1971 Topps Blue Border Steve Garvey?

[swarmee]

The Beckert looks like a "Cyan Color Progression Proof." The Garvey just looks like it missed one color pass, but the distinctive one for this issue. Any possibility it's just sun faded or altered?

[Mark70Z]

I believe it's a progression proof.

[mrmopar]

Is that yours? That is cool either way.

Originally Posted by Mark70Z

I believe it's a progression proof.

I did buy it. It was quite hard to pull the trigger at that price, but I really liked the look of it and figure that there can't be too many like that out there, whether it be a printing proof, printing error or other. If it turns out to be fake, well that would just plain suck, but it won't put me in the poor house!

[onlychild]

Here is a 1971 Garvey "no yellow" and a close up of the ink pattern. I had it graded by Mike Baker at GAI years ago to protect it...GAI 7 No Yellow.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by onlychild

Here is a 1971 Garvey "no yellow" and a close up of the ink pattern. I had it graded by Mike Baker at GAI years ago to protect it...GAI 7 No Yellow.

That Magenta looks awful pink and the black has that grey tint. Looks like it could be faded. I have not tried a 71 card but yellow is very easy to remove on several years of Topps cards.

[Mark70Z]

Originally Posted by mrmopar

Is that yours? That is cool either way.

I did buy it. It was quite hard to pull the trigger at that price, but I really liked the look of it and figure that there can't be too many like that out there, whether it be a printing proof, printing error or other. If it turns out to be fake, well that would just plain suck, but it won't put me in the poor house!

Curt,

Yes; the '71 Brooks is mine and looks very similar to your example. I did pulled the card out since it l was similar to the example you pictured. The card I pictured does have a finished back. Also, I do have one other proof of the Brooks Robinson '71 Topps card w/less color present and it also has a finished back. I guarantee the Garvey you pictured is the real deal.

Glad you could add this card to your Garvey collection; it is a good one. It's likely that's the only one of its kind. These type of items are some of my favorites to pick up for my PC.

Congrats on the pickup!

[ksfarmboy]

Awesome Brooksie Mark! Could you post the other one too?

[Mark70Z]

Originally Posted by ksfarmboy

Awesome Brooksie Mark! Could you post the other one too?

Clint,

Sure; here you go.

[Exhibitman]

As a fan of error cards from this set, these are pretty damned amazing! Too rich for my collection but fascinating.

FWIW I got started with these when I pulled a green-only back from a pack in 1971.

[ksfarmboy]

Originally Posted by Mark70Z

Clint,

Sure; here you go.

Those are incredible! Thanks for sharing!

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by swarmee

The Beckert looks like a "Cyan Color Progression Proof." The Garvey just looks like it missed one color pass, but the distinctive one for this issue. Any possibility it's just sun faded or altered?

I would say the Steve Garvey is 100% legit. Sun fading would never remove the black and leave the other colors perfect. Also can't imagine any technique that could remove the black ink and leave the cyan under it.

[brob28]

Not sure I like the way that flip looks, appears to me the entire right side is cracked.

[Cliff Bowman]

The only problem I have with either one being a proof is that both of them have finished backs. Here is the back of the Beckert.

[swarmee]

Yeah, that's odd; I expected a blank back on the Beckert.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

The only problem I have with either one being a proof is that both of them have finished backs. Here is the back of the Beckert.

The word "proof" is thrown around like the word "error" and means something different to everyone. I know they both have specific meanings but are rarely used correctly.

[Mark70Z]

Originally Posted by bnorth

The word "proof" is thrown around like the word "error" and means something different to everyone. I know they both have specific meanings but are rarely used correctly.

How bout this, it's an authentic card, with a finished back and an unfinished front. Personally, I just use "proof" when it's an unfinished card; I'm probably using it wrong, but that's just how I see it. I'm unsure if we can really know for sure if Topps used an item as a proof even if they say they did.

[ALR-bishop]

As I recall Bob Lemke reported that the 3 famous 1960 cards of Hadley, Cimoli and Theoneberry on team different from those in the issued set that he saw had regular backs. Would that make them variations rather than proofs ?

Generally agree that the only way to be sure you have a blank back proof is if front differers from regular card like is the case with the well known 77 and 84 catalog proofs

But Topps Vault has issued a bunch of blank back serial or progressive proofs

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Mark70Z

How bout this, it's an authentic card, with a finished back and an unfinished front. Personally, I just use "proof" when it's an unfinished card; I'm probably using it wrong, but that's just how I see it. I'm unsure if we can really know for sure if Topps used an item as a proof even if they say they did.

I usually go with the technical term "really cool" or "awesome" myself. No matter what anyone wants to call them they are the stuff I really like to collect.