![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: peter chao
Everybody has seen them, they are blan-back cards, normally they are cards that have already been covered on the back. But for some reason, they were not lettered. Are these errors or variations? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Al
I vote errors, unless they are proofs; and blank back proofs do exist for most years. I guess the proofs themselves can be variations if they are intentionally changed prior to actual production of the set, such as the 60 Hanley and Cimoli, the 67 Maris Yankee, the 78 Jackson Oriole or the 84 Encased Carlton and Mathews reverse insert pictures |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: boxingcardman
They are errors because they are missing elements of the printing process rather than having an element of the printing process replaced, but really, the issue is academic since some errors acquire the same cachet as variations. T206 Magie/Magee is a variation, T206 Sweeney no B (missing red ink) is an error. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: peter chao
Adam, |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Anthony
I think it depends on both the card and the set. Any oddity in T206 is a hotly collected card, the same oddity in '35 Goudey would have no difference in value. |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
blank backs | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 16 | 03-03-2007 10:13 AM |
Show us your Blank-Backs (or your Blank Fronts) ? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 16 | 02-03-2007 06:53 AM |