1982 Topps Blackless

[jimtb]

I've been looking for a Trammell Blackless for at least 30 years. I hit the jackpot, and now have roughly two sets like this!

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by jimtb

I've been looking for a Trammell Blackless for at least 30 years. I hit the jackpot, and now have roughly two sets like this!

As someone who has dabbled in these, that is a cool assortment. Well done!

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Exhibitman]

Blackless cards are a long-time staple of error collecting; the 1982s simply have more examples.

[ALR-bishop]

What got Blacless notoriety is Lemke listed them a separate set in the SCD Standard Catalog back when it listed post 80 issues. As a result PSA began stabbing them.

They are not really variations, just print defects but the problem occurred on 3 entire sheets , A, B and C, so there are at least 396 in a "set". There are some variants among the 396 as well, even among full blackless versions.

Some blackless cards from the D sheet have shown up on eBay, but it is not clear if all cards from that sheet can be found blackless or that the defects occurred on multiple sheets or as many times as was the case with the A,B and C cards.

B and C sheet blackless cards seem scarcer than A cards. D sheet examples are apparently even more scarce. The A, B and C blackless cards all showed up in packs. I think A and Bs in Michigan and C in NY. Not sure if Ds could be found in packs or where

Agree with Adam such blackless defects show up in other years, but apparently not to the same recurring extent over such a large number of cards as in 1982. I also have some examples from 68 and 71 like those he posted.

[jimtb]

When you see these Trammell cards in person, it's clear to see that the black was just "running low" - it looks like your printer at home running low on ink. However, because I've been looking for a Trammell blackless for so long, that this is just the coolest thing to me.

[bnorth]

The 82's have a lot of errors. The blackless, blueless, and a ton of wrong backs. Has anyone seen a blackless wrong back?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

What got Blacless notoriety is Lemke listed them a separate set in the SCD Standard Catalog back when it listed post 80 issues. As a result PSA began stabbing them.

They are not really variations, just print defects but the problem occurred on 3 entire sheets , A, B and C, so there are at least 396 in a "set". There are some variants among the 396 as well, even among full blackless versions.

Some blackless cards from the D sheet have shown up on eBay, but it is not clear if all cards from that sheet can be found blackless or that the defects occurred on multiple sheets or as many times as was the case with the A,B and C cards.

B and C sheet blackless cards seem scarcer than A cards. D sheet examples are apparently even more scarce. The A, B and C blackless cards all showed up in packs. I think A and Bs in Michigan and C in NY. Not sure if Ds could be found in packs or where

Agree with Adam such blackless defects show up in other years, but apparently not to the same recurring extent over such a large number of cards as in 1982. I also have some examples from 68 and 71 like those he posted.

All that is to me one of the biggest Topps mysteries. For most, it's enough to shrug and say "Well, Topps... " just because they did loads of odd things.

But as near as I can tell, the 364 card double sheets were printed as A and B / C and D/E and F so those pairs should be equally common.

Maybe they caught the D sheets but none of the others?
Maybe if it was the ink running out it was localized to one side of the press so very few D sheet cards didn't get missed?

[lowpopper]

Originally Posted by bnorth

The 82's have a lot of errors. The blackless, blueless, and a ton of wrong backs. Has anyone seen a blackless wrong back?

Not exactly what you requested but in the same ball park...

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by lowpopper

Not exactly what you requested but in the same ball park...

Those are awesome, thanks for sharing.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Awesome, awesome stuff, guys! I am a child of the 80s. I have often lamented the fact that my decade started the whole junk wax era. For quite a while, I didn't know there was anything worthwhile to collect from the 80s. Then, I found out about items like '82 Blackless. I have a few but not as many as I wish I had. I probably need to hit those harder.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[ALR-bishop]

In my experience the toughest 80s Topps sets for me to assemble ( as listed in SCD), were the 82 Blackless, 84 Encased ( head in box prototype proofs), 85 minis in blank bank, regular back and red only back ( have not finished the red backs), the 88 Cloth and 89 Big Head Suckers . The 80 coins were the toughest but are not cards

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

In my experience the toughest 80s Topps sets for me to assemble ( as listed in SCD), were the 82 Blackless, 84 Encased ( head in box prototype proofs), 85 minis in blank bank, regular back and red only back ( have not finished the red backs), the 88 Cloth and 89 Big Head Suckers . The 80 coins were the toughest but are not cards

Al, you have mentioned those previously, and I am glad you did. I wouldn't have known about them otherwise. Admittedly, I only have some of the '82 Blackless. However, I am increasingly drawn to collecting players from my era, that I watched. I know there were great players of the past, and I have spent time and money collecting them. However, there's just something more special about collecting players from my own childhood, even if the perceived value isn't that much.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

In my experience the toughest 80s Topps sets for me to assemble ( as listed in SCD), were the 82 Blackless, 84 Encased ( head in box prototype proofs), 85 minis in blank bank, regular back and red only back ( have not finished the red backs), the 88 Cloth and 89 Big Head Suckers . The 80 coins were the toughest but are not cards

Not really cards either but I would put the 1988 Mets/Yankees Doubleheaders. The 1989's are tough (Not the All-Stars but the Mets/Yankees test) too but not as tough as the '88s.

