1982 Topps Blackless

[bswhiten]

Just sharing some of my 82 Blackless stars/HOF's...always looking for more hof graded or raw. Trying to get a full 82 HOF set. I know it is unlikely with the Ryan and Henderson being so $$$ but i'll try

[ALR-bishop]

It is a tough set. At one point I knew a few other people working on the whole set. The Ryan and Henderson are tough because of player collectors, but not the hardest to find in all Blackless ( no gray ). The A sheet cards are the easiest. When I was building the set the theory was C sheet cards were toughest. But Bs can be pretty hard as well.

The Blackless cards were distributed in packs at retail. The As seem to have showed up in NY and the Bs and Cs in Micihigan. The main sellers I used were in those states. Good luck in your quest

[bswhiten]

Thanks Al!
So do you know if they were only in wax or rack at retail? or both? I would guess that a lot of people had them/probably still do and don't know they have them...

[ALR-bishop]

I bought all of mine on the secondary market, but Stevelee, who collects and sells them regularly ( on eBay), believes they were mostly found in cellos, and maybe some from vending. He is unaware of them coming from wax or rack packs

[glynparson]

I am 100% sure I pulled a blackless fisk all star from a wax pack bought at mr. Food in Wyomissing PA in 1982 when I was 10 years old. I remember it like it was yesterday. It was the only one I have ever owned. I sold it to a Fisk collector when I was a full time dealer around 1997 or so.

[bswhiten]

Wow. That's pretty cool that you remember opening the pack and seeing it as a kid. I'm quite sure I would have not realized what I had pulled if that was my ten year old self

[mybestbretts]

Just a suggestion, I bought a George Brett PSA 9 that was graded very early by PSA and was not labeled "blackless". Sent it in and had it relabeled.
You might keep an eye out on major players.

[bswhiten]

Originally Posted by mybestbretts

Just a suggestion, I bought a George Brett PSA 9 that was graded very early by PSA and was not labeled "blackless". Sent it in and had it relabeled.
You might keep an eye out on major players.

Yea PSA has screwed it up the other way too unfortunately... Look at this pop 1 Brett. I was offered from a seller and almost bought it from looking at a pic on my cell phone. But it is clearly not Blackless.

[bswhiten]

This is the true "highest graded" example of that Brett...

[bobsbbcards]

Originally Posted by bswhiten

But it is clearly not Blackless.

Yep, I'm no expert on colors, but that looks like black to me.

[ALR-bishop]

Not even blacklessing

[mybestbretts]

I heard about the 10. Guess someone was color blind that day.
I too have a 9 and the population report still shows one 10.

[bswhiten]

I sent PSA the pic/cert number but they wouldn't delete it as the highest graded.

[Bcwcardz]

Originally Posted by bswhiten

Yea PSA has screwed it up the other way too unfortunately... Look at this pop 1 Brett. I was offered from a seller and almost bought it from looking at a pic on my cell phone. But it is clearly not Blackless.

That's funny. I think the only All Star with a sig. was the George Foster which was obviously an UER. I think it was uncorrected. It seems so obvious but hey that's graded cards for ya.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

[bswhiten]

Originally Posted by bswhiten

Yea PSA has screwed it up the other way too unfortunately... Look at this pop 1 Brett. I was offered from a seller and almost bought it from looking at a pic on my cell phone. But it is clearly not Blackless.

Look what PWCC just put up for auction...the not blackless mechanical error pop 1

[Cliff Bowman]

The Brett is currently at $46. What is the going rate for a normal PSA 10 1982 Topps George Brett All Star card, which is essentially what this card is?

[bswhiten]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

The Brett is currently at $46. What is the going rate for a normal PSA 10 1982 Topps George Brett All Star card, which is essentially what this card is?

VCP is $23.78 for the non blackless...no doubt this auction will end much higher.

[yankeesjetsfan]

Wow, I have been a card collector since 1979 but never heard of the Blackless cards. I need to check to see if I have any.

I love this forum. You learn something new everyday.

Mike

[bswhiten]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

The Brett is currently at $46. What is the going rate for a normal PSA 10 1982 Topps George Brett All Star card, which is essentially what this card is?

At $257.88 now! Wow.

[swarmee]

It's been reported to Brent multiple times that this card is a mechanical error. He should save face, pull the listing, and send it back to PSA.

[bobsbbcards]

I just reported it to him as well. My faith in a seller tumbles the longer situations like this are allowed to continue, so I hope for Brent's sake that he removes the listing soon.

[bswhiten]

Just got a reply from PWCC:

Hi Ben,

Thank you for reaching out about this. We are having our team look into this and will take action on it shortly. Thank you!

