1990 Topps Jeff King

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Dave--I posted my ungraded one above. What do you suppose authentic means without more of a description ? Authentic all yellow back ? Variation ? Altered ? Not sure what to make of that designation.

At one time Lemke listed it as a variation in the Standard Catalog, but in the last edition with post 1980 listings, 2011, editon 20, there is just a single listing for King but with the notation "correct use of white", which I guess was left in inadvertently after the second listing was removed.

Agree it is just a rare print defect, but apparently recurring and with some hobby recognition

PSA recently refused my 1990 Topps with all white backs (no yellow ink) as "manufacturer defect - do not grade" which seems funny considering the exact opposite defect gets slabbed.

[ALR-bishop]

Hard to believe that graders don’t get as excited about these things as we do. What are they thinking ?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

PSA recently refused my 1990 Topps with all white backs (no yellow ink) as "manufacturer defect - do not grade" which seems funny considering the exact opposite defect gets slabbed.

It is weird they don't grade them and label them correctly as a printing error. I suppose with all the print errors people want to grade as some super rare error card it would quickly turn PSA into a complete shit show trying to label them correctly and having to explain to the card owner they have a common printing error and not some super rare special card. I also have some of the 90s with no yellow ink. I even have one with a blank front missing the yellow on the back.

[saucywombat]

I suppose here having it encapsulated as "authentic" would show that it is a real unaltered card. Even if PSA did not note/recognize the variation. Left to the observer to realize the no white back. But I think it helps it marketability as this card is sort of in the realm of Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster - not sure that just pictures would change minds.

It is exceptionally rare but I don't think anyone is going to pay 2K for it.

Fun to see it come up though.

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by saucywombat

I suppose here having it encapsulated as "authentic" would show that it is a real unaltered card. Even if PSA did not note/recognize the variation. Left to the observer to realize the no white back. But I think it helps it marketability as this card is sort of in the realm of Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster - not sure that just pictures would change minds.

It is exceptionally rare but I don't think anyone is going to pay 2K for it.

Fun to see it come up though.

It is as exceptionally rare as any aesthetically pleasing fish eye or other printing flaw that follows a design pattern, aka, not a weird shape, smear, etc. It matters to a corner of the hobby because Bob Lemke went against protocol and added to the big book. Without that, it wouldn't have the Bigfoot status it does today.

I believe there is a Wathan or some other 1990 Topps yellow excess card on ebay sitting still around $200.

[ALR-bishop]

Agree that if it had not appeared in the Catalog briefly it would just be another recurring print defect. Disagree it was against “protocol” when it went in the Catalog. There was not then nor is there now a standard definition or “protocol” for what constitutes a variation.

With the Catalog getting huge ( before dropping post 80 listings in 2011) Bob stated in an SCD article he was narrowing his definition of a variation to an intentional change in a card by the manufacturer. He removed the King and some but not all border gaps and began restricting what new variation listings he would put in the Catalog. I would argue that given his position and standing in the hobby Bob was the “protocol” in that time period. The grading companies generally looked to him as to what to include in their master checklists

A whole different discussion or debate could be had about how it can be accurately determined in all cases if a recurring print defect was intentionally corrected or just ran it’s course.

No matter what limitation anyone personally adopts as a definition of a variation the hobby, or in some cases now PSA ( 61 Fairly ) decides, protocol or no.

And no doubt the 57 Bakep, the 58 Herrer and 52 Campos black star might not pass “protocol” today. The 52 House ?

In the end the hobby decides and value attaches based on the level of recognition. Although today with the demise of the catalogs, PSA and the registry master checklists may be the real arbiter

For myself, I generally agree a variation should be limited to cards intentionally changed by the manufacturer, realizing that is not always easy to determine. The King is an unintentional scarce print defect. I refer to recurring print defects and even non recurring defects as variants, cards that differ in some way from their common counterpart. Value I leave to the hobby.

End of rant

[BobC]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Agree that if it had not appeared in the Catalog briefly it would just be another recurring print defect. Disagree it was against “protocol” when it went in the Catalog. There was not then nor is there now a standard definition or “protocol” for what constitutes a variation.

With the Catalog getting huge ( before dropping post 80 listings in 2011) Bob stated in an SCD article he was narrowing his definition of a variation to an intentional change in a card by the manufacturer. He removed the King and some but not all border gaps and began restricting what new variation listings he would put in the Catalog. I would argue that given his position and standing in the hobby Bob was the “protocol” in that time period. The grading companies generally looked to him as to what to include in their master checklists

A whole different discussion or debate could be had about how it can be accurately determined in all cases if a recurring print defect was intentionally corrected or just ran it’s course.

No matter what limitation anyone personally adopts as a definition of a variation the hobby, or in some cases now PSA ( 61 Fairly ) decides, protocol or no.

