Top 100 Errors / Variations and the state of collections these cards prior to 1985

[richtree]

Hey all,

I have been working on a side project for a few months now.

I am attempting to to build a list of the Top 100 Errors and Variations based on the impact they had to the hobby.

I have a few drafts ready, but the reason for this post is two requests if anyone would like to help me.

#1 I began collected in 1985 and don't really remember anything prior to that time period. I was wondering from people collecting in the 70s and early 80s were there error cards that impacted the hobby ? Were some well known or considered important at the time that are no longer discussed ?

#2 I would love to hear what people would consider a card that needs to be on the top 50 list (besides many of the obvious).


If there are any volunteers that want to discuss deeper and share some of the drafts offline feel free to email me or inbox me (or let me know that I can contact you)....

It seems of late there has been more interest in these cards again and I feel I am ready to dive in deeper and would love to discuss with others on the board that either have the same passion or willing to share their historical knowledge...

thanks and happy new year to all !

rich t
richtree@gmail.com

[deweyinthehall]

I can't say it had any impact on the hobby, but I still recall pulling the Bump Wills Blue Jays card from a pack in 1979 - it was only my second year collecting and I had no idea there even were such things as "error" cards - was he really with the Blue Jays and they used a photo of him in a Rangers uniform?? It was very perplexing. I also recall going through a friend's dog-eared collection of "old" cards at about the same time and encountering some 1974 Washington N'League cards - what sort of craziness was THIS?!? Of course, the 'traded' cards weirded me out a bit too at the time...

The first time I can recall error cards having any sort of impact was the first printing of 1981 Fleer and the "Craig" Nettles card - it was the first time I actually saw ads for different versions of the same card.

[G1911]

Seconded on the 1974 Washington Nat’l League and the 1981 fleers. These should be very high up the list as they are largely responsible for a trend in people looking for errors.

I would also say the 1952 Page/Sain cards belong. T206 Magie and Doyle. Some of the 89 Upper Decks.

I don’t think there are 50 that have had a significant impact on the hobby as a whole. There’s a handful that have, and everything else is restricted to the niche of master set collectors really caring about and there relative popularity within that niche.

[richtree]

thanks for the 2 replies so far.

The wash/SD cards were one I was most interested about because I didn't know if they were thought of as anything special or impactful prior to the 80's but it seems that you both think they had importance in the history and I should move them up the list

maybe Ill use the most "famous" of these and add the rest of the Sd/Wash as a "grouping"

I was trying to avoid groups, but I am sure one or 2 can represent them.

thx

[swarmee]

Nettles black loop

1969 Topps - [Base] #99.1 - 1969 Rookie Stars - Danny Morris, Graig Nettles (Black Loop Above Twins) [Good to VG‑EX]
Courtesy of COMC.com

1969 White Letters (group), including Rookie Stars and Mantle

Various checklist errors in the 60s: 1967 Tom/Dick Kelley, 1966 #101 Spahn/Henry, 1969 #107 Jim/John Purdin. Due to cards being printed in multiple series.

1983 Fleer fingers on back; weird printing error

1981 Fleer - [Base] #126.2 - Ron Cey (Finger on Back)
Courtesy of COMC.com

Skip-numbering: considered an error? Made collectors think they were missing cards in the set to buy more packs intentionally, including some famous short prints.


1982 Fleer - [Base] #603.1 - Lee Smith (Upside Down Cubs Logo on Back)
Courtesy of COMC.com

[richtree]

Hey swarmee thanks for the reply.

I don't want to turn this post into a list of random variations and errors unless you think these are some of the most impactful ?

DO you think any of these make the top 25 or a top 50 list / ?

thanks

[rats60]

The 1958 Yellow Letters/Teams and the 1962 Green Tints (especially those with different photos)/ Hal Reniff #139 are definitely worth mentioning.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by richtree

DO you think any of these make the top 25 or a top 50 list / ?

Maybe not, but in order to rank them, you have to have a list of them. Sain/Page error mentioned in 1952 Topps would probably be.

Would you consider uncorrected errors to be on the list?

Would you consider the wrong player image on the card to be an error worthy of making the list?

[richtree]

I would if they have an impact.

To be honest I already have some of the best lists ever made but there are too many, that is why I am focusing on the Top 100 only..

I have drafted my top 25 list already and have a list of roughly 60 of the top 100 but want to gather what other more experienced collector's say or maybe some that lived through the 10-20 years prior to 1985.....


Hopefully this provides some clarity ....

[butchie_t]

IMO the 74 Nat'l Lea cards were not really errors as much as they were a guess on a team move. I would consider them a true variation as Topps did print the cards with the Padres moniker in later runs.

I know I collected a good deal of the Washington Nat'l Lea. cards when they did come out as I was hopeful that the Padres would move to Washington D.C. .....

Bob Short can still burn in hell by the way.

[whiteymet]

Originally Posted by richtree

Hey all,

I have been working on a side project for a few months now.

I am attempting to to build a list of the Top 100 Errors and Variations based on the impact they had to the hobby.

I have a few drafts ready, but the reason for this post is two requests if anyone would like to help me.

#1 I began collected in 1985 and don't really remember anything prior to that time period. I was wondering from people collecting in the 70s and early 80s were there error cards that impacted the hobby ? Were some well known or considered important at the time that are no longer discussed ?

