1989 Fleer Randy Johnson #381 Marlboro Errors - 30 Years Later

[Hatorade]

Steve B was kind enough to answer a few of my questions on the specifics of the printing process with these cards a few years ago. It seems that all the Johnson errors likely shared the same image on the negative for the black plates and that the common version cards were likely corrected by altering the original art for the negative used to make their black plates. The editing of the errors therefore likely took place in the negatives and plates for the three other colors. It would be great to hear more from Steve B or someone else with printing experience to discuss where/how exactly those changes happened. Would the fact that multiple versions were being produced at the same time point to the plates on each press producing their own “version”?

Originally Posted by Hatorade

Attachment 223184
PSA and BGS have a difficult time differentiating the error card from the common card in too many instances. One easy way for them to never make this mistake again is observe this small hair like object found on the bottom left of the card where the second vertical white line hits the lower blue line. I've termed the object a "short hair". The short hair is not on any of the common versions and is on every error variation I've seen. How can this same object have appeared on all the different error variations? What changed that it didn't show up on the common version?

Originally Posted by steve B

As far as how it got there it's pretty simple. Not easy to tell exactly what way but a few easy ones.
It was there when the original pasteups were photographed so it was on the negative used to produce the black plates.
or
It was a scratch on the black plate that made the errors.
or
It was a scratch on the negative used to make the black plates for the errors.
Whatever the exact reason, making any of the corrected versions meant making new plates from altered negatives, or from entirely new negatives from a corrected pasteup . And either the bit of fiber was gone from the pasteup, or the resulting negatives never got scratched.
Steve B
* It's "possible" there were transitional cards using a mix of old and new plates, but considering that removing the Ad was because of a federal law the whole set was probably redone all at once.

Originally Posted by Hatorade

Steve, thanks for the feedback. I have a very limited understanding of the process used to print the cards and very much appreciate your perspective. As I understand it, Fleer used 2 printing facilities to make the cards. Would that rule out that the scratch was on the black plate that made the errors, because there would have been more than one plate for 2 separate facilities? You mentioned that it’s possible that there are transitional cards using a mix of old and new plates and I believe that is what happened for all the cards that aren’t the final corrected version. Fleer wasn’t able to immediately cover the Marlboro sign completely and what they did was edit the cards in a way that they transitioned from the ad only being slightly obscured with tinting and still visible, to the ad being tinted so heavily that the ad is mostly unable to be seen and all these cards have the black hair. This editing was done in most part over the ad itself and at some point they changed the editing process to cover more than just the Ad, but the entire rectangular area on the upper right part of the card with a consistent blacking out that resulted in the final corrected version, and no more black hair. It seems that a similar situation occurred with the Billy Ripken errors from the set. The scribble, white out and double die edits where used by Fleer to edit the ad before they could produce the black box versions to cover the error, even though they had already begun producing the Johnson cards in their final edit form. Why couldn’t Fleer just edit out the ad more completely with their early attempts instead of having the cards slowly transition from lightly tinted to heavily tinted and why would they have so many unique attempts at covering the Marlboro sign?

Originally Posted by steve B

There would have been way more than even two plates.
That the line is on so many versions means it was most likely on the negative, so it got onto all the plates made during the transition from error to corrected. It goes away on the corrected versions? If that's always the case then the corrected ones were printed from a plate made from a new negative.
The transitional ones could have been done by altering the negatives for one or more of the other colors. Probably while they were waiting on the new negative for black to be done from altered original art.

It would be unusual for two different companies to share a negative. More likely is that one company started first. Maybe producing the cards for Wax boxes? I think those were released first with the other formats following a bit after. So company A does cards and has errors like the Johnson and maybe the Ripken that have to get fixed right away. Company B starts a bit later maybe doing the ones for cellos or vending or whatever. But they've been told about the problems and are either given corrected art to work from or do less obvious corrections. (Probably the first case)

Both companies probably ran multiple presses, and over a print run as large as 89 fleer they would have had to replace the plates a few times.

