1982 Topps Blackless

[ALR-bishop]

Fred really did battle with Nozaki and Lemke over what he perceived the value and classification that should be accorded to Blackless. Although I collected the set because Lemke did list it in SCD, I do not think they are variations.

Nozaki is involved in a project to update the Gilkeson variations publications. Here is the link to that effort in another thread. You may be able to contact Nozaki through that site. Also, in looking I have kept various treatises I received from Fred over the years on Blackless, Blueless, Autloless, Blacklessing. If you want to pm me a mailing address I can send you copies ( too much to scan and post)

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=277792

[steve B]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Fred really did battle with Nozaki and Lemke over what he perceived the value and classification that should be accorded to Blackless. Although I collected the set because Lemke did list it in SCD, I do not think they are variations.

Nozaki is involved in a project to update the Gilkeson variations publications. Here is the link to that effort in another thread. You may be able to contact Nozaki through that site. Also, in looking I have kept various treatises I received from Fred over the years on Blackless, Blueless, Autloless, Blacklessing. If you want to pm me a mailing address I can send you copies ( too much to scan and post)

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=277792

Interesting to see he's involved, and still in the hobby. I have his 1975 book, which along with the variations listed other places got me into variations.

[bswhiten]

I was looking at The Trading Card Database and noticed they don't call the Blackless cards variations either. They list them as a "Parallel" set

https://www.tradingcarddb.com/Insert.../89/1982-Topps

[Tripredacus]

Yes, they get to decide whether a variation is an actual variation (which means they show up on the regular checklist) or is a parallel. I'm not sure I would consider it to be a parallel set, since not all cards are on the checklist.

[ALR-bishop]

The 68 Topps Milton Bradley set is viewed by some as a parallel set and by others as variations to the 68 set. It also is only a partial set. Interestingly two of the MB cards, Cox and Brinkman, have long been viewed as variations to the 68 set ( incorrectly in my view)

There are many views on what is or should be a "variation" but there is no real standard hobby definition or official arbiter of what should be on a set check list. The process has been mostly ad hoc

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

The 68 Topps Milton Bradley set is viewed by some as a parallel set and by others as variations to the 68 set. It also is only a partial set. Interestingly two of the MB cards, Cox and Brinkman, have long been viewed as variations to the 68 set ( incorrectly in my view)

If the MB cards never came in 1968 Topps packs, I'm not sure how anyone can think they are a variation. Only makes sense to me to call them an independent reprint set, along with the football and car cards that came in the board game. A complete set would be all the cards from the board game; just the baseball would be a subset.

[ALR-bishop]

Originally Posted by swarmee

If the MB cards never came in 1968 Topps packs, I'm not sure how anyone can think they are a variation. Only makes sense to me to call them an independent reprint set, along with the football and car cards that came in the board game. A complete set would be all the cards from the board game; just the baseball would be a subset.

I assume it is because everyone has there own notion of what is or should be a variation and they do not always agree, and there is no hobby standard.

I personally agree they are not variations, and am ok with calling them reprints or a parallel set, but I think the hobby has ruled otherwise on Cox and Brinkman, so I keep a second copy of their MB cards in my 68 set as well as in my MB set

I also agree that they are a subset, but SCD and Lemke have listed several Topps baseball subsets independent of the other non baseball subjects in such sets in The Standard Catalog. I have collected just the baseball subjects listed in the Catalog for the 48 Magic Photos, 55 and 56 Hocus Focus, the 54 Topps Scoops and Look and See, the 63 Great American Stamps and Valentine Foldees ( 63 and 66), the 65 Push Pulls and the 68 MBs.

And there is a variation of the MB checklist. There are 2 versions of the 107. Although Carlton Miller, our resident MB expert would disagree with me on that point. He would say the 2nd CL is card 77 in the set ( subset) and not a variation, I think because it is a DP. I tend to think of DP differences, although not necessarily intended but resulting from set up of the sheet layouts, as variations ( for example the 2 different 52 Mantles, Robinsons and Thompsons). I understand not all would agree, and that's ok with me. I am not sure anyone has a monopoly on what constitutes a real variation. Ultimately I guess the hobby as a whole decided over time

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by Tripredacus

Yes, they get to decide whether a variation is an actual variation (which means they show up on the regular checklist) or is a parallel. I'm not sure I would consider it to be a parallel set, since not all cards are on the checklist.

I tried and tried to get them to recognize this as a variation, they refused.

[hockeyhockey]

Originally Posted by bswhiten

I was looking at The Trading Card Database and noticed they don't call the Blackless cards variations either. They list them as a "Parallel" set

https://www.tradingcarddb.com/Insert.../89/1982-Topps

forgive my amateurish question, but is there a way to tell from that list which cards are A, B or C? all this stuff is fascinating. sadly i went through all of my old 1982 topps recently and found none of these.

[ALR-bishop]

I think it is incorrect to call it a parallel set. They are just print defects, no black or partial black. They got referred to as a set because SCD gave them a separate listing in their Catalog when they did post 80 listings.

In my mind they are less of a parallel set than even the Topps 1968 Milton Bradley or 62 green tint cards.


I do have a list for the 396 card broken down by sheet if you can not find it on line

[ALR-bishop]

Have not double checked it but here is list from prior thread. See post 23


https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=115843