#2 I would love to hear what people would consider a card that needs to be on the top 50 list (besides many of the obvious).


If there are any volunteers that want to discuss deeper and share some of the drafts offline feel free to email me or inbox me (or let me know that I can contact you)....

It seems of late there has been more interest in these cards again and I feel I am ready to dive in deeper and would love to discuss with others on the board that either have the same passion or willing to share their historical knowledge...

thanks and happy new year to all !

rich t
richtree@gmail.com

Rich:

To answer part of your questions above, YES, there were error cards collected, discussed, and written about not only in the 70's and 80's but also in the 60's when I started collecting.

Back then we had 54 Bowman #66 Williams and Piersall, 49 Leaf Hermanski and Hermansk, Alberson with both sleeves, 50 Bowman with and without bottom line on reverse, 62 Topps green tints to name just a few.

There was actually an E&V booklet printed and issued by old time collector from Philadelphia named Irv Lerner and later another by Ralph Nozaki titled Errors and Variations 1948-1976 which I still have.

So E&V's have been part of the hobby for quite awhile, probably even before the 60's.

If you have a list you want to post here, I am sure you will get comments, additions, corrections to that list to help you solidify what you are looking for.

[swarmee]

The 1954 Bowman stat and trivia answer errors would probably be a grouping in the Top 25/50.

[BobC]

richtree,

There are a lot of members that will likely have tons of info and knowledge on errors and variations that you will find on this forum. They are attempting to answer questions for you, but really don't have any basis to start from. To be able to really help you and answer some of your questions, it is critical to know exactly what you are asking about. Honestly, in looking at your initial request, and subsequent interactions and responses to others posting, I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to do.

Here is a list of initial concerns and questions that immediately jumped out at me in regard to your thread:

1. You want help listing the top 100 E&Vs that have impacted the hobby. Great, but what exactly do you mean by "impact"? Your definition and meaning can be completely different from everyone else's, and you haven't really given us any clue as to exactly what "your" definition of "impact" is. For example, to many people an Error or Variation that is considered impactful to the hobby could be one that was considered important enough to be listed by Bob Lemke and his crew in the old Krause/SCD catalogs, or in any of the other well-known established price/card guides (like the Beckett price guides) of the day.

2. You say you have an actual list of what you feel are the top 25 E&Vs, and maybe 60 or so total of the top 100 so far, but fail to share those lists with us so we can have a much better idea of exactly what it is "you" are looking for. Again, you are making up this list based on "your" thoughts and parameters. And since none of us can read your mind, the best we can do is only guess at what you are really looking for and trying to put together. And then when some people tried posting some things they thought might go/belong on such a list, you respond, "I don't want to turn this post into a list of random variations and errors unless you think these are some of the most impactful?" But again, you completely fail to tell any of us exactly what your definition of "impactful to the hobby" is or provide your list so we can see examples of what you consider impactful. Is there some reason you are unable (or unwilling) to share your list(s) with everybody?

3. Is there a particular time frame or era that this list of E&Vs is restricted to, or only supposed to cover, or is it all-time over the course of the entire collecting history of baseball cards? You talk about having E&V knowledge going back to 1985, and are looking for additional help for your list for the 10-20 years before that. You also started this thread in thread in the post-1980 forum. So does that mean you are really only interested in E&Vs from 1980 till today, from around 1965 to present day, or are you including those going all the way back to the start of cards being produced as well? You've never really stated that exact parameter. And for example, someone posted about some '54 Bowman errors, but you haven't yet responded to acknowledge if those are or are not the type (or era) of E&Vs you are talking about and looking for. And if '54 Bowman E&Vs are okay for your list, how far back is?

4. You also made reference in your original post to some E&Vs that supposedly "obviously" belong on your top 50 E&V list. "#2 I would love to hear what people would consider a card that needs to be on the top 50 list (besides many of the obvious)." So, what are these "obvious" E&Vs that would belong on such a list? Are we talking about things like the Frank Thomas NNOF and Billy Ripken FF error cards? Again, knowing that would be very inciteful and helpful to those trying to help you out. For example, when coming to a predominantly pre-war forum and group like Net54, I would think the idea of "obvious" top 50 E&Vs would include things like the T206 Magee/Magie or the Doyle N.Y. Nat'l error cards. Are either of those already in your top 25 or 50 E&V list, because I can pretty much guarantee you that both will be for a huge majority of members here on Net54 when it comes to E&Vs considered as impactful to the hobby?

Good luck with your project.

[swarmee]

BobC, I'd think the Magie error is a critically important one for the hobby. I'm guessing the 1989 Ripken FF and 1990 Thomas NNOF are definitely in the mix, along with the other ones affected in the same Topps printing sheet. Doyle is super-valuable, but maybe Nodgrass variation is not in the top 50.

What about cards made of people who were not licensed to be printed and had to be cut down or removed from sets, like 1959 Fleer "Ted Signs for '59" or 2006 Topps Alex Gordon cutout or 2007 Lavarr Arrington (FB) cutout.
[URL="https://www.comc.com/Cards,sr,=2006+alex+gordon,+297,ot,i100"]

Ted signs was pulled because Fleer didn't have permission to include Bucky Harris on cards, and is therefore a valued short print I would put on a Top 50 list.

1959 Fleer Ted Williams - [Base] #68 - Jan. 23, 1959- Ted Signs for 1959 [PSA 5 EX]
Courtesy of COMC.com

Also on the modern list should be the RC of Beltran, even though it wasn't corrected.

