1989 fleer Randy Johnson

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Did you get a Wade Boggs and if so did you look to see if it was the super rare no dot version?

So funny. It is an extremely rare variation (and I believe that it likely originated without the mark and something happened to the plate early on), but I couldn't get $20 for it over a 4 month period of relistings. Fleer E&V collectors are definitely NOT Topps master set collectors.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

So funny. It is an extremely rare variation (and I believe that it likely originated without the mark and something happened to the plate early on), but I couldn't get $20 for it over a 4 month period of relistings. Fleer E&V collectors are definitely NOT Topps master set collectors.

Yes it is one of those examples that super rare does not equal valuable. I have 3 of them, I pulled one back in 89, had a member over on the BO forum send me one for free and a friend pulled one a couple weeks ago and sent it to me. Not sure what the last one cost me yet.

I never seen yours listed or I probably would have tried to buy it for less than you listed it at. Mine are all off center and would like a nice centered one.

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Yes it is one of those examples that super rare does not equal valuable. I have 3 of them, I pulled one back in 89, had a member over on the BO forum send me one for free and a friend pulled one a couple weeks ago and sent it to me. Not sure what the last one cost me yet.

I never seen yours listed or I probably would have tried to buy it for less than you listed it at. Mine are all off center and would like a nice centered one.

The least I had it at was $19.99 (repeatedly) which anything less, seems not worth selling for especially since a lot the rarer stuff is cyclical. New blood comes along and wants stuff that months previously, couldn't get a few bucks. I think the nature of the Boggs error, it's type (a black mark), isn't an aesthetically attractive variation, which I have learned over the last 10+ years does play a huge part in their sales.

[ALR-bishop]

I have a full Bowman, Topps and Fleer run. For Topps I generally will buy recurring print defects as well as true variations through 1994. After 1994 and for all my Bowman and Fleer sets I have only collected variations listed by SCD, Beckett or in the PSA master lists. Have to have some limits

1991 Topps is the absolute worst. I do not think a master checklist is even feasible

[Hatorade]

CurllyQ.jpg

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?

[steve B]

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?

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.

[Hatorade]

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.

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?