Some pretty cool new(?) 1963 Topps Printing Error/Variations

[Cliff Bowman]

The Ed Sadowski missing top border has been known about for quite a few years now, but as far as I know none of the others pictured have ever been mentioned. Back when eBay would allow you to see what other people had bought recently, I used to check what "LauraSalzy" had gotten because he is the master at buying obscure printing error/variations as quick as unknowing sellers would put them up on buy-it-nows. Anyway, about two and a half years ago I noticed that he had won an auction lot of high number 1963 Topps that included the Ed Sadowski, but it was another card in the lot that caught my eye. I noticed that the Lou Klimchock was also missing the top border, but a smaller section than the Sadowski. It occurred to me that there must have been quite a few in a horizontal row missing the top border, but in varying degrees. "LauraSalzy" himself didn't notice the Klimchock printing error and put the card up for auction as a regular common, but as I was on the way home to snipe it I wrecked my car and missed it. It was the only I had ever seen until I found one recently. Slowly but surely they would pop up until I was confident that there were a total of eight of them, the only ones I needed were Klimchock and an unknown card between Sadowski and the Cardinals team card. Last week I found a mother load of these from everyones "favorite" seller, who shall go unnamed. The Klimchock and the Bell, the only one I have ever seen, were among the ones that he had. So, I am pretty confident that these eight comprise the complete run of cards that were affected on either the top or the bottom of the original uncut printing sheet. I have seen a handful of the Sadowski cards, but all of the others I have seen one or two of each.

[ALR-bishop]

Great piece of hobby sleuthing Cliff

[savedfrommyspokes]

Nice finds Cliff....with the bottom areas all being yellow, it would make since that these cards were all on the same row of the sheet. The 63 Topps #5 NL LL card I have seen (posted here I believe) missing the left border.

[SMPEP]

Cliff - I will second the great sleuthing, but will also add ... you are missing 3 cards. The row would have had 11 cards in it. I bet you'll find them if you keep looking.

Cheers,
Patrick

[ALR-bishop]

Go ahead Patrick, make his day

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by SMPEP

Cliff - I will second the great sleuthing, but will also add ... you are missing 3 cards. The row would have had 11 cards in it. I bet you'll find them if you keep looking.

Cheers,
Patrick

You are correct that there are eleven yellow bottom cards in that horizontal row, but I am pretty certain that only these eight cards in the row were affected. The Sadowski can often be found with an irregular cut on the left edge which tells me that it was the first card on the row, and the printing flaw ends on the Cook. I would still like to know who the next three are, though.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

Nice finds Cliff....with the bottom areas all being yellow, it would make since that these cards were all on the same row of the sheet. The 63 Topps #5 NL LL card I have seen (posted here I believe) missing the left border.

I was hoping nobody would notice that . I believe ten cards in the first series can be found with the same flaw, but along the left or right side rather than the top. Half of the cards in 1963 were printed upside down. I have found that these are even rarer than the high number printing flaw cards, I am still looking for three of them.

[JTysver]

This is from a piece of paper or tape being left on the negative when they made the plates.
This is not really a variation in my opinion but a printer's error.

[ALR-bishop]

Yes, but so is the 57 Bakep and the 58 Herrer, and maybe the 52 Campos black star or missing front border. All famous "variations".

What is the hobby definition of a true variation anyway ? What is your definition ? Intentional change made to a card ? What about double prints with differences like the 52 Mantle ? Intentional ? Variation ?

PSA has been listing a 61 Fairly with a smudge of green in the baseball on the back as a variation. Is it just a print defect ? Who is to say ? Who is the arbiter ?

No wrong views in my mind. Hobby conundrum. Some variants catch on, others do not. If you have one, it tends to be a variation, or you want it to be

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Yes, but so is the 57 Bakep and the 58 Herrer, and maybe the 52 Campos black star or missing front border. All famous "variations".

What is the hobby definition of a true variation anyway ? What is your definition ? Intentional change made to a card ? What about double prints with differences like the 52 Mantle ? Intentional ? Variation ?

PSA has been listing a 61 Fairly with a smudge of green in the baseball on the back as a variation. Is it just a print defect ? Who is to say ? Who is the arbiter ?

No wrong views in my mind. Hobby conundrum. Some variants catch on, others do not. If you have one, it tends to be a variation, or you want it to be

+1

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by JTysver

This is from a piece of paper or tape being left on the negative when they made the plates.
This is not really a variation in my opinion but a printer's error.

In your opinion, is the 1990 Topps Frank Thomas No Name On Front just a printing error or is it a variation? (Not my card, unfortunately.)