[West]

I find the 1980-1990 era very rewarding to collect. Although some of the period pre-dates me (born in '85), I know all the players and you can still find a lot of unopened at reasonable prices. Not a huge fan of the design of most of the sets from 1991-1994 and I simply can't keep track of all the sets that inundated the market after '94.

[ALR-bishop]

James-- agree on the Met/Yankees DHs as another tough one. Even tougher are the prototypes of that test issue.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

James-- agree on the Met/Yankees DHs as another tough one. Even tougher are the prototypes of that test issue.

The set with the 1988 card, some call them prototypes or proofs but I don't think they are either. They were sold in very limited places so I think they are a test. You have a wrapper from that issue, correct?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Not really cards either but I would put the 1988 Mets/Yankees Doubleheaders. The 1989's are tough (Not the All-Stars but the Mets/Yankees test) too but not as tough as the '88s.

Back when I was selling a ton of cards in the late 90's I had a chance to buy a case of the 89 Mets/Yankees. I passed and bought a few cases of the 89 & 90 All-Stars instead. Wish I would have bought them all.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Back when I was selling a ton of cards in the late 90's I had a chance to buy a case of the 89 Mets/Yankees. I passed and bought a few cases of the 89 & 90 All-Stars instead. Wish I would have bought them all.

Ouch

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Not really cards either but I would put the 1988 Mets/Yankees Doubleheaders. The 1989's are tough (Not the All-Stars but the Mets/Yankees test) too but not as tough as the '88s.

....and I have learned something yet again! Thanks, Jim. I had NO idea these things existed. I know Net54 is largely a prewar site, but you guys are dropping some serious knowledge here on the modern board. I am very interested in these along with the other issues mentioned.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Tripredacus]

Ok back to the 1982 regular set blackless situation. Since I was reminded of this thread, I have been checking my 1982 cards (they are scattered about, so it is no simple task) and so far have not run into anything them... maybe...

So far all of the examples of the (accepted) Blackless have been either the regular player cards or the All Star versions. None of In Action, Team leaders or Checklists.

When I went through mine, I only have all 6 checklists. 1-3 are "blackless" (ie they are missing the black border around the photo frame) although they may have orange or red frame and 4-6 are normal.

#129 - Checklist 1-132
#226 - Checklist 133-264
#394 - Checklist 265-396
#491 - Checklist 397-528
#634 - Checklist 529-660
#789 - Checklist 661-792

Quick look on ebay active listings, results:
129 - none have black frame
226 - none have black frame, some have light orange frame
394 - all have orange or red frame
491 - all have black frame
634 - all have black frame
789 - all have black frame

Here is an ebay listing (not mine) that has a good look at all 6, you can definately see a trend between the first three and the second three.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/173989561330

I will try to remember to get a scan of the ones I have.

[ALR-bishop]

The Blackless "set" is check listed (396) in several sources and does include IA cards ( any and all cards from sheets A, B and C ). None of the CLs in the 82 set are on the A,B and C sheets. Some are on the D sheet and one seller has offered some Blackless cards from the D sheet but it is unclear if all cards on that sheet can be found that way or if the condition is recurring.

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=Awr9...R1zd74_RQ5XPs-


Old thread


https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=Awr9...sS1Aqn8G5PA2g-

[Fastball]

I started collecting baseball cards heavily in the summer of 1982 and I literally have tons of these cards and never noticed or heard af blackless until now. Most of mine are stored in Vans Off the Wall Shoe Boxes from that era. One of these days I'll have to go through them and see if I have any blackless cards ... cool!

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Fastball

I started collecting baseball cards heavily in the summer of 1982 and I literally have tons of these cards and never noticed or heard af blackless until now. Most of mine are stored in Vans Off the Wall Shoe Boxes from that era. One of these days I'll have to go through them and see if I have any blackless cards ... cool!

I hope you find some, they are tough, its been estimated about 100 of each exist.

[ALR-bishop]

If you are in Michigan or NY your odds are better

[jwilly]

I am looking to find a '82 Blackless Johnny Bench. Anyone knows if one is for sale please let me know.

[bswhiten]

What is the deal with the Carlton Fisk #111 In Action card? I know i have read that it was a D sheet but how does PSA have 4 of them graded??? I guess there is a possibility that some of the D sheets are blackless too? Maybe D sheet defects just not recurring like Al says above I guess.
Cal Ripken Blackless....wow

There is clearly Black on the highest graded example...