Best Regards,

Melody Simnitt

PWCC Auctions, LLC
eBay id: pwcc_auctions

[ALR-bishop]

It is probably a lot rarer than an actual Blackless version and might be of more interest to a unique Brett collector.

[frankhardy]

I am a Cardinals team set collector as many of you know. I am of the opinion that these are print defects and I don't include print defects in my collection. I am sure I am in the minority on this. Can some one explain why these are not just considered a print defect?

[ALR-bishop]

I think you are in the majority but there are a bunch of weirdos, as evidenced by the never ending variations thread, that collect recurring print defects. Sometimes if that defect gets hobby recognition even a green smudge in a baseball on a card back gets value above it's common counterpart. Sometimes those print defects bring perplexing premiums due to hobby recognition, like the 58 Herrer. In fact, all Blackless cards are themselves just recurring print defects. The Blackless cards for whatever reason gained hobby recognition

And if there is a recurring or even one time oddity on a star card, player collectors sometimes have to have it.

Be glad you do not have that illness, Shane

I do agree that this card should not be sold as a Blackless card, but rather as a rare Brett error card.

[frankhardy]

So.... Reoccurring is the key word. I don't have the print defect illness, but I do have a chronic, though not debilitating, Cardinals team set illness.

[bswhiten]

Originally Posted by frankhardy

So.... Reoccurring is the key word. I don't have the print defect illness, but I do have a chronic, though not debilitating, Cardinals team set illness.

Maybe this will help you with a print defect illness...Blackless Cardinals lol

[bobsbbcards]

Psssst.....that's a Padre.

[bswhiten]

Originally Posted by bobsbbcards

Psssst.....that's a Padre.

Haha... he will always be a Cardinal to me

[mybestbretts]

Well, you have to assume after all this time that the seller has no intention of closing down the sale of this card on ebay. All I can say is ebay has been
notified and so has the seller. I have sure lost respect for this seller, hope he makes me change my mind and does the right thing.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by frankhardy

I am a Cardinals team set collector as many of you know. I am of the opinion that these are print defects and I don't include print defects in my collection. I am sure I am in the minority on this. Can some one explain why these are not just considered a print defect?

They are print defects but they very rare print defects.

I collect them because I'm a Mets completist. Of all the 1980's hard to find stuff (1985 Minis, 1988 Cloth, 1989 Heads Up, 1984 Encased, etc) these have been the hardest, I've been collecting them for about 2 years and only have 1/2 the Mets team set.

[ALR-bishop]

The 1982 Blackless set gained recognition after being listed as a separate set in the SCD Standard Catalog. I assume they did that because the defect is scarce, but occurs on 396 cards from the entire set, and despite the defect, was distributed in packs at retail.

Another tough Topps issue from the 80s for Yankee and Met collectors are the Met/Yankee Double header prototypes, which were sold in packs in a limited retail market. Much scarcer than the 89 or 90 regular issues, or even the other prototypes for them

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

The 1982 Blackless set gained recognition after being listed as a separate set in the SCD Standard Catalog. I assume they did that because the defect is scarce, but occurs on 396 cards from the entire set, and despite the defect, was distributed in packs at retail.

Another tough Topps issue from the 80s for Yankee and Met collectors are the Met/Yankee Double header prototypes, which were sold in packs in a limited retail market. Much scarcer than the 89 or 90 regular issues, or even the other prototypes for them

Al, are you referring to the ones with the 1988 Topps card?

[ALR-bishop]

Jim---I am in general agreement with you on tough Topps issues from the 80s. For me the 82 Blackless, 84 Encased, the 85 Minis ( blank and regular backs), 88 Cloth and 89 Big Sucker Heads were all tough.

The 89 regular Double Header All Star set of 24 was pretty easy. They were mini cards in a two way plastic stand with a copy of the players 89 card and his earlier rookie card. A little tougher was the Double Header Yankees and Mets set of 24....same format, 89 mini card ( paper thin) and reproduction of prior rookie card in plastic stand up. But much harder to run down are the Double Header Mets/Yankees Proof or Prototype cards. There were only 8 and the holder has the 88 version of their cards and their rookie card. They were issued in packs but on a very limited basis

The prototype packs are the clear ones with shorter CL

[bswhiten]

Originally Posted by mybestbretts

Well, you have to assume after all this time that the seller has no intention of closing down the sale of this card on ebay. All I can say is ebay has been
notified and so has the seller. I have sure lost respect for this seller, hope he makes me change my mind and does the right thing.

Well it looks like PWCC did the right thing and pulled the listing from eBay.

[mybestbretts]

Glad they removed it, took them long enough

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Jim---I am in general agreement with you on tough Topps issues from the 80s. For me the 82 Blackless, 84 Encased, the 85 Minis ( blank and regular backs), 88 Cloth and 89 Big Sucker Heads were all tough.