1995 Topps Traded & Rookies - [Base] #18T - Carlos Beltran (Juan LeBron pictured)
Courtesy of COMC.com

[BobC]

Originally Posted by swarmee

BobC, I'd think the Magie error is a critically important one for the hobby. I'm guessing the 1989 Ripken FF and 1990 Thomas NNOF are definitely in the mix, along with the other ones affected in the same Topps printing sheet. Doyle is super-valuable, but maybe Nodgrass variation is not in the top 50.

What about cards made of people who were not licensed to be printed and had to be cut down or removed from sets, like 1959 Fleer "Ted Signs for '59" or 2006 Topps Alex Gordon cutout or 2007 Lavarr Arrington (FB) cutout.
[URL="https://www.comc.com/Cards,sr,=2006+alex+gordon,+297,ot,i100"]

Ted signs was pulled because Fleer didn't have permission to include Bucky Harris on cards, and is therefore a valued short print I would put on a Top 50 list.

1959 Fleer Ted Williams - [Base] #68 - Jan. 23, 1959- Ted Signs for 1959 [PSA 5 EX]
Courtesy of COMC.com

Also on the modern list should be the RC of Beltran, even though it wasn't corrected.

1995 Topps Traded & Rookies - [Base] #18T - Carlos Beltran (Juan LeBron pictured)
Courtesy of COMC.com

All great points and questions, and why we need richtree to be a lot more informative as to exactly what he is looking for. There are literally thousands and thousands of errors and variations that have occurred in cards since they first started creating them back in the 1800s. Hopefully he'll be back and fill in some more of the details of exactly what he's looking for so he can get the help he's looking for. I'm interested in seeing what this list turns out to be.

If nothing else, it will be a start for a great debate among people as to what does or does not belong on such a list, or where different E&Vs get ranked on it. It is a great topic.

[swarmee]

1933 Goudey #106 Lajoie was intentionally not printed (skip-numbered). This outraged kids at the time, and Goudey printed up some the following year and sent them as gifts to kids who wrote the company angrily wondering where that card was. So I think that would be a historically significant Top 25 type error. Presuming it fits your definition of error.

[ocjack]

Probably should include the 1957 Topps Gene Baker (Bakep misprint). Before price guides, I searched dealer commons for at least 15+ years and only found 2 in all that time.

[Rich Klein]

I really don't consider the 1933 Goudey Lajoie an error, I consider that a marketing ploy

Just my opinion

Rich

[swarmee]

I wonder if the modern list has the Donruss patch mixup where Willie Mays Mets flannel jersey patches were inserted into Willie Nelson cards instead of the red bandanna pieces.

2008 Donruss Americana Celebrity Cuts - [Base] - Century Prime Materials #97.2 - Willie Nelson (Uncorrected Error: Willie Mays Relic) /50
Courtesy of COMC.com


2008 Donruss Americana Celebrity Cuts - [Base] - Century Prime Materials #96.2 - Willie Mays (Uncorrected Error: Willie Nelson Relic) /50 [Uncirculated]
Courtesy of COMC.com

Or the time where Magic Johnson signed the wrong manufactured jersey pieces (for Arizona State Sun Devils) and they ended up in a minor leaguer's baseball card.

2010 Donruss Elite Extra Edition - Collegiate Patches Signatures #JOS - Jordan Swagerty, Magic Johnson (Magic Johnson Autograph) /125
Courtesy of COMC.com

Or this one:
https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1541599

[BobC]

Originally Posted by ocjack

Probably should include the 1957 Topps Gene Baker (Bakep misprint). Before price guides, I searched dealer commons for at least 15+ years and only found 2 in all that time.

Ha, I also came across exactly two of the Bakep error cards in all my years of looking as well. Think I paid about $1.25 total for the two of them found at different times, both in about VG to VG+ condition.

There is also the Pancho Herrer error card from Topps in 1958, another long and well-known and listed error card. That one is even harder to find IMO, and I was never lucky enough to come across one while looking through dealer boxes of commons.

But again, is the OP even going that far back in time for his listing of E&Vs? Based on what he originally posted, he seems to be cutting off the dating of his list from about 1965 to the present, which to me would radically affect any listing of truly impactful error or variation cards in the hobby. IMO, quite honestly, aside from the Frank Thomas NNOF and Billy Ripken FF cards, i would think that the balance of any "most impactful" E&V cards on a top 25, or maybe even a top 50, list would predominately be made up of cards pretty much from prior to 1970. And I'm picking that cutoff date primarily due to the 1969 "white letter" cards which include Mantle's last playing year card as one of the most or more well-known and desired errors in the hobby.

And as some others have pointed out, cards like the 1933 Goudey Lajoie, is that really an error card? How do you call something an error that was intentionally done by the card's manufacturer. Or what about cards that mistakenly used a different person's image on some of them, like the W555 error cards that showed Irv Young as Cy Young? Of course, there is also the classic and very well-known E98 cards that are considered as depicting images of Irv instead of Cy, but unlike the W555 cards, there was not also a corrected version of Cy's cards actually showing him on an E98 card like there is for Cy on the W555s. So, does that make those E98 cards of Young actual error or variation cards after all? Couldn't they actually be considered just lousy renditions of Cy, like some E-90 or W9316 player images? Those E98 card images were never changed or corrected, so they technically aren't variations. But as for being an actual error, back then, such pre-war cards didn't always use actual photos, but instead an artist's rendition or representation of supposedly an actual photo. But because such artistic renditions weren't always so perfect (think some E-90 cards or God forbid, the W9316 cards) who is to then truly say what is an actual error or not for an image used if it doesn't look exactly like the intended person? And once again, more reasons we need the OP to chime in on exactly what he is looking for and what he considers as an eligible E&V for what is "his" list according to "his" definition of what a card E&V is.

