1982 Topps Blackless

[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.

[bswhiten]

I was looking at The Trading Card Database and noticed they don't call the Blackless cards variations either. They list them as a "Parallel" set

https://www.tradingcarddb.com/Insert.../89/1982-Topps

[Tripredacus]

Yes, they get to decide whether a variation is an actual variation (which means they show up on the regular checklist) or is a parallel. I'm not sure I would consider it to be a parallel set, since not all cards are on the checklist.

[ALR-bishop]

The 68 Topps Milton Bradley set is viewed by some as a parallel set and by others as variations to the 68 set. It also is only a partial set. Interestingly two of the MB cards, Cox and Brinkman, have long been viewed as variations to the 68 set ( incorrectly in my view)

There are many views on what is or should be a "variation" but there is no real standard hobby definition or official arbiter of what should be on a set check list. The process has been mostly ad hoc

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

The 68 Topps Milton Bradley set is viewed by some as a parallel set and by others as variations to the 68 set. It also is only a partial set. Interestingly two of the MB cards, Cox and Brinkman, have long been viewed as variations to the 68 set ( incorrectly in my view)

If the MB cards never came in 1968 Topps packs, I'm not sure how anyone can think they are a variation. Only makes sense to me to call them an independent reprint set, along with the football and car cards that came in the board game. A complete set would be all the cards from the board game; just the baseball would be a subset.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by Tripredacus

Yes, they get to decide whether a variation is an actual variation (which means they show up on the regular checklist) or is a parallel. I'm not sure I would consider it to be a parallel set, since not all cards are on the checklist.

I tried and tried to get them to recognize this as a variation, they refused.

[hockeyhockey]

Originally Posted by bswhiten

I was looking at The Trading Card Database and noticed they don't call the Blackless cards variations either. They list them as a "Parallel" set

https://www.tradingcarddb.com/Insert.../89/1982-Topps

forgive my amateurish question, but is there a way to tell from that list which cards are A, B or C? all this stuff is fascinating. sadly i went through all of my old 1982 topps recently and found none of these.

[ALR-bishop]

I think it is incorrect to call it a parallel set. They are just print defects, no black or partial black. They got referred to as a set because SCD gave them a separate listing in their Catalog when they did post 80 listings.

In my mind they are less of a parallel set than even the Topps 1968 Milton Bradley or 62 green tint cards.


I do have a list for the 396 card broken down by sheet if you can not find it on line

[ALR-bishop]

Have not double checked it but here is list from prior thread. See post 23


https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=115843

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by 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)"

I actually did a lot of the pricing for the first couple years of CCP, guess I was accurate. Richie used to say I wasn't always LOL