The Ripken corrections were probably a bit more of an emergency than the Johnson. Johnson ran up against a federal regulation (So did a lot of diecast cars) And the feds were probably ok with a simple "oops! we're fixing it, won't happen again" The Ripken was a bit of a thing in even mainstream media, and not the sort of PR they wanted. So they made a few different sorts of corrections. The knob area could have simply been erased from plates on the press to make the whiteout versions, the scribbles were probably scratched into the plates -also while the plates were still on the press.
The "double die" ones are just a result of bad registration. You'll find that sort of thing on lots of cards, it just got noticed on Ripken because everyone was looking at thin figures printed in multiple colors which makes them prone to that sort of "doubling".
Steve B

[Statfreak101]

Awesome stuff - really love the information and transparency on this topic!

[mybestbretts]

This really has nothing to do with Randy Johnson, except I was going through my Brett photos and this one looks like the same location as the johnson shot

[hockeyhockey]

sorry if this was already posted somewhere in this monster of a thread, but were the ripken FF and johnson marlboro sign cards only available in a certain packaging? or was it just based on when the cards were produced? didn't know if rack packs vs wax packs vs complete sets mattered. thanks!

[Statfreak101]

Originally Posted by hockeyhockey

sorry if this was already posted somewhere in this monster of a thread, but were the ripken FF and johnson marlboro sign cards only available in a certain packaging? or was it just based on when the cards were produced? didn't know if rack packs vs wax packs vs complete sets mattered. thanks!

Found in racks, cellos, and wax. Not in factory sets.

All was dependent on when the cases were produced/packaged.

[hockeyhockey]

Originally Posted by Statfreak101

Found in racks, cellos, and wax. Not in factory sets.

All was dependent on when the cases were produced/packaged.

awesome, thanks for the info!

[bnorth]

Anybody have any "tricks" they use to be able to see the sign better? As I have gotten older I find it way harder to tell them apart.

A couple things I do. Make sure to look at them in a room(or outside) that has as much sunlight as possible. At night with just lights on in a room they all look like box cards to me. The yellow line printing error Bill Ripkens are the same way. Can't see the line without good sun light.

I have also found taking pics with a 10X loupe of the sign area using my phone helps. Then up load them to my computer and compressing it to 25% of original size helps a lot.

Anybody else have any tricks they use?

Also, besides the 2 very light red tint and the 3 or 4 known blue tints what is considered the rarest version. I have been away from super collecting them for some time. Back several years ago the green scribble was considered the toughest.

[ALR-bishop]

Hey Ben, I have a few versions of this and and the Ripken card that I picked up years ago, but never got into collecting them to the depth you are talking about. Do you think all of these different versions are from the original printing process or were some created after the fact. I know some of my Ripkens are fakes, not sure about the Johnsons. Agree with you about old eyes, and that would keep me from getting back into these things to any greater degree

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Hey Ben, I have a few versions of this and and the Ripken card that I picked up years ago, but never got into collecting them to the depth you are talking about. Do you think all of these different versions are from the original printing process or were some created after the fact. I know some of my Ripkens are fakes, not sure about the Johnsons. Agree with you about old eyes, and that would keep me from getting back into these things to any greater degree

I have also seen a lot of fake/altered Bill Ripken cards. Never seen it in the Randy Johnson versions. I did think the 2 super rare Johnson versions might be altered cards. After some testing I was wrong.

[Statfreak101]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Hey Ben, I have a few versions of this and and the Ripken card that I picked up years ago, but never got into collecting them to the depth you are talking about. Do you think all of these different versions are from the original printing process or were some created after the fact. I know some of my Ripkens are fakes, not sure about the Johnsons. Agree with you about old eyes, and that would keep me from getting back into these things to any greater degree

Upon having done a good amount of research on the Johnson card and collecting of it, I have never seen anyone go to the extent of faking or reprinting this card. Surprisingly, this card still flies under the radar as of today! Which, is fine with me.

[ALR-bishop]

How many of the Johnson and Ripken variants ( and which ones ) do you guys think were intended by the manufacturer (as opposed to unintended differences occurring in the printing process )

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

How many of the Johnson and Ripken variants ( and which ones ) do you guys think were intended by the manufacturer (as opposed to unintended differences occurring in the printing process )

The only altered ones are the Bill Ripken cards. White Out cards IMHO they are all 100% fake. Show me one in hand and I can tell you within seconds how it was altered/made. I have never seen a single one that was not obviously altered from the way it left the printing press. Then there are the hole punch cards. Supposedly it was something Fleer actually done to a few cards. Problem is anyone with a hole punch can make one. I have also seen a ton of the fake saw cuts, but there are also a ton of real ones.

eBay is flooded with a ton of counterfeit Bill Ripkens of all variations and has been for over a year.