I'm looking forward to seeing his Top 25 list, at least. I just hope he ends up sharing it with us, because I can't think of any reason he should hesitate to.

[Gorditadogg]

What an interesting concept for an article. I've never been an E&V collector myself so I don't have any helpful insights, but I am looking forward to seeing your work when it is published.

[JustinD]

I don't think withdrawn cards or UER's deserve a place.

I don't ever consider a UER an error, that's just bad editing. If it's corrected then okay.

As for important to history of the hobby I can't imagine a list without mostly modern in a top 10 as they created the most news and popularity for card chasing.

This will be Ripken FF, NNOF 1990 Thomas, 2006 Topps Gordon Versions, 1987 Donruss Opening Day Barry Bonds, 1977 Star Wars C-3PO "golden rod", 1989 Upper Deck Dale Murphy reverse neg.

As for vintage, I would think would be the two T206 biggies Doyle/Magie. I would put Magie a country mile ahead of Doyle as many collectors may not be familiar due to rarity. Followed by 1959 Pancho Herrer, 1948 Gene Hermansk, 1969 Topps Mickey Mantle White Letters, 1952 Topps Johnny Sain-Paige Bio and vice versa. These latter cards are reachable for a majority of collectors and not as untouchable as the T206, so new collector starters.

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by swarmee

BobC, I'd think the Magie error is a critically important one for the hobby. I'm guessing the 1989 Ripken FF and 1990 Thomas NNOF are definitely in the mix, along with the other ones affected in the same Topps printing sheet. Doyle is super-valuable, but maybe Nodgrass variation is not in the top 50.

What about cards made of people who were not licensed to be printed and had to be cut down or removed from sets, like 1959 Fleer "Ted Signs for '59" or 2006 Topps Alex Gordon cutout or 2007 Lavarr Arrington (FB) cutout.
[URL="https://www.comc.com/Cards,sr,=2006+alex+gordon,+297,ot,i100"]

Ted signs was pulled because Fleer didn't have permission to include Bucky Harris on cards, and is therefore a valued short print I would put on a Top 50 list.

1959 Fleer Ted Williams - [Base] #68 - Jan. 23, 1959- Ted Signs for 1959 [PSA 5 EX]
Courtesy of COMC.com

Also on the modern list should be the RC of Beltran, even though it wasn't corrected.

1995 Topps Traded & Rookies - [Base] #18T - Carlos Beltran (Juan LeBron pictured)
Courtesy of COMC.com

My list would pretty much parallel John 's list above. I would probably add a few more of the '52 Topps variations like the mid-series gray backs, House Yellow Tiger and Campos star/black star and partial border breaks. Any '52 Topps collector generally considers these variations as must haves

[richtree]

Hey all , thanks for the initial replies.

I think maybe posting a few of my top ones and what I consider impactful may be helpful.

I think some of you think my lack of # of posts may be looking for direction. I am not. The purpose of this was to brainstorm and discuss a topic I have passion about.

I really didn't collect prior to the year 1986 ( i was 8 years old then) and I know this board has some knowledge.

Ill post top 5 or 10 with a write up today after work

thanks

[Rich Klein]

One card, 15 years later, which has receded into the midst was the 2007 Topps Derek Jeter card with Mickey Mantle and George W. Bush in the background (they were later removed)

Topps did that to boost sales and it sure succeeded, in fact, it took years for 2007 Topps 1 product to end up at a price point where I could actually do what I used to like to do and buy a series 1 box each year. I'm not the only one who buys series 1 just as a tradition as it's the largest produced product ANY card manufacturer does in a given year.

But that helped spawn a ton of the modern variations

Rich

[steve B]

I started really collecting in late 77, and saw the Nozaki list sometime around early 78?
I knew about the errors and variations, but very few were a big deal with any lasting interest. Most of what's listed are good candidates for a list.
Mine? A shorter list focused mostly on the cards popular at the time.

Magie - one of the big deal cards, and one that was just never seen

The 74 Washington National League. - from my first full year collecting! and at least in my neighborhood a big deal. Didn't get many, and the rumors about them and other cards in the set- or not... Was there or wasn't there a checklist for Washington? (Nope)
And the card that never existed - and As manager card with a question mark instead of a photo supposedly because the manager was named a bit late. No idea where that came from, but I did look for that card for a few years.

79 Bump Wills - First real major variation in a few years, it was popular until

1981- Fleer Graig/Craig Nettles. That was THE card to get that year. Yes, Fleer had a bunch of other variations, as did Donruss and Topps. Some of the others especially the hands on the fleer made a lot of people think the variations were deliberate. (To me- The Topps ones were just their usual sloppiness, the Donruss were from them rushing the set and fixing mistakes later. And most of the Fleer were the same. The fingers I thought were deliberate and done to add to their sales.

