NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. When you click on links to eBay on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Postwar Sportscard Forums > Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-12-2015, 08:28 PM
Cliff Bowman's Avatar
Cliff Bowman Cliff Bowman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Near Atlanta
Posts: 2,516
Default 1968 Topps Johnny Bench Rookie, variation or printing flaw error?

I noticed someone on eBay put up a 1968 Topps Johnny Bench rookie card (not my card or my auction) describing it as a variation/error, so I looked at the backs of other 1968 Bench cards and saw plenty of both versions. I had never heard of this discrepancy before. I can't tell if it was mistakenly typed as an "n" originally or if it was just the top part of the "h" was obstructed in the printing process.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg $_57.jpg (76.1 KB, 484 views)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-12-2015, 08:40 PM
almostdone's Avatar
almostdone almostdone is offline
Drew Ekb@ck
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: NE Georgia
Posts: 1,425
Default

Excuse my ignorance but in which word does the "h" appear?
Drew
__________________
Drew
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-12-2015, 08:46 PM
Cliff Bowman's Avatar
Cliff Bowman Cliff Bowman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Near Atlanta
Posts: 2,516
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by almostdone View Post
Excuse my ignorance but in which word does the "h" appear?
Drew
On the second card, the first line of the bio of Bench says, "Johnny impressed tne..."
Attached Images
File Type: jpg $_57.jpg (76.1 KB, 468 views)

Last edited by Cliff Bowman; 01-12-2015 at 08:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-12-2015, 10:34 PM
Jason94Cobra Jason94Cobra is offline
member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 11
Default

Great, now I am going to have to pull my rookies out to look at them... lol
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-13-2015, 07:20 AM
savedfrommyspokes's Avatar
savedfrommyspokes savedfrommyspokes is online now
member
Larry More.y
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,984
Default

Cliff, looks like Dean is all over this variation:

http://www.deanscards.com/search?s=1968+topps+247


Based on a small sample size, an approximate ratio appears to be for every two cards with "the", there is one copy with "tne". Not super rare, but very interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-13-2015, 08:23 AM
ALR-bishop ALR-bishop is offline
Al Richter
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 8,947
Default Variants

This card is a great example of why it is so hard to define a variation versus a recurring print defect. Was this a printing error that was discovered and intentionally corrected, or was it just a recurring print defect that went unnoticed for a period of time during print runs, like the 58 Herrer or 57 Bakep. Or does it even matter ? If it does not matter then is any recurring print defect a variation ?


Last edited by ALR-bishop; 01-13-2015 at 06:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-13-2015, 06:27 PM
curtis-cards's Avatar
curtis-cards curtis-cards is offline
Curt
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 166
Default

Interesting...I'll have to look at mine
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-04-2021, 05:05 PM
deweyinthehall deweyinthehall is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Ellicott City, MD
Posts: 677
Default

Picking up this thread from 6 years ago - I suppose the basic question for many (myself included) is this: did Topps accidentally send this card to the presses with the word "the" misspelled with an "n", or was there something blocking the black ink on a series of runs which resulted in a chopped off "h" which looks like an "n"? I tend to think a misspelling like this would be very unusual.

Any thoughts?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-08-2021, 05:45 AM
jchcollins's Avatar
jchcollins jchcollins is offline
J0hn Collin$
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: NC
Posts: 3,223
Default

I've seen this generally accepted as a variation for some time now. To my knowledge one is not worth more than the other. This kind of thing if you are paying attention was incredibly common with 1960's Topps cards. The QC process just wasn't what it is today.
__________________
Postwar vintage stars & HOF'ers.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-08-2021, 02:30 PM
JollyElm's Avatar
JollyElm JollyElm is offline
D@rrΣn Hu.ghΣs
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 7,332
Default

I recently posted one of the Bench variations I have for sale or trade, so I decided to see what I could determine from zooming in on the back scan.

I copied and pasted an actual 'n' from elsewhere on the card and placed it next to the bastardized 'h' for the sake of comparison, and it seems pretty straight-forward that the two letters are not both lower case n's...

1968benchbackcomp.jpg

Something must have simply blocked the ink meant for the h's ascender (look at my typographic knowledge!!), as the rounded nub above the X-height isn't a match for what appears on an 'n.' It looks like a sheared off 'h.'
__________________
All the cool kids love my YouTube Channel:
Elm's Adventures in Cardboard Land

https://www.youtube.com/@TheJollyElm

Looking to trade? Here's my bucket:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706

“I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.”
Casey Stengel

Spelling "Yastrzemski" correctly without needing to look it up since the 1980s.

Overpaying yesterday is simply underpaying tomorrow.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-08-2021, 06:27 PM
ALR-bishop ALR-bishop is offline
Al Richter
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 8,947
Default

There seems to be no shortage of the misprints, anyone know if this card was a DP.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-10-2021, 07:04 AM
Kevvyg1026 Kevvyg1026 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 448
Default 1968 Bench

The Bench card was issued in the 3rd series printing. This series has 88 cards, printed 3x each (197 to 283, plus another copy of check 3 (#192)), across the 264 card sheet. In 1968, Topps used a pattern of 8 different rows with each row having 11 cards and the 8 rows repeating across the two half-sheets (or slits). Thus, one slit, containing 132 cards will have two Bench cards, while the other will have one Bench card.

So there are no SPs or DPs in this printing. However, I do not know the locations of the Bench card on the sheet.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-10-2021, 08:06 AM
ALR-bishop ALR-bishop is offline
Al Richter
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 8,947
Default

Great info. If the card appears 3 different times on two sheet and the defect shows up on one version that could explain the lack of scarcity.

Earlier thread

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrJ...EowOytE1w7204-

Last edited by ALR-bishop; 09-10-2021 at 08:15 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-12-2021, 11:26 AM
Kevvyg1026 Kevvyg1026 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 448
Default 1968 Topps uncut, miscuts, or wrong backs

The 1968 set has 598 cards, so it is identical in size to those issued in 1965 & 1966. The printings of the various sheets for the 1968 series' are slightly different, however.

From some uncut partial sheets I've seen,
a. cards 1-109 are in 1st series (110 cards since check 1 was DP),
b. 110-196 in 2nd series (88 cards with check 2 printed again),
c. 197 to 283 in 3rd series (88 cards with check 3 printed again),
d. 284 to 370 in 4th series (88 cards with check 4 again),
e. 371 to 457 in 5th series (88 cards with check 5 again),
f. 458 to 533 in 6th series (77 cards with check 6 printed again), and
g. 523 to 598 in 7th series (66 cards).

The 6th series has 44 cards printed at a slightly lower frequency than the other 33 cards in the series.

I am attempting to re-create the sheet arrangements for each series. At the moment, I am working on the 3rd series and would appreciate any postings of any 1968 uncut, miscut, or wrong back cards, particularly for the 3rd, 5th, or 7th series. I have enough info for the other series.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:46 AM.


ebay GSB