On both cards all the changes were intentionally done by Fleer. The printing process doesn't make alterations. Printing errors are way different that what went on with those 2 cards.

[hockeyhockey]

what's weird to me is that you can find a marlboro johnson in a wax box, and then find a blacked out johnson in the same box. maybe that's just normal, or maybe the box had packs from a different box.

[Statfreak101]

Originally Posted by hockeyhockey

what's weird to me is that you can find a marlboro johnson in a wax box, and then find a blacked out johnson in the same box. maybe that's just normal, or maybe the box had packs from a different box.

This is 100% accurate.

[Statfreak101]

Originally Posted by hockeyhockey

what's weird to me is that you can find a marlboro johnson in a wax box, and then find a blacked out johnson in the same box. maybe that's just normal, or maybe the box had packs from a different box.

I have opened many wax boxes from sealed cases and have found this to be true.

Just weird.

[steve5838]

Just hanging out with RJ... I couldn't resist taking a picture of this latest low tint pickup as I pulled it out of the envelope and viewed it in the sun light. Steve

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by steve5838

Just hanging out with RJ... I couldn't resist taking a picture of this latest low tint pickup as I pulled it out of the envelope and viewed it in the sun light. Steve

Nice card. It's amazing how much difference looking at them it direct sun light makes.

[steve5838]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Nice card. It's amazing how much difference looking at them it direct sun light makes.

Thanks, Ben. It is so cool how some versions seem to stand out so well in the sunlight. Here is another raw one I got last week but took it outside to get a picture in the same sunlight. Also low tint but this one has a little more redness. For me it's like going to a museum... I could look at these all day long and not get bored. Steve

[Athos01]

Cards look great Steve, I'll have to try that same thing!!!

[lowpopper]

Bam!

[hockeyhockey]

Originally Posted by lowpopper

Bam!

you just pull these? pretty sweet looking.

[steve5838]

Originally Posted by lowpopper

Bam!

Great picture. Beautiful cards.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by lowpopper

Bam!

Nice pics to get the sign to show up that good. Fairly rare compared to the other versions. I have had maybe 15-20 of them at the most over the years.

[Statfreak101]

Maybe it is the lighting, but anyone else notice there is no "pube" showing on either of those cards?

[lowpopper]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Nice pics to get the sign to show up that good. Fairly rare compared to the other versions. I have had maybe 15-20 of them at the most over the years.

These are the clearest examples I have ever owned. Anybody know which case code is the cutoff to get clear ones like this?

[Statfreak101]

Originally Posted by lowpopper

These are the clearest examples I have ever owned. Anybody know which case code is the cutoff to get clear ones like this?

Nope - there really is no exact number, tbh.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Statfreak101

Maybe it is the lighting, but anyone else notice there is no "pube" showing on either of those cards?

I only have one of that version left. Are you talking about the little red squiggle thing by FLEER. Seems to be fainter on the one I have plus the posters pics are so jacked up bright you would never see it anyway.

Originally Posted by lowpopper

These are the clearest examples I have ever owned. Anybody know which case code is the cutoff to get clear ones like this?

Weirdly there is no known system with them. You can get different versions out of the same case.

[lowpopper]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I only have one of that version left. Are you talking about the little red squiggle thing by FLEER. Seems to be fainter on the one I have plus the posters pics are so jacked up bright you would never see it anyway.



Weirdly there is no known system with them. You can get different versions out of the same case.

So what's the latest/highest known case code that a FF or Marlboro has come out of? I have a case from march of 89.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by lowpopper

So what's the latest/highest known case code that a FF or Marlboro has come out of? I have a case from march of 89.

Not sure on the Marlboro. One of the guys posting in this thread might have a decent guess. I don't remember the Ripken FF code but a quick internet search should tell you, it is a known number.

[jp1216]

Any hints of the Marlboro were well gone before the FF was corrected. I would estimate late Nov 1988 and early Dec 1988 would be the best shot at the RJ variations.