82 Fleer - Littlefield reversed negative another "must get" variation, but at a time when the whole variations thing had mostly run out of gas.
82 Topps Blackless - not well understood at the time, also pretty popular in a time of fading interest.

89 Ripken F - Just difficult enough and just flashy/shocking enough to generate a lot of interest even outside of the hobby.

90 Topps - Thomas NNOF. Tough enough that it was years before I saw one in person, and thought it was just a printing flaw. (It is, but more interesting than I'd thought.)
90 Donruss- Not all that tough for the most part, but not always easy. Briefly popular and gave a bit of life to variation collecting.

After that.... and even before that, well into the junk wax era, where some most? sets were produced in multiple plants and like 91 Fleer had trivial variations on pretty much every card. That sort of knocked variation collecting back. Like how many cards does anyone really want where it's like
A - Whole ankle shows
B - almost all of ankle shows.
I really like variations, and even I don't chase that stuff (although I do chase stuff that's even worse, like 93UD back gloss differences, and general UD hologram changes.)

Honorable mention although they didn't have much effect at all - George C Miller having two different backs for each card.... shocking when I learned of it. They're uncommon enough, but they did two different small press runs? What the _

[richtree]

So here is an example of what I have been working on ...

I wanted to post here because, like I said earlier, I don't have all the knowledge I need on errors and variations prior to when I was collecting from 1986 until now.

1. Sherry Magie --- impact is that it is one of the big 4 and and anchor for the hobby for the next 1000 years

2. Billy Ripken -- impact is that during the height of errors, this card was known by people inside and outside the hobby. Even today people just want to hold one in their hands.

3. Frank Thomas NNOF -- the impact was for the first true rarity in the modern error place --- even today with millions of 1990 topps, its still hard to find...and worth more and more

4. Mickey Mantle White letters --- One of the greatest ever, from the yankees and representing the 69 white letters.... Without mantle having a white letter version , would people care as much for cards like this (2 color versions?)

5. Craig Nettles 1981 fleer spelling error --- the first year Topps now had lawsuits and rivals and errors and variations appeared as common place in the new "modern baseball card market"

6. 1957 Hank Aaron Uncorrected error -- Reverse Negative --- Not only is this of a baseball great, but I feel this card helped translate the stories of hitting cross handed and the aura of the home run king. A card that collectors wanted in their display case.

7. Barry Bonds opening Day -- In 1987, I remember people opening boxes and not knowing what Johnny Ray looked like --- it seemed so hard to find this card -- then Bonds became a legend --- today they are still rare and since their were not packs and only a boxed set --- it become the first error card that was truly from an odd place and hard to find --- and so happened to be one of the most controversial figure of all time.



Ill stop there even though I have my top 25 done like the above because I want to learn more about the cards I don't understand (pre-modern) and where they fit in ----- once the project is complete I will do a offical release of the list and writeups..

please feel free to contact me and any help like the above is greatly appreciated !!!

thanks

richtree
richtree@gmail.com

[Blackless Collector]

Prior to 1985 error/variations are 1982 Topps Blackless and the vintage Pancho herrera "Herrer" 1958 topps error.

[bocca001]

It might be useful to find some old Beckett price guides from the early 1980s. As a kid in the 1980s, we would look at the prices and notice some of what seemed like the crazy prices for error cards. Those cards were certainly well-known. The 1958 Pancho Herrer stands out as one that always had a relatively large $$. I'd also agree that the 1981 Fleer errors were a big deal, well known, and sought after. Especially the Nettles. Same goes for the 1969 White Letters (Mantle, McCovey) and the 1974 San Diego/Washington cards.

And I'd also say that as much as the 1989 Ripken error (and corrections) is/are well known and collected and should be high on the list, I find the 1989 Fleer Randy Johnson cards and corrections to be even more interesting. The rarity of the uncorrected version (I think there are two known?) and the sheer number of different corrections are mind boggling.

I'll also note here that I don't understand how the 1973 Al Kaline Band Aid card went so long without being a thing. It's hard not to notice once you know about it and it is a Hall of Famer.

[swarmee]

"Band-aid" 1973 Kaline. When did it get discovered and when did it first become a valuable, sought-after card?

1973 Topps - [Base] #280.2 - Al Kaline (Band-Aid Visible Under Cap) [Good to VG‑EX]
Courtesy of COMC.com

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by swarmee

"Band-aid" 1973 Kaline. When did it get discovered and when did it first become a valuable, sought-after card?

1973 Topps - [Base] #280.2 - Al Kaline (Band-Aid Visible Under Cap) [Good to VG‑EX]
Courtesy of COMC.com

Not sure when it was discovered. Up till a few years ago it was a $5 card. I know that is what I paid for mine and I know several others that paid similar for it. Been a LOT of hype around it running up the price along with the general huge run up in prices on all cards.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by richtree

So here is an example of what I have been working on ...

I wanted to post here because, like I said earlier, I don't have all the knowledge I need on errors and variations prior to when I was collecting from 1986 until now.

1. Sherry Magie --- impact is that it is one of the big 4 and and anchor for the hobby for the next 1000 years

2. Billy Ripken -- impact is that during the height of errors, this card was known by people inside and outside the hobby. Even today people just want to hold one in their hands.

3. Frank Thomas NNOF -- the impact was for the first true rarity in the modern error place --- even today with millions of 1990 topps, its still hard to find...and worth more and more

4. Mickey Mantle White letters --- One of the greatest ever, from the yankees and representing the 69 white letters.... Without mantle having a white letter version , would people care as much for cards like this (2 color versions?)

