Blackless Glavine Bonds Acker others?

[strike-in]

Hello 1st post here.
I figure the knowledge base here could help me out with a question or two.

I've haven't been collecting since I was a kid back in the 80's. Everything is very different. I started again about 3 months ago with my 9 year old.

Anyhow,
I bought a sealed vending case of 1990 Topps or I thought it was sealed. Turns out some of the boxes were skimmed of some cards.

As my son and I were going though the boxes, I noticed a strange Tom Galvine and other cards with a lack of black ink. So I looked it up and discovered the blackless issue. Most of the 12,000 cards all seem to have some sort of issue. A few with big white swaths and others with black border issues or serious fading, some even look light green. Some of the know blackless cards are also in the case but a slight different blackless.

Attached are some photos, a quick grab of cards from the boxes. I haven't gone through the case in total yet.

Tom Glavine
Please note the 1/3 of the card where the Topps logo is. The streak from top to bottom.

Jim Acker
See arrow in picture. Also card is less black on the right side, Topps logo very faint.

Barry Bonds
Breaks in the black border and lighter black areas

Andy Van Slyke
Similar issue breaks in black border

Questions;
What's the definition of a true blackless card?
Does the black thin border line have to be broken in certain areas?
I was going to junk em if they a just garbage cards?
But almost all the cards in the case, so far, have had some sort of black color issue. Even found some cards with long blue swaths.


Anyone willing to advise.

A couple others I found after taking a few minutes ...Turn back the clock, Fred Lynn, Jody Davis, Tom O'Malley ... but again it's most cards wit ha larger portion of black ink used.

Thank you in advance for any help.

G.

[JustinD]

I would say that blackless 1990 Topps are a misnomer. The errors that are well known are “partial blackless”. This is the complete absence of black on partial parts of certain cards due to a much hypotheticized printing error of some kind with an obstruction or a dirty litho blanket.

The errors you have found would not fall under the partial blackless label to me as they are “blacklessing” or light/fading ink. Likely due to much of the same reason that would have caused the partial blackless issue at root of the NNOF Thomas.

I can assure you that this a completely different run than that due to the interesting addition of Jeff Acker. On the partial blackless sheets that card is blackless in the lower left due to its sheet position next to Frank Thomas. Yours is low ink on the complete opposite side of the card encompassing the Topps logo. Definitely interesting, as it is a completely different issue likely due a another dusty or dirty rubber transfer during the offset litho.

[West]

As Justin said, those aren't partial blackless. The actual errors are stark and have large swaths of no black ink. You have run of the mill low ink variations.

[strike-in]

that's great thanks for the information

[ALR-bishop]

Thanks for posting Strike. I like seeing oddities, run of some mill or not

[Zach Wheat]

Ben N and Justin are in heaven

[strike-in]

Again thanks for the information.
Last questions

Like I mentioned I haven't been collecting since I was a kind in the 80's and this is all new. I am grateful for responses given especially since I'm a new member.

Regarding the cards... it's kinda a bummer... I'm starting to think that my whole vending case is garbage. Many many cards have some weird effect or fading. I kinda obsess and go big when I get into stuff. I suppose buying a vending case for my 1st purchase of 1990 Topps wasn't smart. I probably should have just bought a few boxes with unopened packs.

Anyhow;
Another question, sorry difficult to explain .
So... the cards I have appear to have a thin black border then filled in with solid black (see new photo). The new photo has the thin line on inside and no line on the outside, similar to cards above with line breaks in various locations.

I thought the cards I got were blackless because of the thin black border being broken like on other cards that have yellow or grey or blue etc. Do normal cards with black borders have a thinner outer black border. I don't seem to have cards with solid black, and no thin black line bordering.

I also included another card that has a large white swath, would that be considered blackless? Or like comments above, just some weird printing issue, and not anything special.

I also have cards with weird blue swaths? Guessing like mentioned above, weird print error.

Again thank you much for your time. I'm just trying to decided what to do with the cards, trash them, sell them ( I think people like ), or throw them into a box.

It's kinda a bummer because all the Tom Glavine's I got have that weird color difference. Got 15 of them in the case. Most cards in case are multiples with bad print etc. I think my 9 year old is going to be happy probably give them all to him.

Perhaps I should put up one of those Glavine's on ebay and see what happens.

I don't recall cards like this when I was a kid.

[strike-in]

included sanders just because
upper right corner
thanks

[steve B]

While they aren't the blackless ones that go along with the Thomas, the first batch is interesting. Having low ink only in one area is a bit unusual, but can happen. The press operator has some control of the inking levels across the sheet. So it's possible to use very little on one area.
Think like you're doing a poster that's mostly a black and white line drawing but has red stars at the top. Inking fully all the way across wastes ink, so you can limit the red ink getting to the side without the red stars. The plate still gets inked where it needs it, and eventually the other areas, but over thousands of impressions having it be much less on one side will save enough that it's worth doing.