And no doubt the 57 Bakep, the 58 Herrer and 52 Campos black star might not pass “protocol” today. The 52 House ?

In the end the hobby decides and value attaches based on the level of recognition. Although today with the demise of the catalogs, PSA and the registry master checklists may be the real arbiter

For myself, I generally agree a variation should be limited to cards intentionally changed by the manufacturer, realizing that is not always easy to determine. The King is an unintentional scarce print defect. I refer to recurring print defects and even non recurring defects as variants, cards that differ in some way from their common counterpart. Value I leave to the hobby.

End of rant

Actually, Bob Lemke (and the SCD catalogs) may still be seen as the "protocol". Just earlier this week I was helping a fellow member in finding a reference in one of the old SCD catalogs to forward to PSA so they would see that a 1961 Harmony Milk card he was trying to get graded by them was in fact from a known and recognized card set.

What was even more interesting was that the other member and I discussed briefly how somewhat odd it was that Bob Lemke didn't have some of the same obscure sets always listed in those vintage catalogs year after year. And then literally the very next day, someone reopens a totally unrelated, and over a decade old, thread in the post-war pre-1980 section about Dayton Daily News cards in which Bob Lemke actually posted about how he had to decide to rotate some of those obscure sets in and out of the catalogs for budgetary and other constraints imposed by Krause, the publisher. What an unbelievable coincidence.

Made me also wonder why PSA apparently doesn't already have a copy of all the old SCD catalogs to begin with. You would think that every TPG would have at least some minimal, on-site reference library or data source to be able to look up such things, right? If you are paying any TPG, who is supposedly an expert and knowledgeable about all the cards and issues they examine and grade, why should you also be doing their research work for them? I thought that is part of what they are getting paid for!

[steve B]

I'm not sure about the King, It could be a faulty plate, or a massive over inking.
The other potential culprits like a dry plate or printed from a stuck piece of paper don't seem likely for a variety of reasons.

Bakep and Herrer are probably not differences on the plate, although Herrer could be.

The Campos, is printed from a plate that was made wrong, from a faulty mask. I just don't see any way for it to be a transient printing flaw.
The plate was probably replaced or corrected quickly.

I think nearly every card has some flaw or something that could be listed, but the question becomes how trivial should something be before it's not listed.

One of the catalogs I use for another hobby deals with complex issues in a stepped fashion. First a basic set listing with major easily recognized varieties. Next is a detialed listing of color, and paper varieties followed by a listing of known relatively major plate flaws. Last, if it's needed, a reference to a different book. It's phrased nicely like "for more detials see"but could very appropriately be phrased "If you're totally insane, some other crazy person wrote a whole book about this"

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Agree that if it had not appeared in the Catalog briefly it would just be another recurring print defect. Disagree it was against “protocol” when it went in the Catalog. There was not then nor is there now a standard definition or “protocol” for what constitutes a variation.

With the Catalog getting huge ( before dropping post 80 listings in 2011) Bob stated in an SCD article he was narrowing his definition of a variation to an intentional change in a card by the manufacturer. He removed the King and some but not all border gaps and began restricting what new variation listings he would put in the Catalog. I would argue that given his position and standing in the hobby Bob was the “protocol” in that time period. The grading companies generally looked to him as to what to include in their master checklists

A whole different discussion or debate could be had about how it can be accurately determined in all cases if a recurring print defect was intentionally corrected or just ran it’s course.

No matter what limitation anyone personally adopts as a definition of a variation the hobby, or in some cases now PSA ( 61 Fairly ) decides, protocol or no.

And no doubt the 57 Bakep, the 58 Herrer and 52 Campos black star might not pass “protocol” today. The 52 House ?

In the end the hobby decides and value attaches based on the level of recognition. Although today with the demise of the catalogs, PSA and the registry master checklists may be the real arbiter

For myself, I generally agree a variation should be limited to cards intentionally changed by the manufacturer, realizing that is not always easy to determine. The King is an unintentional scarce print defect. I refer to recurring print defects and even non recurring defects as variants, cards that differ in some way from their common counterpart. Value I leave to the hobby.

End of rant

Al,

When I say protocal, I mean the fact that the catalog entry for this particular card was an anomaly for post 1980 sets. Even if this card were to qualify as an RPD (which I strongly doubt enough exist to warrant the label), you have to admit it is an odd inclusion when so many other recurring print defects were omitted. Bakep, Herrer and Campos had decades of devout collector interest to build that reputation and interest. As far and I understand it, just a copy or two of the King had been known to exist before its inclusion in the big book.

Virtually nobody outside of E&V circles had any clue what I was talking about whenever I mentioned that I was seeking this card and I asked A LOT of dealers for a very long time.

[ALR-bishop]

Not sure we really disagree on anything Dylan. Good discussion