5. Craig Nettles 1981 fleer spelling error --- the first year Topps now had lawsuits and rivals and errors and variations appeared as common place in the new "modern baseball card market"

6. 1957 Hank Aaron Uncorrected error -- Reverse Negative --- Not only is this of a baseball great, but I feel this card helped translate the stories of hitting cross handed and the aura of the home run king. A card that collectors wanted in their display case.

7. Barry Bonds opening Day -- In 1987, I remember people opening boxes and not knowing what Johnny Ray looked like --- it seemed so hard to find this card -- then Bonds became a legend --- today they are still rare and since their were not packs and only a boxed set --- it become the first error card that was truly from an odd place and hard to find --- and so happened to be one of the most controversial figure of all time.



Ill stop there even though I have my top 25 done like the above because I want to learn more about the cards I don't understand (pre-modern) and where they fit in ----- once the project is complete I will do a offical release of the list and writeups..

please feel free to contact me and any help like the above is greatly appreciated !!!

thanks

richtree
richtree@gmail.com

richtree,

Thanks for getting back to us and giving some ideas on what you're looking for then. The Magie/Magee error inclusion lets us know that you are not limiting the list to just the 60s/70s/80s - present. That is great to know.

The mention of the errors and such from the old Beckett's and other baseball price guides is a great place to start, but also remember that those were predominantly 50s and forward card guides. The old stuff, that old guys like a lot of us are into, go back way before then. Like with the Magie/Magee error. Of course, even the old Beckett guides would include some detail for the T206 and '33/'34 Goudey sets usually, and thus the Magie/Magee error would get posted for all to see in those as well. I think those old Beckett's may end up having a lot more influence on what is or isn't considered "impactful" to the hobby than many expect.

In fact, I still have to ask the question, what exactly is YOUR definition of what makes a particular E/V card "impactful" to the hobby? Or is it your goal to read and see what others consider as "impactful" and thus don't really have a specific definition of your own then? Just curious to see where you are coming from. Some may argue that impactful could/should refer to value, which would put E&Vs such as the Magie/Magee and Doyle N.Y. Nat'l cards at the top of such E&V lists. Similarly, '69 Mantle white-letter and '58 Aaron yellow team E&V cards would be pretty far up those lists as well. But then that would possibly remove or lower other well-known, but not nearly as valuable E&V cards as well. Just curious if you'd share some more info with us.

[richtree]

The reason I chose "impact" is that being rare or valuable had less meaning to me.

Its really more around "having meaning".


For example, the Ripken card is not rare, its not that valuable but it has more meaning than even some really great players on older, rare errors/variations.


That was my headspace. Like the Pancho card has a lot of meaning to me as well because it has been around so long, and thought of as a valuable piece to own, even the the randomness of the A missing seems no different that the 87-91 print defects......but the meaning separates it from them;..


Best I could come up with so far --- but trying to refine that in this process as well...

Lots of help here so far., its been very valuable to those that have replied....sorry I didn't thank you each individually so far...


rt

[BobC]

Originally Posted by richtree

The reason I chose "impact" is that being rare or valuable had less meaning to me.

Its really more around "having meaning".


For example, the Ripken card is not rare, its not that valuable but it has more meaning than even some really great players on older, rare errors/variations.


That was my headspace. Like the Pancho card has a lot of meaning to me as well because it has been around so long, and thought of as a valuable piece to own, even the the randomness of the A missing seems no different that the 87-91 print defects......but the meaning separates it from them;..

Best I could come up with so far --- but trying to refine that in this process as well...

Lots of help here so far., its been very valuable to those that have replied....sorry I didn't thank you each individually so far...


rt

Cool, that is so good of you to chime in and better explain where you are coming from. And I like where you are going with this because it is not all just about value then.

So as previously mentioned, along with the 1958 Pancho Herrera/Herrer error/variation, I think you have to include the 1957 Gene Baker/Bakep error on your list somewhere as well. Those two errors have been well known and listed in pretty much all the price/listing guides, going back as far as I remember.

And since you are including variations and not just errors on your list, I would also suggest/nominate the two 1952 Topps #311 Mickey Mantle card variations as well. Being one of the most well-known and collected sets of all-time, and the #311 Mantle being arguably the most iconic and valuable card post-war, it would be hard for such a well-known variation to not be included in a top list of all-time E&V cards. Actually, kind of surprised and shocked no one else had mentioned it yet.

There are many other well-known variations out there, including those that cover more than just one card. So as another possible question, when looking to list as an E&V, are you going to include say all the yellow team 1958 Topps variation cards as one total E&V item on your list(s), or will you simply pick say one of the more/most significant cards that are included in that variation group and just include a single card from that group (think 1958 Topps Aaron yellow team card) on your list(s)?

Same thing would go for the 1962 Topps green tint variation cards. All 86 cards in the entire second series (1962 Topps cards #110 - #196) can be found either with or without the green tint. Are all the green tint cards to be considered as just one single E&V for your list(s), or are you going to pick just what you think is/are the most significant/valuable green tint card(s) and list it/them separately? The green tint variation cards include the 10-card Babe Ruth subset (#135 - #144), Tim McCarver's rookie card (#167), and Ron Santo's 2nd year card (#170), as what are think are probably the most important/valuable green tint cards. So, there are several to choose from if you want to have just one represent this very-well known and desired variation subset, or several that you may choose from among that may deserve to be separately listed on your top list(s) if you feel any one or more of them has enough hobby impact to deserve such a spot(s). And for info purposes, I believe the green tint Ruth-Gehrig card (#140) from the Ruth subset is often considered the most valuable of the green tint cards, if that helps.