On the cards that wasn't the intent, but something did affect the inking on those cards.
Laying them out in the same pattern as they were on the sheet should give some clues ast to exactly what happened. in general, misprints don't get big premiums unless they're really impressive visually. Subtle ones are interesting and fun. I collect them when I get them. (I'd have been pretty happy to open that vending case)

Some of the others are interesting but stuff that gets little interest. With how many cards were produced in 1990 and how the quality control was lax that's not a surprise.
Van Slyke is from the green being printed a bit too low and not being covered up by the black border leaving that gap. (poor registration)


Bell is also from the registration being off. The black was printed just slightly left of where it should have been.

Glavine and Acker are related, not sure if it's low inking, or some other cause.

The effect you see on Bonds, Fisher, and Johnson is a cool one. But also one I'd call normal. To avoid having to be super precise with registration the black border is designed to slightly overlap the other colors (Black is with few exceptions printed last. yellow is usually first)
But on these, the black ink isn't totally opaque like it usually is. That's either more underinking, or them running an ink that has less colorant or is watered down. So it's slightly transparent and the other color layers show through as that darker outline.

Rijo and Sanders are really cool. Missing ink like that is usually a solvent spill, from cleaning the inking rollers. Sometimes they get a little dried out and have to be cleaned - especially if they're being cheap and running less ink than they should. A clue as to what caused the other inking issues.

But it's all colors over a big enough area to affect what was probably 4-5 cards. (and I'll bet you have the other 2-3 ) That's unusual.

Is the cardstock thinner where the colors are missing? That's something that can happen but it's really unusual. If it's thinner in an area for some reason the press may not have enough pressure to print, or will only print lightly.
a bit of something like grease on the surface that prevents printing but doesn't soak in can cause almost the same thing.
In the scans he Rijo looks a bit like the surface had peeled slightly? Probably just an optical illusion, but I've seen that too both with the card stock being thinned, and with a peel from a previous sheet blocking ink from a later one.

They may not be expensive stuff like the Thomas, but they can be interesting. And i sure wouldn't think of them as junk. Like, I'd probably keep the misprints and sell off the extra "normal" cards once I completed the set.

[ALR-bishop]

Agree the Sanders and Rijo are cool. Now we need Cliff to come in ands tell us what other cards are likely to have related defects

[steve B]

When they're adjusting the press in the beginning they use sheets that aren't supposed to be used as product. The sheet that is the last "make ready" sheet usually gets a corner torn off so its easy to spot in the stack of sheets.

This 82 was that corner.
You can tell the registration still wasn't good, and that the blue slightly printed in to the torn area.
Not a pack released card, it was cut from a scrap sheet a dealer I know had.



And speaking of adjusting the registration....a card from a similar sheet that got multiple underinked impressions as they had to move the magenta and black a long way to get it right. And increased the inking as they went, doing it all without running the paper through until this sheet.

[strike-in]

wow thanks for that.
I don't feel too bad about the case now, but I'll probably buy wax boxes from now on.
Their are many other weird blue ones.
I suppose I should finish looking at all the cards and see what else there is.
Thank you all for your input.

I'm guessing there is a weird misprint thread.
I will search for that and put further card pics there if interested.

Greg

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by strike-in

wow thanks for that.
I don't feel too bad about the case now, but I'll probably buy wax boxes from now on.
Their are many other weird blue ones.
I suppose I should finish looking at all the cards and see what else there is.
Thank you all for your input.

I'm guessing there is a weird misprint thread.
I will search for that and put further card pics there if interested.

Greg

Some player collectors will pay a premium for print errors. For example I would pay $5 delivered in a PWE for the Jose Rijo because I have a cool Desert Shield Jose Rijo print error and they would look awesome together. Some of the super star players can sell for $10-$20 each and sometimes way more depending on the error.

They are very cool cards that very few of us collect.

[ALR-bishop]

Less or or more black

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Some player collectors will pay a premium for print errors. For example I would pay $5 delivered in a PWE for the Jose Rijo because I have a cool Desert Shield Jose Rijo print error and they would look awesome together. Some of the super star players can sell for $10-$20 each and sometimes way more depending on the error.

They are very cool cards that very few of us collect.

Lol, I was going to ask if no one else did.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by steve B

And speaking of adjusting the registration....a card from a similar sheet that got multiple underinked impressions as they had to move the magenta and black a long way to get it right. And increased the inking as they went, doing it all without running the paper through until this sheet.

Love this one.

The sheet placement instructions make it even better, that’s a keeper.

[West]

Wow, I have to say I'm sorry for calling those errors run of the mill, that Rijo is wild! Definitely worth holding onto and would be desirable to error collectors, imo.
I wonder if it was a one-off similar to other solvent stains or there are others on that red sheet? Let us know if you find more.

