM

There are s few more 1st series wrong backs. I will send post when I get home on Monday.

Kevvyg1026 · #23 12-07-2020, 01:27 PM

I know that the series 6 wrong backs have the backs printed upside down relative to what the regular back should be. What about the others you have? Are the series 1 , 2, and 3 wrong backs correctly oriented or are they upside down?

Cliff Bowman · #24 12-07-2020, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

I know that the series 6 wrong backs have the backs printed upside down relative to what the regular back should be. What about the others you have? Are the series 1 , 2, and 3 wrong backs correctly oriented or are they upside down?

From what I have seen, first series wrong backs resulted from the backs being switched on the giant 264 card sheet, or Slit A and Slit B as you refer to them, and all of the other 1963 series wrong backs resulted from the backs being flipped upside down, which is understandable with how the 63's were printed. The two exceptions are the first series S. Williams/Hendley wrong back, which I suspect may be from a 3 card salesman sample panel, and the Worthington/Tartabull wrong back which must have come from a very rare 7th series front sheet mistakenly printed with a 6th series back.

Kevvyg1026 · #25 12-08-2020, 04:36 AM

If the first series backs are correctly oriented, then the two slits were oriented the way they are shown in the attached image. If the wrong backs are upside down, then one of the slits is flipped 180 degrees from that shown.

1963_series1_full.jpg

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
1970 topps printing error ? Proof ? Help	MGHPro	Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)	15	09-03-2015 08:23 AM
1970 topps proofs? Printing error ? Help	MGHPro	1960-1979 Baseball Cards B/S/T	5	09-02-2015 03:16 PM
1971 Topps Vada Pinson - Pretty Cool	Gr8Beldini	Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)	8	01-29-2015 09:03 AM
92 topps printing error?	TAVG	Modern Baseball Cards Forum (1980-Present)	2	01-12-2015 08:04 AM
T206 printing error variations...still considered premiums?	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	5	06-29-2007 08:49 AM