Another question for you, are you including uncorrected errors on this E&V list of yours? Technically, if a card is not corrected, is it actually a variation? And as previously mentioned/asked, cards that supposedly feature pictures/images of different people are somewhat akin to uncorrected errors. If the card isn't also printed with the changed and corrected image, are you including it as a legit E&V for your list(s)?

I guess the same can be asked for cards that are simply reversed negative images, unless they were at some point corrected and also printed with a non-reversed image. If they were never corrected, is it really an E or V, and if not, do they really have a place on your E&V list(s) then?

And along with the T206 Magie/Magee error, I think you have to include the T206 Joe Doyle N.Y. Nat'l variation card(s) as one of the top E&Vs on your list(s) as well. Kind of hard to include one of the two E&Vs that make up part of the Big Four of the most iconic set in the hobby on your list of most impactful E&V cards in the hobby, without also including the other. Don't you think? And if you're putting the Magie/Magee at #1 on one of your lists, how is Doyle not at least in the top 5 also?

The 1954 Bowman Ted Williams/Jimmy Piersall card #66 variation is another that is well known and legendary in the hobby. As is the Johnny Sain/Joe Page error/variation cards that are also part of the 1952 Topps set. These E&Vs have been around for so long, and are so well known and have been listed by the major card price guides/publications forever. For these not to be part of your "Top" lists is almost unconscionable.

As someone else already suggested, you simply need to go back and find and reference some of the old Beckett and other price guides, along with the Krause/SCD catalogs, and look for the various E&Vs that were initially and prominently being listed in them for decades. These are the E&Vs that are going to have had the most overall exposure, and thus most likely the most impact, in the hobby. That is where I would start.

Good luck, keep us posted on what you think and come up with. I think it is a cool project.

[ALR-bishop]

The 2011 version of the SCD Standard Catalog listed the 52 Mantle, Robinson and Thompson as variations. The front and back differences are obvious, and although not likely intentional, did result from a decision to double print them.

Can you imagine the anguish if PSA ever includes them in it's master 52 list causing a need to have two of each for a master set . Since I have them I am ok with that .

I bet it would be hard to get full agreement here on what should constitute the definition of a variation. And no matter what definition were adopted applying it in all cases would not be easy.

Anyone interested in post war variations might want to look at this project

http://baseballcardvariationsguidebo...wordpress.com/t

[BobC]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

The 2011 version of the SCD Standard Catalog listed the 52 Mantle, Robinson and Thompson as variations. The front and back differences are obvious, and although not likely intentional, did result from a decision to double print them.

Can you imagine the anguish if PSA ever includes them in it's master 52 list causing a need to have two of each for a master set . Since I have them Topps I am ok with that .

I bet it would be hard to get full agreement here on what should constitute the definition of a variation. And no matter what definition were adopted applying it in all cases would not be easy.

Anyone interested in post war variations might want to look at this project

http://baseballcardvariationsguidebo...wordpress.com/t

Thanks, good one(s) Al, I forgot about the 1952 Topps Robinson and Thompson card variations as well. The Mantle definitely belongs as a well-known variation, and most likely the Robinson card as well. Many people will likely put the Thompson card variation much farther down such E&V lists as he is not as well-known and impactful to the hobby overall as are Mantle and Robinson.

[Exhibitman]

I think we need to refine our terms.

An error is a mistake, either corrected or not. The flipped image 1989 UD Murphy is an error. The 1969 Topps Aurelio Rodriguez 'batboy' card is an uncorrected error. The 1952 Topps Paige-Sain screw up is a corrected error as is the 81 Fleer Craig Nettles.

A variation is a change not made to correct a mistake but to change the card. The Nettles loop is a variation. The Kaline "boo boo" is a variation. The myriad FF Ripkens are variations.

The 1952 DPs are not variations, they are two different cards of each player.

A printing freak is an unintended production process failure. The "Bakep" and "Herrer" cards are print freaks. The 'finger' Fleer cards are freaks. All of the really fun mistakes (IMO) are freaks. They carry premiums because guys like me collect them.

[ALR-bishop]

I like your definitions Adam but disagree on DPs. For me two different cards of the same player with the same # are variations. And if they are two different cards of the same player in the same set it would seems to me you would need both for a master set. But the fact there are a whole bunch of DP card differences in most old Topps sets likely makes your definition more manageable and sensible

[steve B]

For stuff like the double prints I like the term Varieties.
It's used in one of my other hobbies to describe an item that's not a correction, but typically a constant error that's a difference in the plate at a particular spot.

There are then specific terms for exactly what the heck went wrong.... Double transfer, Foreign entry, plate scratch, Rust hole, erasure, plate crack, (and that's just for the engraved ones.. typographed and lithographed have their own list of problems.

Collectability depends on how rare or spectacular that variety is, rare AND showy = expensive.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I think we need to refine our terms.