[strike-in]

Originally Posted by West

Wow, I have to say I'm sorry for calling those errors run of the mill, that Rijo is wild! Definitely worth holding onto and would be desirable to error collectors, imo.
I wonder if it was a one-off similar to other solvent stains or there are others on that red sheet? Let us know if you find more.

Their are more weird cards.
When I get around to it I will post the blue ones.
Also I have cards like the JustinD's card, but without the number on the side.

I was actually so bummed out about the case, I threw a bunch into the trash and the rest went into a corner of my garage in their small vending boxes.
I will go through the boxes at some point in the near future looking for weird stuff.

Thanks

[strike-in]

so i guess I will try and sell some of the weird cards on the ebay and see if I can recoup some of the money on the case.
Here is the thing... I don't want to mislead or have any issues, I always try to be on the up and up because of the up and up and it the right thing to do.

Since the cards are actually missing black ink would it be appropriate to list as blackless or should I list as simply "1990 Topps blackless? / missing black" ink?

JustinD you said "The errors that are well known are “partial blackless”. This is the complete absence of black on partial parts of certain cards due to a much hypotheticized printing error of some kind with an obstruction or a dirty litho blanket.

The errors you have found would not fall under the partial blackless label to me as they are “blacklessing” or light/fading ink. Likely due to much of the same reason that would have caused the partial blackless issue at root of the NNOF Thomas. "

So with that in mind, I think "blacklessing" might be best for the cards that have less black ink. However the cards that have swaths of white I was thinking of listing as "blackless" they look like the other cards that are called partial blackless.

I wonder where my cards were on the sheet during the print run?

I've gotten a case of 1988 topps that have every...every card of any value taken out and other boxes and packs that have been what I call skimmed. I just want to be on the up and up.

Times are very different from when I would take a binder of cards to my buddies house and we would trade cards.

Anyhow you all have been super on the input and thanks much!

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by strike-in

so i guess I will try and sell some of the weird cards on the ebay and see if I can recoup some of the money on the case.
Here is the thing... I don't want to mislead or have any issues, I always try to be on the up and up because of the up and up and it the right thing to do.

Since the cards are actually missing black ink would it be appropriate to list as blackless or should I list as simply "1990 Topps blackless? / missing black" ink?

JustinD you said "The errors that are well known are “partial blackless”. This is the complete absence of black on partial parts of certain cards due to a much hypotheticized printing error of some kind with an obstruction or a dirty litho blanket.

The errors you have found would not fall under the partial blackless label to me as they are “blacklessing” or light/fading ink. Likely due to much of the same reason that would have caused the partial blackless issue at root of the NNOF Thomas. "

So with that in mind, I think "blacklessing" might be best for the cards that have less black ink. However the cards that have swaths of white I was thinking of listing as "blackless" they look like the other cards that are called partial blackless.

I wonder where my cards were on the sheet during the print run?

I've gotten a case of 1988 topps that have every...every card of any value taken out and other boxes and packs that have been what I call skimmed. I just want to be on the up and up.

Times are very different from when I would take a binder of cards to my buddies house and we would trade cards.

Anyhow you all have been super on the input and thanks much!

I would just list them as print error and then describe the error in the description.

As to the case of 88 Topps it could be a couple things. It could have been searched and resealed or that case could have been made when they were pulling star players to sell in huge lots. I recently opened a box of 90 Topps with zero star players in it besides one Frank Thomas rookie.

It is free to list them on here for sale. I would bid the Jose Rijo up to $5 and there could be someone on here who wants it more than me.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I would just list them as print error and then describe the error in the description.

I agree with this.

As they are not the definition of blackless in any way, so you are making it too hard for buyer’s to find them and triggering searches for people looking for a different item. I would use print error in the title and mention “missing ink” and “solvent error” in your description for the white ones as they actually are solvent errors but non error folks won’t know that term. As an error nerd I can tell you it will come into my saved searches with “solvent error” though and I am not alone. You can add “light ink” and blacklessing if you want to the others in the description.

[strike-in]

Originally Posted by JustinD

I agree with this.

As they are not the definition of blackless in any way, so you are making it too hard for buyer’s to find them and triggering searches for people looking for a different item. I would use print error in the title and mention “missing ink” and “solvent error” in your description for the white ones as they actually are solvent errors but non error folks won’t know that term. As an error nerd I can tell you it will come into my saved searches with “solvent error” though and I am not alone. You can add “light ink” and blacklessing if you want to the others in the description.

very good that's what i will do
will be up in a day or two on ebay

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by strike-in

very good that's what i will do
will be up in a day or two on ebay

I have no interest in buying off eBay but others might so posting your eBay ID would be a good idea.