1986 Topps Variations

WinPitcher · October 11, 2004 10:21AM

Late in the 86 Topps baseball season cards without the red ink on back began showing up. My guess is that 1 sheet had this variety. Henderson can also be found this way. I saw no Clemens and Boggs. I would normally get 1 case of wax per week back then and if my memory is correct, the case in which these cars showed up one or two cards per pack yielded these. Anyone else remember seeing this?

milbroco · October 11, 2004 10:40AM

I have opened a lot of this product back then but I have never seen those varities before.
Bob

WinPitcher · October 11, 2004 10:43AM

It was only in wax, and at the very end of the selling season. I also have Strawberry and around 10 commons. I saw them on ebay a few months back and for commons the seller started bidding at 50.00. none sold.

MorrellMan · October 11, 2004 11:00AM

Win - I bought a lot of wax in '86 - built a few dozen sets all from wax - but by the end of the season, I was done. I've never seen this variation. I'm not surprised about none of these cards getting a bid - there's no variation demand if nobody knows about the variation.

Why don't you write an article for SMR?

maxXposure · October 11, 2004 2:34PM

do you have the henderson?

WinPitcher · October 12, 2004 12:45AM

no i do not have the henderson, back in 86 i sold it to a henderson collector. the kid was about 12 so i have no idea if he still has it or in what condition it would be in if in fact he still did own it.

i never saw a ryan, rose, boggs, clemens etc.

the reason i say they come from one sheet is that all the ones i have all have C4 on the back which I believe is the sheet ID.

MorrellMan · October 12, 2004 1:16AM

Makes sense to me - the set was printed on 6 sheets, 132 cards per sheet, each sheet had a tag (A thru F). If anybody knows what cards are on sheet C, we'd probably have a pretty complete checklist for these cards.

Edited to add: Stars on the C sheet include #1 Rose, Hershiser, Mattingly, Ripken and Strawberry. That was a blast going through that set - what a great looking card set; too bad there were no strong rookies!

Ironmanfan · October 12, 2004 9:48AM

I have the Ripken with this variation (purchased at a show about 15 years ago).

ldferg · October 14, 2004 3:55PM

these aren't the ones from the bottom of the wax boxes are they?

WinPitcher · October 14, 2004 11:22PM

no, these are from wax packs

slantycouch · December 13, 2009 8:06AM

Just unearthed this old thread looking for something else and found it interesting. Do we know anything more about these?

WinPitcher · December 13, 2009 9:02AM

Slanty

The only thing I know is that towards the end of the BB card season in 1986 a few cases that I had

had these cards in them, generally 2 or 3 in a pack, sometimes less never more. All it appears

came from the same sheet, I sent the Mattingly to PSA after talking to Joe about who I guess

never gave me a firm answer. The grader bounced it back to me and in the package was a copy of what a

86 back should look like. (eyeroll) I simply wanted the card slabbed authentic. I also have the Strawberry

and had a Henderson who I sold or gave to some kid back in the day.

IMO it is a cool variation even if it was unintended.

Steve

sportscardtheory · December 13, 2009 12:12PM

I'd bet Keith Olbermann would pay a pretty penny for them.

bishop · December 13, 2009 12:34PM

Steve...I have 13 of these with my set. Nine come from the D sheet, but 4 come from the C sheet, and one ,732 ,has a Youmans back but a Pete Rose front. I got them all from the same seller some years back on ebay. The guy sells a lot of 80s, and some 70s, variations. I also bought the 1986 Clemens and Seaver variations with the large blue swaths on the front from the same guy. When I was putting together my 82 Blackless set I bought a lot of those from the him too. He used to sell under the name zenithium, but I notice he is now selling his blackless cards through another seller. He also sells a lot of the 84 Topps "Encased" proof cards

slantycouch · December 13, 2009 1:16PM

Hmm - thanks for the info everyone.

I wasn't familiar with these at all but they've sparked my interest.

WinPitcher · December 13, 2009 1:22PM

Hi Al. That is interesting to hear, they are also from sheet D.

The examples I got back in the day only came from sheet C.

I had at least 2 cases that these would come out from.

I had to make sure all my customers had a shot.

I saved maybe a dozen, I know I have 6 pr 7?

Every once in a while I come across one when I go through my 86 stock.

They are generally commons.

Hope you been well.

Steve

richtree · December 13, 2009 11:34PM

If anyone wants to trade one of these to me, I ll work something out with you !

thanks

lsutigers1973 · December 13, 2009 11:36PM

Thanks for bumping an old thread. Now I have to dig through 15000 commons to see if I have any.

Morgoth · December 14, 2009 12:14AM

Very interesting that a variation this big that includes some very well known players wasn't much more publicized. Coming late in the year and being an issue nobody really collected that much had something to do with it.

I would think if they got cataloged and put in a PSA registry some of the star players in high grade would command some very big bucks for the first couple graded.

jacksoncoupage · December 14, 2009 12:37AM

<< <i>Very interesting that a variation this big that includes some very well known players wasn't much more publicized. Coming late in the year and being an issue nobody really collected that much had something to do with it.