An error is a mistake, either corrected or not. The flipped image 1989 UD Murphy is an error. The 1969 Topps Aurelio Rodriguez 'batboy' card is an uncorrected error. The 1952 Topps Paige-Sain screw up is a corrected error as is the 81 Fleer Craig Nettles.

A variation is a change not made to correct a mistake but to change the card. The Nettles loop is a variation. The Kaline "boo boo" is a variation. The myriad FF Ripkens are variations.

The 1952 DPs are not variations, they are two different cards of each player.

A printing freak is an unintended production process failure. The "Bakep" and "Herrer" cards are print freaks. The 'finger' Fleer cards are freaks. All of the really fun mistakes (IMO) are freaks. They carry premiums because guys like me collect them.

Actually the 1952 HI # Double Prints are variations, there are 5 ways to tell the difference with the most noticeable one being the way the baseball on the front stitching is facing. Yep, it's really different in those 2. I remember discussing that with Andy Broome way back in the day when two of those popped into BGS on the same day

[G1911]

The 52’s are variations and long recognized as such. I’ve never heard of a DP exemption before. This would be new terminology.

[bnorth]

You all can call them anything you want. I call them cool cards I collect.

This pristine card is my favorite Hank Aaron.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by G1911

The 52’s are variations and long recognized as such. I’ve never heard of a DP exemption before. This would be new terminology.

The reason the 52's have the DP notification is cards 311-313 were printed 2x on the full 52 high number sheet. It was an 100 card sheet but 97 cards in the set so Topps just printed, yep 311-313 2x on those sheets.

So of course it's only Mickey Mantle, Jackie Robinson and Bobby Thomson which are DP's which is how that occurred.

Rich

[ALR-bishop]

The 3 52 DPs have noticeable differences front and back. Many if not most Topps DPs have very subtle differences, often only minor cropping differences.

For myself I view cards with recurring differences from their common counterparts as variants. I tend to view variations as variants where the difference resulted from an intentional intervention in the cards appearance by the manufacturer , such as the added traded or option lines in 1959 or the correction of Spahn’s DOB.

Although DP differences themselves were not likely intended, they did result from intentional decisions in the printing process. But as I conceded to Adam there are hundreds of very subtle DP differences. For instance there are two versions of the 1956 Ted Williams card that are pretty hard to spot. ( not the 55 dotted i card)

And how can it be accurately determined if the hundreds of recurring print defects in cards were detected and corrected or simply came and went undetected in the printing process ?

If you collect any and all variations, variants, varieties, errors corrected and uncorrected, definitions may not matter. But it is hobby recognition of card differences that creates market demand and drives pricing.

PSA recognition seems to be one of the few ways to get current recognition of a “new” variation. But I guess if they can designate a 61 Fairly with an errant green smudge in the baseball on the card back as a variation, there is hope for almost any defect

We need someone in charge of this stuff

[BobC]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

We need someone in charge of this stuff

+ a gazillion!!!!!!!!!!

Been saying all along we need some group/organization that is comprised and primarily made up, and actually for the benefit and primary interests, of the true "collectors" in this hobby, and not just overrun and controlled by dealers/investors/TPGs, to set the standards and measures that are then deemed what the hobby goes by and follows. Not leave it to TPGs or others to decide what they think the grading standards should be, and let each of them do what they want. Provide independent approval/licensing and acknowledgement by such a group/organization and mandated third-party review of such players in the industry, and their procedures, to show actual results in providing true transparency of what and how they do things. Not just simply provide mere lip service, which is often all that is offered to the collecting public at large by many of these card collecting industry players, if they'll even say anything at all.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by BobC

+ a gazillion!!!!!!!!!!

Been saying all along we need some group/organization that is comprised and primarily made up, and actually for the benefit and primary interests, of the true "collectors" in this hobby, and not just overrun and controlled by dealers/investors/TPGs, to set the standards and measures that are then deemed what the hobby goes by and follows. Not leave it to TPGs or others to decide what they think the grading standards should be, and let each of them do what they want. Provide independent approval/licensing and acknowledgement by such a group/organization and mandated third-party review of such players in the industry, and their procedures, to show actual results in providing true transparency of what and how they do things. Not just simply provide mere lip service, which is often all that is offered to the collecting public at large by many of these card collecting industry players, if they'll even say anything at all.

They can meet in the tv room of the sanitarium

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

They can meet in the tv room of the sanitarium

Thursdays is our only open night if anyone is interested.

[Republicaninmass]

1952 topps #146 frank house

Possible 3 placements in sheet


1,2. Produced with normal tiger logo

3. Produced with yellow tiger logo

1a, 2a. Logo changed to remove red little by little leaving green mixture on house's throat


1b,2b,3a. Logos all matched

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

They can meet in the tv room of the sanitarium

I think I get the joke, but do you really think having an actual organized group comprised of actual collectors wouldn't be helpful in looking out for collectors/members of such a group, and for sharing such information for their benefit?

It is actually the same basic idea/concept as to why people come on Net54, to share information and such so everyone can supposedly benefit and be aware of things happening in the collecting world. By making fun or a joke of my comments, you are sort of making fun of yourself by being on Net54 to begin with. Or is that just your attempt to directly take a jab at me and suggest I belong in some kind of asylum?

[JollyElm]

If you need to fill holes in your list, check out this thread I used to run. It's called "FT: Errors & Variations-a-palooza!!!!" and hasn't been updated in a couple of years, but there's a tremendous amount of different variations listed in it:
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=242217