[bswhiten]

So much for collecting just the Blackless HOF players and stars.
Just picked this up Has been in a cabinet for the past 25 or so years.
They look like they just came out of a pack. Super excited.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by bswhiten

So much for collecting just the Blackless HOF players and stars.

Just picked this up Has been in a cabinet for the past 25 or so years.

They look like they just came out of a pack. Super excited.

Have mercy!!!

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[swarmee]

Say what? Big pickup for a modern variation collector.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by bswhiten

So much for collecting just the Blackless HOF players and stars.
Just picked this up Has been in a cabinet for the past 25 or so years.
They look like they just came out of a pack. Super excited.

Wow

[bswhiten]

Originally Posted by bswhiten

... 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]

The Fisk IA is not included in the traditional checklist, although it did appear briefly in an early SCD Catalog checklist, which is maybe why PSA slabs it.

I do not know if all the D sheet cards can be found with some black missing. An ebay seller that was promoting blackless D sheet cards coined the term, blacklessing. As seen in my first post in this thread, the A,C and C sheet cards can be found with "blacklessing" gray features ( transition cards where some black was still present )

I have one of the Fisk IA cards where some black ink is missing. Use the links to see bigger photos



https://www.flickr.com/photos/170999...posted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/170999...posted-public/

[roarfrom34]

Originally Posted by bswhiten

So much for collecting just the Blackless HOF players and stars.
Just picked this up Has been in a cabinet for the past 25 or so years.
They look like they just came out of a pack. Super excited.

Wow, I do remember Tom Galik who back in the day had one of the best shops I had ever been in (he also did shows in the Northeast). He had one heck of a Pete Rose collection and specialized in "odd ball" items, so I'm not surprised he had this set.

[ALR-bishop]

Stars like Ryan and Henderson and Bret are usually pricey but one of the more expensive cards for me in putting the set together was Jack Morris. I think because it was difficult to find in all blackless without any gray traces

[bswhiten]

Originally Posted by roarfrom34

Wow, I do remember Tom Galik who back in the day had one of the best shops I had ever been in (he also did shows in the Northeast). He had one heck of a Pete Rose collection and specialized in "odd ball" items, so I'm not surprised he had this set.

Awesome! Thanks for the insight.

[bswhiten]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Stars like Ryan and Henderson and Bret are usually pricey but one of the more expensive cards for me in putting the set together was Jack Morris. I think because it was difficult to find in all blackless without any gray traces

Thanks for the info Al. This is the Morris and a few others from the set.

[bswhiten]

Al,

Thanks for the pics from the Fisk post above too. Similar to that Fisk, what do you know about the Ripken? I had never seen one like this until someone posted it on social media. I guess it would be blackless-ing since you can see a shadow of their names...

[ALR-bishop]

Blacklessing was a term invented by a long time seller of Blackless cards on eBay. He was the author of the description of the Fisk card in the 2nd link above. To me it is a term to describe transition cards where the black ink was running low or out. Fred, his name, would say if traces of the black or gray appears, it is not a "true" Blackless card, but a Blacklessing card. I guess it is up to each individual collector whether to make such distinctions in collecting such cards

[bswhiten]

https://huntauctions.com/phone/image...173&lot_num=64

Wow. Maybe blackless-ing cards are more sought after than I thought.

[Republicaninmass]

Wow!

[bswhiten]

Anyone know which Catalog this list came from? This was included with the set when originally sold. And why would 342 George Foster ($275) and 780 Pete Rose ($375) be the most expensive by far as listed in this catalog? Odd to me...

[steve B]

I don't recognize that one, but there were a couple one offs or briefly produced that had imaginative pricing.

If it was close to 82, Pete Rose was a big deal, and a high price on a card considered rare wouldn't be unusual.

The Foster originally had a "signature" it shouldn't have and was later corrected. That was also a bit of a big deal for a while. Not quite that big of a deal, but a fairly expensive card for 1982-3. Now? I don't even recall which one they said was harder to find.

[bswhiten]

Thanks for the info Steve. Any idea when hobby publications first wrote about the printing error? I heard that Baseball Card Magazine had an article about the no black ink variation in 82/83?

Were some of these other print defects common in the set? I have two Babcock's that have red dots/smearing on them. Curious if others are the same or different. The Corbett is the only one I have in the set that doesn’t complete the brown line on the border.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by bswhiten

Thanks for the info Steve. Any idea when hobby publications first wrote about the printing error? I heard that Baseball Card Magazine had an article about the no black ink variation in 82/83?

Were some of these other print defects common in the set? I have two Babcock's that have red dots/smearing on them. Curious if others are the same or different. The Corbett is the only one I have in the set that doesn’t complete the brown line on the border.

I haven't really looked at loads of 82s. I bought all three sets that year instead of trying to make them up myself.