I would think if they got cataloged and put in a PSA registry some of the star players in high grade would command some very big bucks for the first couple graded. >>

I'm pretty certain that these were never cataloged due to the fact that they are "printing flaws", as their reverses are just missing the red ink step in the printing process. There's a long-running idea that is repeated often in the hobby (to this day), that printing flaws devalue the card's worth rather than increase it - this type of outdated thinking seems to have been born and reinforced out of the speculation boom and/or rookie card craze, where people hoarding specific cards wanted immaculate versions only, no matter how interesting the print-error. It's also selectively applied based on the player: 1990 Frank Thomas NNOF, "Purple Hat" Upper Deck Griffey RC, 1986 Topps Clemens "Blue Streak" are all printing flaws that get "official" recognition for their rarity because of who appears on the card and/or if it's a key issue.

I read a ton of old collecting magazines and people would often write in about their discoveries, which sounded like really interesting printing mistakes (not miscuts but stuff like this) only to have their find dismissed as "flawed printer's waste", which is really too bad because if this kind of thinking hadn't been religiously applied to the catalogs and price guides, we'd know very well by today just how rare and collectible things like these really are or aren't (I say RARE in the case of these 1986 Topps... for the record).

VintageCardLover · December 14, 2009 12:47AM

cool. learn something new every day

bishop · December 14, 2009 5:27AM

I agree that they are printing flaws and will not likley draw much interest unless they recieve some hobby visibility, but the 82 Blackless cards are print defects that do bring a premium, including common cards, because they have catalog coverage (for whatever reason). And, 3 of the most sought after and expensive Topps "variations" are nothing but common card print defects...the 52 Campos, the 57 Bakep and the 58 Herrer. Only time will tell if these will catch on. A similar phenomena occurs in the 67 set with a lot of cards that have completely green backs

Richtree....if you want one I can accomodate you. Hard to turn down someone with your enthusiasm for defective cards. PM me

Morgoth · December 14, 2009 5:54AM

To me if it is the case of some printers waste that found its way into packs then it shouldn't have more than 1 copy 2 at most but if you can find hundreds of the same "defect" then it should be cataloged as people stated here, the most valuable topps variations are for the most part printing defects.

ajw · December 14, 2009 6:41AM

<< <i>I would normally get 1 case of wax per week back then...[/IMG] >>

Wait a second. You busted a case of wax every week?

WinPitcher · December 14, 2009 7:13AM

Wait a second. You busted a case of wax every week?

Yep. I had a card store from 1983 til 1990.

I would go through at least a case of wax a week back then.

I did not mean to imply that I opened myself a case per week.

I sold packs and boxes and built sets.

Steve

richtree · December 14, 2009 11:51AM

bishop., I PM-ed ya !

metsfan · December 15, 2009 2:00AM

<< <i>

<< <i>Very interesting that a variation this big that includes some very well known players wasn't much more publicized. Coming late in the year and being an issue nobody really collected that much had something to do with it.

I would think if they got cataloged and put in a PSA registry some of the star players in high grade would command some very big bucks for the first couple graded. >>

I'm pretty certain that these were never cataloged due to the fact that they are "printing flaws", as their reverses are just missing the red ink step in the printing process. There's a long-running idea that is repeated often in the hobby (to this day), that printing flaws devalue the card's worth rather than increase it - this type of outdated thinking seems to have been born and reinforced out of the speculation boom and/or rookie card craze, where people hoarding specific cards wanted immaculate versions only, no matter how interesting the print-error. It's also selectively applied based on the player: 1990 Frank Thomas NNOF, "Purple Hat" Upper Deck Griffey RC, 1986 Topps Clemens "Blue Streak" are all printing flaws that get "official" recognition for their rarity because of who appears on the card and/or if it's a key issue.

I read a ton of old collecting magazines and people would often write in about their discoveries, which sounded like really interesting printing mistakes (not miscuts but stuff like this) only to have their find dismissed as "flawed printer's waste", which is really too bad because if this kind of thinking hadn't been religiously applied to the catalogs and price guides, we'd know very well by today just how rare and collectible things like these really are or aren't (I say RARE in the case of these 1986 Topps... for the record). >>

Good points, its always interesting that things like this would probably be more recognized in the coin collecting world. Think of print errors in stamps,coins,etc, they can get big press but sports cards don't get the same coverage.

WinPitcher · December 15, 2009 2:26AM

Mets fan makes a good point, however we all remember a couple-few years back when the press went

gaga over the Topps issue that featured Jeter and Bush and some folks were buying them off ebay for 2-300.00

a pop even though they could buy a box and probably get one. At almost the same time the Washington dollar

was issued and it lacked some incuse wording on the edge, the pres mentioned it and people not normally

in the hobby began rushing banks hoping they could score some so they could sell em on ebay for (100.00 at the peak)

One reason coins get possibly more attention when a new issue has a problem is because everyone can relate

to coins. Not everyone relates to cards. if some of these 80's variations were included in the Standard cat.

we would likely see a market for them.

Steve

metsfan · December 15, 2009 11:44AM

I agree with you winpitcher. Everyone can relate to coins and stamps for that matter. When it comes to sports cards most people don't really care. That Jeter/Bush card was made on purpose, and was not hard to get in the first printing. It was a smart marketing move by Topps.

1986 Topps Variations

Comments