Hey Al, you know I love the test sets and 85 is my favorite of the 80s by far. The variations are why I love it. I have examples of the full stats, blank vanilla, blank tan, the Acme and Fuchs prototypes that TATSR bought in the golden auction in 15 (and I still want that Jim Davenport I begged for a couple times,lol) but have not picked up a red print back yet.

Did you complete any of the variation sets?

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Reviving an old thread here. I didn't even know these existed until 2017 or so. I have a couple dozen, but I don't have any of the big ones yet. These are some of the cards I have picked up more recently along with the standard 82s for comparison. It's weird, but I am really getting into these and also am starting to notice the '84 Topps encased. All these years I didn't realize there was so much fun and affordable stuff in my favorite decade to collect!

Some of the scans uploaded sideways, and I am too tired to fix them...

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[holybull]

Anyone have a Johnny Bench Blackless for sale?

[robw]

Anyone looking to sell HOFers or All-Stars?

[clydepepper]

Ok. I'm still not understanding what makes a card 'blackless'

Most of the ones posted have the color black included on their fronts.


Please explain.


.

[tonyo]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Ok. I'm still not understanding what makes a card 'blackless'

Most of the ones posted have the color black included on their fronts.


Please explain.


.

I'm no expert and didn't even know these existed until net54, but....... I think the photos themselves aren't effected. It's the signatures, positions, and black line border around the photo that's missing.

[clydepepper]

The only 'blackless' I'm seeing is between posts 8 & 9, where George Brett's name is present on one - in black - and not in any color on the other.


It would be easier to understand if both versions of any given card were posted.

Thanks in advance for making things clearer for these old eyes.



.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

The only 'blackless' I'm seeing is between posts 8 & 9, where George Brett's name is present on one - in black - and not in any color on the other.


It would be easier to understand if both versions of any given card were posted.

Thanks in advance for making things clearer for these old eyes.



.

On most 1982 Topps blackless cards the only things missing are the facsimile signature and the the border line around the photo. On three teams, Pirates, Phillies, and Orioles, the position is also missing. On the All Star cards the player’s name and the border line around the photo are missing. On the In Action cards the only thing missing is the border line around the photo. Some of the posters on this thread have shown both versions of the card, regular and blackless, I think that is what is confusing you.

[ALR-bishop]

There is also blacklessing and gray ghosts transition cards to ponder

[Tripredacus]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

On most 1982 Topps blackless cards the only things missing are the facsimile signature and the the border line around the photo. On three teams, Pirates, Phillies, and Orioles, the position is also missing. On the All Star cards the player’s name and the border line around the photo are missing. On the In Action cards the only thing missing is the border line around the photo. Some of the posters on this thread have shown both versions of the card, regular and blackless, I think that is what is confusing you.

I think what it is, is that the term is not wholly correct. What you describe is correct for what The 1982 Topps Blackless is supposed to mean, in this instance. The fascimile signature and the photo border line is missing.

However, it is not what a typical "blackless" card would look like, where the black plate was not used, or there was some error that caused that color to be missing. We can see that in the "true 1982 Topps" examples, it is not exactly the case, because black is still present in the player photos.

So that is why the term can be confusing. Certainly there would also exist 1982 Topps cards that were actually missing the black color, which then would technically be blackless, but would be different from this specific printing error known as 1982 Topps Blackless.

[jimtb]

I'm looking for a Blackless Alan Trammell if anyone has one to sell - thanks!

[swarmee]

https://www.comc.com/Cards/Baseball/...ure,sr,ot,i100
A seller or two have also been selling blank back proofs with no signature on them through COMC.

You can see on this Dale Murphy blank back that the black line around the photo is present, while the signature is missing. Not a true blackless card, but another interesting variation nonetheless.
I think COMC is mis-characterizing the In Action cards (and I've reported it to them) because those cards don't regularly come with the signature. Those should just be listed as blank backs.

[ALR-bishop]

When I was putting my Blackless set together, one of the first sellers I dealt with was zenithium. He sells under a different name now, I think crystalentia . He had a very elaborate description of cards he called Blackless, Blacklessing ( some gray), Bluesless and Autoless. I ended up with some Blacklessing in buying lots to fill out the Blackless set. I also bought a few Blueless, posted earlier.

What he called Autoless, like the one you posted John, were blank back, without the auto, but not Blackless. Proof cards ? I bought a Reggie Jackson that way. His descriptions of all 4 of these and how rare and valuable they are were a full page in length and almost literary masterpieces in salesmanship.

[swarmee]

Yeah, I figure these are proof cards since they're missing the signature but not the black frame.