[ALR-bishop]

I would normally say it is a recurring print defect, but since I have one, it is definitely a "true" variation



Same with this recurring print defect...apparently




But, the jury is still out on this Thomas no name

[Sliphorn]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

+1

Note the backs of these 1957 cards with "Bakep" type errors. Why have they not been as sought after?

[ALR-bishop]

Tom --it's because you have them and we don't

[Sliphorn]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

+1

Here is an example of printing errors that sometime go wacko with collectors. These have the same type errors as "Bakep" with red paint overlying some of the white lettering. These should not be pricy but sometimes are.

[Cliff Bowman]

That 1957 Topps Sal Maglie with the over inked back went for a hefty price on eBay a while back if I remember correctly, if it's the same exact one.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by Sliphorn

Here is an example of printing errors that sometime go wacko with collectors. These have the same type errors as "Bakep" with red paint overlying some of the white lettering. These should not be pricy but sometimes are.

Found a couple of them. Do you think I would have any luck lobbying PSA to designate the Bailey "Side Of B/B Is Red"?

[Gr8Beldini]

Is that the actual image of the card?

[Sliphorn]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

Found a couple of them. Do you think I would have any luck lobbying PSA to designate the Bailey "Side Of B/B Is Red"?

I doubt PSA would be interested but you never know. I have a feeling being the tip of the iceberg with these things would dilute overall interest, except for the addict collectors like me.

[ALR-bishop]

Tom-- hope Cliff does not get infected by whatever your have.

Wait....never mind

[JTysver]

The Bakep and Herrer are known as errors because someone didn't understand the printing process when they designated them as such and now it is Dogma.
An error is when there is an intentional change to a card. The 1966 Alex Johnson traded, not traded line is an error. The 1958 Yellow Letters are intentionally changed, not because of poor presswork. A printing blob or a piece of tape left on a negative is not an error, its lousy presswork.

Sloppy presswork happens in every print shop. I've 22 years working in the print industry. Pressmen try to throw bad copies away. It's called waste copies and one usually pays for it when you get bids for a job. That is why it costs a lot more for your first 1000 copies of anything than it does for your second 1000. Because you are paying for the waste in both cases before they pull any good copies.
If you ask me, I would bet a badly registered Herrera card may be as uncommon as the Herrer error. That wouldn't garner a higher price, nor would it be deemed an error card, but they both would be because of shoddy press work.

[ALR-bishop]

Everyone of course is entitled to their own view based on their own expertise and qualifications. But there is not an accepted hobby definition of any of these terms.

It is true the Herrer and Bakep are hobby lore "variations" that would not likely make the cut in today's world of Internet scans.

Errors that are intentionally corrected are clearly variations, and that is my definition from a personal standpoint. But even today, the 61 Fairly posted above, the 52 Campos black star, 52 House and the Thomas No Name may not have been intentional corrections, but they have still achieved hobby recognition. The differences in the 52 Mantle, Thompson and Robinson were not intended per se, but resulted from the decision to double print. There are examples of such differences in almost all sets. The 68 Milton Bradley cards and the 62 greenies are are whole series examples. Some are recognized by the hobby and some are not. The Mantle, Thompson and Robinson are listed in SCD

Anyone can have their own definition of any of these terms, but the hobby decides what has value in the market. Many of us here collect variants, cards that differ in some way from their normal counterpart. The differences may be recurring or not, or intentional or not.

And in some cases it is virtually impossible to tell whether a card was intentionally changed. Collect what you like.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Everyone of course is entitled to their own view based on their own expertise and qualifications. But there is not an accepted hobby definition of any of these terms.

.....

Anyone can have their own definition of any of these terms, but the hobby decides what has value in the market. Many of us here collect variants, cards that differ in some way from their normal counterpart. The differences may be recurring or not, or intentional or not.

And in some cases it is virtually impossible to tell whether a card was intentionally changed. Collect what you like.

As always, +1


Found this one today, first time I have seen this card(Richard has noted it's existence before though) with the small green box on the left edge.

[ALR-bishop]

good one

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

As always, +1


Found this one today, first time I have seen this card(Richard has noted it's existence before though) with the small green box on the left edge.

The Zanni was on the outside edge of the original uncut sheet, that's why it has that printers mark. The Rudolph was above it on the sheet and also the little boxes in at least two different colors.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

The Zanni was on the outside edge of the original uncut sheet, that's why it has that printers mark. The Rudolph was above it on the sheet and also the little boxes in at least two different colors.

I figured with the Zanni card that the box was due to being located along the edge of its sheet. However, I have two copies of this Zanni card, both are OC the same amount but on the other copy there is no box along the other left edge. Do you think this occurring on just one of the two copies is due to not only the alignment of that individual sheet at the time of printing, but also due to the centering of the card?

