 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
05-19-2018, 08:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Steve-- thanks for the tutorial. I always appreciate your insights. However to me that still makes them recurring print defects of a sort
Darren- I had not noticed that one. 
|
|
#3
05-19-2018, 10:53 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball-c...a/7135-81674.s
|
|
#4
05-20-2018, 01:33 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
With the 1964 #102 Checklist, the easiest way to immediately see the different versions is to look at the player's mitt near his wrist. As you can see in Sliphorn's pics, one has a fully brown mitt and the other has a strip of the brown missing there. There seems to be an equal number of each version out there, so it definitely fits in with the 'printed in different series' scenario...or they were possibly both printed at the same time on the same sheet in the same series.
__________________
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. 
|
|
#6
05-19-2018, 10:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
1964 checklist 2
Thomas---can not remember if it was here or somewhere else that is was pointed out that this card has a recurring red dot defect on the back in the number. My red dot version seems to have more spacing on the front. Do you know if those differences coincide ?
Last edited by ALR-bishop; 05-19-2018 at 10:55 AM.
|
|
#8
05-20-2018, 02:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
My card with the red dot in the number on the back has the missing brown in the mitt on the front pointed out by Darren, and the defective IES in Series on the front pointed out by Steve, and the brighter orange border on the back pointed out by Thomas. Are these differences always consistent such there are just 2 versions ?
Last edited by ALR-bishop; 05-20-2018 at 02:09 PM.
|
|
#12
05-21-2018, 01:32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#13
05-21-2018, 01:49 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#14
05-19-2018, 09:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
But the bottom of "ies" in series is different, so still a different card.
|
|
#16
05-21-2018, 11:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The ies on the left is missing an arc from the bottom of the letters. The one on the right is normal.
|
|
#17
05-19-2018, 09:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I'd say we should try for a common set of terms, but I know that getting even common agreement among collectors would be almost impossible.
|
 |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| 1966 Topps High # Print Variations | 4reals | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 9 | 04-27-2014 07:05 PM |
| Are these variations or print defects? | savedfrommyspokes | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 16 | 02-09-2013 12:52 PM |
| Well known print defects. Do variations exist without? | novakjr | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 9 | 01-28-2011 05:32 PM |
| Finally confirmed - d311 print variations exist! ("bluegrass" variations) | shammus | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 8 | 09-03-2010 08:58 PM |
| Wanted: T206 Print Variations and Errors | Archive | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 1 | 01-04-2007 08:23 PM |
Hybrid Mode
