Slightly OT - 1982 Topps Blackless

[ALR-bishop]

Doug--I have the 396 "base" set and agree with your list. I had thought it was Zenithium who originally pointed out to me that the SCD Standard Catalog originally incorrectly listed the 301 Action Jackson in the set. That was changed in later editions.

I never paid much attention to whether the cards in the set were A, B or C sheet cards. Zenithium at one point took the view that the C cards were the scarcest, then Bs, then As. Later he took the view Bs were almost as tough as Cs. In collecting the set I definitely found that in general the Cs and Bs were tougher than As, but never did much checking on whether a card was properly identified from the claimed sheet.

I got most of mine from 4 sellers, 2 in NY and 2 in Michigan. I believe the Bs and Cs mostly surfaced in Michigan and the As in NY....in packs. Some cards seem tougher to find totally blackless than others, maybe a factor of their location on a sheet. One that comes to mind is Stanley, but there were a couple of others that you had to look carefully at to be sure there was no hint of a gray autograph. I have some duplicate cards in which the signatures, which are missing on the blackless, are gray rather than black. I do not know if the set can be completed in "gray".

Zenithium now lists a "master" set at 400. He came up with 4 blackless cards that had minor print difference , for example a red spot on the cap of Forsch. I have one of his "variations" to the set, and pointed out that in putting the set together I have found other print flaws in some of my blackless cards, but he was convinced the 4 he had found were "neccessary" if you wanted a master set. I do not know if anyone has his master set. I have settled for the base set, plus one

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Zenithium now lists a "master" set at 400. He came up with 4 blackless cards that had minor print difference , for example a red spot on the cap of Forsch. I have one of his "variations" to the set, and pointed out that in putting the set together I have found other print flaws in some of my blackless cards, but he was convinced the 4 he had found were "neccessary" if you wanted a master set. I do not know if anyone has his master set. I have settled for the base set, plus one

I do not agree that the 4 "Zenithum variations" are in fact actual variations. If we treated such things as variations, than (as an example) the "master" Topps 1952 set would have 16,512 cards including the 37 Mantle "variations".

I consider the blackless set to be complete at 396 which means that my 1982 "master" set will be complete at 1,193 cards.

Al - I agree that the A type cards are easier than the B and C type, which are both harder to find, but neither more than the other. I have found C type cards slightly harder to get only because the sellers tend to want more money for them, and I tend to be a bit on the cheap side.

I'm still slightly conflicted about this set, because by my general definition of a variation, the entire set qualifies as a printing error, not an actual variation, so even though I intend to complete the set, I have a real hard time spending money that would be better spent on 1953 Bowman black & white cards (my newest endeavor).

Doug

[novakjr]

While we're calling out minor variations. The '89 Donruss manster set must be around 2600 cards, with there being 4 various (*) and (.) combinations for each card, with the exception of the Diamond Kings and Checklists. Although, I'm not sure if every card has all 4, or if some of them only have 2. I have 3 of the 4 Griffey's, and 2 each of Schilling, Biggio and Sheffield. I haven't really looked for them though, just happened to have them, and honestly didn't check any of my other cards.

[ALR-bishop]

Doug---you have this. I recognize the symptoms

But since I have the 2 52 Mantle, Thonpson and Robinson variations...I am in favor of those :-)) ...and they are not in my mind print defects

David---you should start a new thread. Anyone interested in this set and it's huge amount of variations is not likely to see this...also you apparently have what Doug has.....and me

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Doug---you have this. I recognize the symptoms

But since I have the 2 52 Mantle, Thonpson and Robinson variations...I am in favor of those :-)) ...and they are not in my mind print defects

David---you should start a new thread. Anyone interested in this set and it's huge amount of variations is not likely to see this...also you apparently have what Doug has.....and me

Trust me, I have no interest in the '89 Donruss set. I was just busting a little balls. However, I wouldn't mind tracking down the 4th Griffey just to have all 4. Problem is, I can never remember which 3 I have, and I'm too lazy to dig 'em out.

[doug.goodman]

Al started his 52 set a bit earlier than I did. I'm confident that I am one of few people with both Mantles on my want list. And I'll bet he's one of few with both in his collection.

I only have a mild case of variationitis, if I had a full blown case I would consider print dots and slight color differences to be variations, too.

It's that damned big book of cards, once they're listed, I pretty much have to have them. Even the Herrera, I suppose.

Doug

[ALR-bishop]

Doug---I agree that if it is listed in SCD or Beckett I pretty much have to have it....and that includes print defects such as the Herrer, Bakep and the 3d Sullivan. Often the Registry ends up listing stuff listed in one or both of those, and even though I am not a graded collector, a listing there adds a lot of competition for a card.

Beyond listed stuff I do collect what I consider unlisted variations and more striking or unique print defects.

I did not mean to label you as a fanatic . You are one of the most knowledgeable collectors about these darn things I know and I always enjoy and respect your input in this area