Based on only seeing just one copy of the 63 Menke card with the box on the right edge, I would find it fairly easy to believe that the sheet that the card came from was simply misaligned at the time of printing.

[Sliphorn]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Tom-- hope Cliff does not get infected by whatever your have.

Wait....never mind

Chortle, chortle.

[jsrgale]

Anyone heard about a 1963 Bud Daley card (should be #38) instead the back is #68 Friendly Foes Snider and Hodges?

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by jsrgale

Anyone heard about a 1963 Bud Daley card (should be #38) instead the back is #68 Friendly Foes Snider and Hodges?

That would be interesting, as the Daley card is not immediately adjacent to the 68 Foes card on the uncut sheet, but it is two cards below the Daley card......could have been a severe misprint on the back portion of the sheet to have caused this. I can't recall seeing a wrong back due to a back misprint of anything more than an immediately adjacent card. Certainly would be unique....obviously, most of the cards from that sheet would have the same wrong back so maybe someone else has at least seen one of these other non-adjacent wrong backed cards.

[1963Topps Set]

Here is a list of wrong backs in my 1963 Topps Set. Interesting first card as neither lived to see the beginning of the 1964 season!

Ken Hubbs (15) / Jim Umbricht (99)
Bob Allison (75) John Buzhardt (35)
Jim Hickman (107) / Jim O'Toole (70)
Bomber's Best (173) / Juan Pizzaro (160) and Bubba Phillips (177) miscut wrong back
Joe Amalfitano (199) / Power Plus (242)
Mickey Mantle (200) / Billy O'Dell (235)
Red Sox Team (202) / Chico Fernandez (278)
1963 Rookie Stars (208) / Bob Miller (261)
Sandy Koufax (210) / Harvey Haddix (239)
Gene Conley (216) / Bob Allen (266)
Willie Davis (229) / Orlando Pena (214)
Pete Runnels (230) / Jim Grant (227)
Eli Grba (231) / Ed Mathews (275)
Casey Stengel (233) / Al Dark (258)
Jim Coates (237) / Ron Santo (252)
John Tsitouris (244) / Don Nottebart (204)
Jack Lamabe (251) / Sammy Taylor (273)
1963 Rookie Stars (253) / Billy Smith (241)
Bob Shaw (255) / Hank Aguirre (257)
Hank Aguirre (257) / Bob Shaw (255)
Johnny Logan (259) / Cookie Rojas (221)
Jim Gentile (260) / Leo Burke (249)
Bob Miller (261) / 1963 Rookie Stars (208)
Ellis Burton (262) / Phil Linz (264)
Vada Pinson (265) / Joe Jay (225)
Felipe Alou (270) / Mike Roarke (224)
Danny Murphy (272) / Don Demeter (268)
Sammy Taylor (273) / Jack Lamabe (251)
Ed Mathews (275) / Eli Grba (231)
Chico Fernandez (278) / Red Sox Team (202)
Bob Del Greco (282) / Lee Stange (246)
Roy Sievers (283) / 1963 Rookie Stars (228)
Del Crandall (460) / Phil Regan (494)
Wally Post (462) / Charlie Neal (511)
Lou Brock (472) / Jerry Adair (488)
Gus Triandos (475) / Felix Torres (482)
Paul Brown (478) / Roland Sheldon (507)
Ed Brinkman (479) / Ray Sadecki (486)
Jim Landis (485) / Indians Team (451)
Walt Bond (493) / Joe Schaffernoth (463)
Curt Flood (505) / Jay Hook (469)
Roland Sheldon (507) / Paul Brown (478)
Bob Clemente (540) / Don Mossi (530)
Al Worthington (556) / Jose Tartabull (449)

[Collectorsince62]

Check out the top border on these two. The blurriness is the actual card, not my scanner.

[Collectorsince62]

I'll try a closer look this time.

[Collectorsince62]

One more time

[toppcat]

A Long Island dealer named Dan Jacobsen had a 66 card partial sheet of framed 63's he used to bring to shows just because he liked showing it to people. IIRC it had issues similar to those above with the broken neatlines and unsaturated colors. I think he retired and moved but I'm not sure what happened to the sheet. Can't recall if the backs were errors though.

[Kevvyg1026]

The string of 551 (Klaus), 543 (Snyder), and 575 (Caldwell) is at the far right of the yellow banner, blue inset string. As you can see, the missing black line is getting progressively less as you move left-to-right (Sadowski to Cook) so you might just be able to detect it on Klauss but I'm not sure you could see it on Snyder or Cardwell due to the background colorings at top of those cards.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by Collectorsince62

Check out the top border on these two. The blurriness is the actual card, not my scanner.

