|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
-- PWCC: The Fish Stinks From the Head PSA: Regularly Get Cheated BGS: Can't detect trimming on modern SGC: Closed auto authentication business JSA: Approved same T206 Autos before SGC Oh, what a difference a year makes. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I personally agree they are not variations, and am ok with calling them reprints or a parallel set, but I think the hobby has ruled otherwise on Cox and Brinkman, so I keep a second copy of their MB cards in my 68 set as well as in my MB set I also agree that they are a subset, but SCD and Lemke have listed several Topps baseball subsets independent of the other non baseball subjects in such sets in The Standard Catalog. I have collected just the baseball subjects listed in the Catalog for the 48 Magic Photos, 55 and 56 Hocus Focus, the 54 Topps Scoops and Look and See, the 63 Great American Stamps and Valentine Foldees ( 63 and 66), the 65 Push Pulls and the 68 MBs. And there is a variation of the MB checklist. There are 2 versions of the 107. Although Carlton Miller, our resident MB expert would disagree with me on that point. He would say the 2nd CL is card 77 in the set ( subset) and not a variation, I think because it is a DP. I tend to think of DP differences, although not necessarily intended but resulting from set up of the sheet layouts, as variations ( for example the 2 different 52 Mantles, Robinsons and Thompsons). I understand not all would agree, and that's ok with me. I am not sure anyone has a monopoly on what constitutes a real variation. Ultimately I guess the hobby as a whole decided over time Last edited by ALR-bishop; 02-27-2020 at 12:42 PM. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
cloud
Picked up the Cecil Cooper - "Cloud" on back
I know they are just defects of defects but I will still try to track down the others I have only seen the Madlock. If anyone has pics of any of the others I would love to see them. I asked Fred and he didn't save the scans. Thanks! Would be interesting to know if these specific defects occurred on the typical non blackless cards too. 9 Ron Guidry with Gray “flying saucer” 60a Tony Armas small gray “egg” on back 137a George Cappuzello Purple George 365a Bill Madlock gray cloud on back 385a Ken Forsch Red strip on Cap 564a Doug Decinces gray cloud by © 664a Dan Spillner Letters underlined 675a Cecil Cooper gray cloud on back Last edited by bswhiten; 03-30-2020 at 03:52 PM. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I have the 137 variant. My cards are on the move to a new location but will post a scan later. Also have at least 2 other cards not on Fred's list that also have defects not on the "regular" blackless cards in my set
Have never tried to run down if the defects can be found on non blackless cards but suspect they do |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Wanted to see if my Madlock with and w/o a cloud match what Ben has seen previously....
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Larry, yep that is it. You can send it to me for safekeeping if you wish |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Unfortunately I couldn't find a scan of the 1982 Topps blackless George Cappuzzello with the print defect that changes the color of his name, but I have seen it before and if it is going to be considered a "variation" then the card below it on the uncut sheet should also be included on the list as it was also affected by the same print flaw, Hector Cruz. ETA, I did run across the Blackless George Cappuzzello purple name on WorthPoint. The 82 Blackless cards of Cappuzzello and Cruz are much more difficult to find without the print flaw than ones with it.
__________________
“interesting to some absolute garbage to others.” —- “Error cards and variations are for morons, IMHO.” Last edited by Cliff Bowman; 03-31-2020 at 06:11 PM. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Last edited by Blackless Collector; 04-02-2020 at 12:19 PM. Reason: Add a letter |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
It looks they’re both the normal version, not the one affected by the print flaw that makes his first name purple. When I looked for a blackless 1982 Hector Cruz a few years ago all I could find were ones that have the large print defect and gave up on trying to find one without it. I imagine all of the Hector Cruz cards without the defect are sitting in collections and are unavailable. The print defect that makes the Cappuzzello name purple is part of the same one that covers the Cruz card. ETA: The Cappuzzello I have scanned is poor quality but it shows the version with the purple GEORGE.
__________________
“interesting to some absolute garbage to others.” —- “Error cards and variations are for morons, IMHO.” Last edited by Cliff Bowman; 04-02-2020 at 12:58 PM. Reason: Addition |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WTB: 1982 Topps Blackless Rickey Henderson | h2oya311 | 1980 & Newer Sports Cards B/S/T | 0 | 07-10-2012 10:17 PM |
WTB - 1982 Topps Blackless to complete set | doug.goodman | Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T | 0 | 04-13-2012 05:38 PM |
WTB - A whole bunch of Topps 1982 blackless | doug.goodman | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 07-04-2011 12:51 PM |
Slightly OT - 1982 Topps Blackless | JasonL | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 30 | 01-25-2011 12:24 PM |
1982 Topps Blackless Tigers | insidethewrapper | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 02-04-2010 09:33 AM |