But, as a close second, I have looked at loads of 1981 Topps. I bought something like 20,000 of them at a store closing auction.
Years later I went through them looking for differences. *
Some were really prone to ink spatter, and way more than half had some sort of consistent difference, usually trivial spots etc that had been fixed.
I doubt Topps did things much differently in 82.
I made a list, I still need to find it and get it typed up so it's more understandable.


*I was, and am still considering doing a catalog that lists all that stuff, possibly with images if digital, or loose-leaf if it's printed, so people can just get the part of the catalog they really want. Since I had so many, 81T was going to be the test for the format etc.

[bswhiten]

Sounds like that would be an awesome resource to variation collectors Steve. I would be curious if the splatters and missing ink were similar on the regular 82 vs. blackless too.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by bswhiten

Sounds like that would be an awesome resource to variation collectors Steve. I would be curious if the splatters and missing ink were similar on the regular 82 vs. blackless too.

It probably will be for most Topps issues.

The spatter is probably related to the position on the sheet. I just haven't quite figured out the where and why - I haven't really worked on it.

The stray dots etc are also a Topps thing, a byproduct of Producing a lot of cards to be essentially given away. Plates wear out, and need to be replaced, Or, you run multiple presses. The mask can pick up dust etc, the same for the glass that holds the mask to the plate while It's exposed. Stuff happens to the plates (I have a really nice example of a plate scratch on a 1981 fleer)
I don't track transient stuff, but the things that are from a difference in the plate or ink or cardboard I do try to at least make a note of.

We see less of it on newer cards, the really modern presses produce the plates directly on the press from digital files, so there's a lot less of that stuff to go wrong. And probably some new stuff I just haven't seen.

[toppcat]

The Foster was a very hot card when the blackless cards were ID'd (possibly in CPU, can't quite recall) and Rose of course was going for the hits record in the early 80's. It was just as big a craze as the 81 Fleer errors a year earlier.

[bswhiten]

Interesting info back from Fred on Blackless cards. If anyone has any of these early 80's ads, articles, price guides that reference "No Black Ink" or "Blackless" I would love to see them.


"Hi Ben,

As best I can recall, the term "No Black Ink" Errors was used by variation-and-error columnist Ralph Nozaki (spelling?) in BASEBALL HOBBY NEWS during the 1980's BEFORE (and after?) I coined what I considered to be a much better term "BLACKLESS" Variations. Nozaki did not consider the 1982 Topps Blackless to be real variations but instead deemed these cards as merely "printing errors" (as did other writers in various baseball card hobby publications back in the 1980's). I find it interesting that time as proven my belief that the 82T Blackless are very much notable and significantly valuable variations and NOT the virtually worthless "printing errors" that Nozaki and other hobby writers back then denounced these great cards as being.

Ads by "JMB Trading Cards" (during 1982 and/or 1983?) represented the first published use of my coined term "Blackless" for the 1982 Topps variations. Again as best I can recall, those ads offering a number of the 82T Blackless in BASEBALL HOBBY NEWS and SPORTS COLLECTORS DIGEST (and BASEBALL CARD NEWS?). Unfortunately I do not have handy the identity of the specific issues in which the ads appeared.

The scan that you sent me of the page from a price guide appears to be from a 1980's issue of the monthly baseball card price guide which (as best as I recall) was entitled CURRENT CARD PRICES. That price guide was edited and published by a fellow here on Long Island (New York), Richie S. At least back then the card prices in that guide were regarded by dealers and collectors (at least locally, if not much more widely) to much more accurately reflect actual market prices at the time than the Beckett monthly baseball card guide.

- Fred/crystalentia(eBay)"

[ALR-bishop]

Fred really did battle with Nozaki and Lemke over what he perceived the value and classification that should be accorded to Blackless. Although I collected the set because Lemke did list it in SCD, I do not think they are variations.

Nozaki is involved in a project to update the Gilkeson variations publications. Here is the link to that effort in another thread. You may be able to contact Nozaki through that site. Also, in looking I have kept various treatises I received from Fred over the years on Blackless, Blueless, Autloless, Blacklessing. If you want to pm me a mailing address I can send you copies ( too much to scan and post)

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=277792

[steve B]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Fred really did battle with Nozaki and Lemke over what he perceived the value and classification that should be accorded to Blackless. Although I collected the set because Lemke did list it in SCD, I do not think they are variations.

Nozaki is involved in a project to update the Gilkeson variations publications. Here is the link to that effort in another thread. You may be able to contact Nozaki through that site. Also, in looking I have kept various treatises I received from Fred over the years on Blackless, Blueless, Autloless, Blacklessing. If you want to pm me a mailing address I can send you copies ( too much to scan and post)

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=277792

Interesting to see he's involved, and still in the hobby. I have his 1975 book, which along with the variations listed other places got me into variations.