Those are out of register cards, I have seen several of them from 62, 63, 65, 66, 68, 69, and 70. 63 was a particularly bad year for them, I have seen some spectacular ones. Poor quality control in the 60’s.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by 1963Topps Set

Here is a list of wrong backs in my 1963 Topps Set. Interesting first card as neither lived to see the beginning of the 1964 season!

Ken Hubbs (15) / Jim Umbricht (99)
Bob Allison (75) John Buzhardt (35)
Jim Hickman (107) / Jim O'Toole (70)
Bomber's Best (173) / Juan Pizzaro (160) and Bubba Phillips (177) miscut wrong back
Joe Amalfitano (199) / Power Plus (242)
Mickey Mantle (200) / Billy O'Dell (235)
Red Sox Team (202) / Chico Fernandez (278)
1963 Rookie Stars (208) / Bob Miller (261)
Sandy Koufax (210) / Harvey Haddix (239)
Gene Conley (216) / Bob Allen (266)
Willie Davis (229) / Orlando Pena (214)
Pete Runnels (230) / Jim Grant (227)
Eli Grba (231) / Ed Mathews (275)
Casey Stengel (233) / Al Dark (258)
Jim Coates (237) / Ron Santo (252)
John Tsitouris (244) / Don Nottebart (204)
Jack Lamabe (251) / Sammy Taylor (273)
1963 Rookie Stars (253) / Billy Smith (241)
Bob Shaw (255) / Hank Aguirre (257)
Hank Aguirre (257) / Bob Shaw (255)
Johnny Logan (259) / Cookie Rojas (221)
Jim Gentile (260) / Leo Burke (249)
Bob Miller (261) / 1963 Rookie Stars (208)
Ellis Burton (262) / Phil Linz (264)
Vada Pinson (265) / Joe Jay (225)
Felipe Alou (270) / Mike Roarke (224)
Danny Murphy (272) / Don Demeter (268)
Sammy Taylor (273) / Jack Lamabe (251)
Ed Mathews (275) / Eli Grba (231)
Chico Fernandez (278) / Red Sox Team (202)
Bob Del Greco (282) / Lee Stange (246)
Roy Sievers (283) / 1963 Rookie Stars (228)
Del Crandall (460) / Phil Regan (494)
Wally Post (462) / Charlie Neal (511)
Lou Brock (472) / Jerry Adair (488)
Gus Triandos (475) / Felix Torres (482)
Paul Brown (478) / Roland Sheldon (507)
Ed Brinkman (479) / Ray Sadecki (486)
Jim Landis (485) / Indians Team (451)
Walt Bond (493) / Joe Schaffernoth (463)
Curt Flood (505) / Jay Hook (469)
Roland Sheldon (507) / Paul Brown (478)
Bob Clemente (540) / Don Mossi (530)
Al Worthington (556) / Jose Tartabull (449)

Holy smokes! I didn’t even know these were on this thread. Those are the first 1st series wrong backs that I have heard of existing. There is something odd about the last one, either it is a misprint or it is the first 63 Topps wrong back that I am aware of that has a different series printed on the back than was printed on the front. Every 63 Topps wrong back that I have ever seen otherwise is simply the whole back sheet was printed upside down and the card on the back is the mirrored opposite of the card on the front on the sheet.

[Kevvyg1026]

If it's real, then a 6th series back sheet was in fed into a 7th series front

[Kevvyg1026]

There are s few more 1st series wrong backs. I will send post when I get home on Monday.

[Rich Klein]

As a person who actually wrote an E&V Column back in the day I can assure you that we all had individual ways of looking at things.

The Thomas NNOF came out of packs that way and it was such an obvious difference that it should have been a variation noted as such in 1990. Instead it did take a couple of years for widespread recognition.

I will say even today doing this type of work for COMC I'm more OK than ever with these subtle differences. Even if it's just in printing, if there is enough of a difference I don't mind adding it to the DB. That's on both a knowledge and a business sense.

To me the purest variation is something akin to the 1962 Topps Wally Moon card in which the poses are obviously different. The 1961 Fairly is an obvious printing issue but again fairly obvious which is why I'm fine with that one as well.

But, in reality, it's sometimes an individual decision but I'll listen to any and all logic on any of these

Rich

[ALR-bishop]

Rich--I personally think it was a huge mistake for PSA to recognize the 61 Fairly as a variation as opposed to leaving it a minor recurring print defect. Not only does the defect exist in varying degrees on that card, it exist on numerous other cards in the set as can be seen in current eBay listings. Admittedly it is as much a defect as the Herrer and Bakep, but the Internet has shown there are hundreds of similar or even more dramatic unrecognized print defects out there.

