Slightly OT - 1982 Topps Blackless

[insidethewrapper]

Is there an up-to-date error and variation book on the market ? I have one from I think the '80s.

[ALR-bishop]

I only collect Topps and Fleer baseball, and the principal sources I have used are the SCD big book and a publication by a guy named Gilkeson, that was updated through 1995. The latter covers basketball, football and baseball and has a lot of stuff not covered in the traditional catalogs ( but a lot of the listings are printing defects and errors, as well as variations).

With all the selling and scans on the internet/ebay today, there has been an explosion in listed errors, variations and print defects. But the most sought after ones are the ones that make it into the master set lists on the registry or in one of the major catalogs. I like the SCD Standard Catalog Of Baseball Cards, myself.

Doug Goodman on this board ( posted in this this thread) has a lot of expertise in this area.

[doug.goodman]

While I do like to think that I have accumulated a bit of knowledge of Topps baseball issues and their vriations. I would bet that he is among the many people who leave me in the dust when it comes to level of expertise.

I am also a fan of the SCD catalog. The Gilkeson book has variations that aren't listed in the catalog. I agree with most of Gilkeson's variations (that I have seen) but I consider a few of them to be printing errors not true variations.

I agree with Al that the 4 "variations" in the blackless set are not variations, but are glorified print dots.

I'm happy to be involved in a hobby where people can collect what they choose to collect, and because of that I choose to consider the blackless set complete at 396 cards.

Simiilarly, I do not consider the Herrera 1958 "variation" to be a variation, although if I find one cheap, I will buy it :-)

Have fun, I suppose that's the best rule to follow.

Doug

[ALR-bishop]

I agree with Doug on the blackless set being done at 396. The 4 proposed Blackless "variations" all recently showed up for sale on ebay by the seller who touts them in the description in this thread. All sold for large sums but not to the same buyer, so there may never be a master 400 set . I actually have one of the 4 and a couple of other print differences in a couple of my other cards from that set

We need a Variation Convention

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

We need a Variation Convention

To my way of thinking, it's pretty easy :

Are there DIFFERENCES in the card that are explained by a DIFFERENT printing of the card?

I predict a semantics arguement.

The 1952 Mantle is a perfect example, because I don't think it's generally considered to have a variation. There are obvious DIFFERENCES on the card that could only happen with two completely different printings of the card.

The newly discovered 1963 variations have cropping differences that prove there were two completely different prints of each card.

The 1958 Herrera is an inking issue, NOT a different version of the card. It's nothing but a print dot.

I don't actually like the fact that 1982 Blackless are called variations, they are in fact, just like the Herrara, print mistakes, BUT because the autograph is completely missing instead of just random spots (like when there are blank spots in borders, or parts of letters missing like the Herrera) I grudgingly go with it.

If I ever have 15 copies of the 1952 Mantle, and I want to buy a new house. I will have each of them graded by some schmuck with a degree in plastic holder technology, and then I will point out every little print dot as a "SuPeR RaRe variation/ ErRoR!!!!!!!" in my ebay listing.

Can one of you guys slap some sence into me, if I ever go that far over the edge?

Doug

[steve B]

But a variation doesn't have to be a different printing. The missing top line variations from 81 Topps are just from different places on the sheet. I'd bet the 52 Mantle is also a double print with differences.

I collect a couple really obscure variations.
1988 Score second print run where the tufts of pulled cardboard from the diecutting were moved from the corners to about 1/4 of an inch in.
really not that easy of a subset to find. I haven't had access to a huge lot of 88 score so I'm not sure just how tough they are, but they're not as easy as you might think.

And 1991 Topps which has 3 different types of ink on the back. One that glows under UV light, one that doesn't, and one that turns a very dark red under UV. The last is actually fairly tough, only about 20 in roughly 10,000 cards. (Yeah, for 91 Topps that's a pretty small sampling and someone else probably has a couple monster boxes of just those.)

Plus a few other odd variation things, different holograms on UD cards, 93 Ud with 3 differnt gloss patterns on the reverse....stuff like that.


Somewhere I still have the Ralph Nozaki variation catalog. Interesting stuff, but not as extensive a listing as we have today.


Steve B

[ALR-bishop]

I have 3 version of the 52 Campos---regular back, black star and regular back with missing upper left front border ( which was highlighted in a recent SCD article.) The latter is a print defect. Is the black star a print defect ?

To be a variation does the card have to be intentionally changed to correct a defect ( the Spahn 59 DOBs), or to update the card ( the 59 trade/ option cards) ? Are the yellow letter 58s defects or variations ? The 69 white letters ? Is the 59 Ramos on ebay now just an error ? ( I have one so it is not unique). Are the 3 59 Sullivans all defects or is one a variation ? Are the 62 greenies variations or just a second print run by a second production company ? The 80 yellows and the no name Pyor from the same year ? The 73 Manager cards ?. The number of differences/variation in the 91 set is staggering. The 90 No Name Thomas and related cards missing some black ink ? The 82 Blackless are clearly a print defect, but they made it into the SCD Catalog

If they end up in the SCD catalog, I get them ( although unfortunately I have stayed a bit beyond it in some cases ) Having completed all the Topps sets, it is how I get my collector amusement these days. When they make it into the Catalog, they often then make it into the Registry. If they get there, a lot of people want them, whatever they are. Mr Lemke can break a lot of hearts

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by steve B

But a variation doesn't have to be a different printing. The missing top line variations from 81 Topps are just from different places on the sheet. I'd bet the 52 Mantle is also a double print with differences.

A double printing, from different locations on the sheet qualifies as a different printing, by my definition.

Doug