But I collect them if they are recurring, and since there is no official definition of a variation, and the catalog era has ended, variation recognition in the hobby will presumably be a haphazard process in the future

I much appreciate your cataloging efforts on COMC. I have made use of it on several occasions and would continue to do so if you can now do something about shipping times

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Rich--I personally think it was a huge mistake for PSA to recognize the 61 Fairly as a variation as opposed to leaving it a minor recurring print defect. Not only does the defect exist in varying degrees on that card, it exist on numerous other cards in the set as can be seen in current eBay listings. Admittedly it is as much a defect as the Herrer and Bakep, but the Internet has shown there are hundreds of similar or even more dramatic unrecognized print defects out there.

But I collect them if they are recurring, and since there is no official definition of a variation, and the catalog era has ended, variation recognition in the hobby will presumably be a haphazard process in the future

I much appreciate your cataloging efforts on COMC. I have made use of it on several occasions and would continue to do so if you can now do something about shipping times

Al:

I would LOVE to be able to do things about shipping; however, because of COVID-19 requirements it's really hard for multiple people to do multiple pulling of cards at the same time. Ergo that is where the bottleneck occurs. Now if we could get Sue Richards to pull cards we'd be in much better shape on that front

Rich

[Cliff Bowman]

Being a printing error/variation collector for the past 20 years, especially with the explosion of information through eBay and chatboards, I was never interested in blank backs, wrong backs, or severe miscuts. It is only this recent interest in recreating vintage sheets such as the 1966 Topps high numbers that I became interested in wrong backs and severe miscuts off of certain sheets because those cards contain evidence of where they were placed on the sheet and which cards they were next to. If I find one on eBay, COMC, or Dean’s that is so obvious then I won’t even bother buying them, I will just get a scan. I will buy the ones that have just slivers of another card if I can get them cheap and then I try to make better scans and try to figure out which card it is.

[ALR-bishop]

Which is why Cliff is one of my go to guys on variations

[Kevvyg1026]

I know that the series 6 wrong backs have the backs printed upside down relative to what the regular back should be. What about the others you have? Are the series 1 , 2, and 3 wrong backs correctly oriented or are they upside down?

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

I know that the series 6 wrong backs have the backs printed upside down relative to what the regular back should be. What about the others you have? Are the series 1 , 2, and 3 wrong backs correctly oriented or are they upside down?

From what I have seen, first series wrong backs resulted from the backs being switched on the giant 264 card sheet, or Slit A and Slit B as you refer to them, and all of the other 1963 series wrong backs resulted from the backs being flipped upside down, which is understandable with how the 63's were printed. The two exceptions are the first series S. Williams/Hendley wrong back, which I suspect may be from a 3 card salesman sample panel, and the Worthington/Tartabull wrong back which must have come from a very rare 7th series front sheet mistakenly printed with a 6th series back.

[Kevvyg1026]

If the first series backs are correctly oriented, then the two slits were oriented the way they are shown in the attached image. If the wrong backs are upside down, then one of the slits is flipped 180 degrees from that shown.

1963_series1_full.jpg

[Kevvyg1026]

While attempting to ascertain the printing pattern (slit configuration) for 1963 Topps series 5, came across this oddity for card # 395.

1963_395_double_back_print.jpg

[Kevvyg1026]

Just in case there is a question regarding which print run the yellow based checklist (#431) was issued, I found this marked card on ebay recently.

1963_431_marked.jpg

[Kevvyg1026]

After reading the article by Mr. Vrechek regarding the new 1963 series 5 variations, I looked for any uncut or miscut material for these cards. What I found suggests that the Series 5 printing looked like the following:

Slit A:
R/G
R/B U/D
R/Y
R/G U/D
Y/R
Y/R UD
G/O
G/Y U/D
R/G
R/B U/D
R/Y
R/G U/D

Slit B
Y/R
Y/R UD
G/O
G/Y U/D
R/G
R/B U/D
R/Y
R/G U/D
Y/R
Y/R UD
G/O
G/Y U/D

The one stripe version of the McBean card, along with the other variations associated with that, would be in the upside-down red border, green inset rows.

Based on this print configuration, the R/B, R/Y, Y/R (& Y/R upside down), G/Y, and G/O would all be printed 3x each across the sheet so 66 cards 3x each (198 cards), while the R/G would be printed 6x each (3 right side up, and 3 upside down). The variations would occur in equal numbers. So, no SPs exists in the series 5 printing.