Home Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum

1989 Upper Deck Griffey - "Eyelash" print error

So this was interesting - I bought 6 boxes a few years ago from a guy - who also sold me a case of 89 fleer "error", which I can attest having opened a few boxes is most definitely an error case :-)

Going back through when I got the Griffeys and others they went straight into sleeves and hard cases....when looking at them the other day, I was perplexed how an eyelash got into the sleeve. Upon closer look, its not an eyelash, but a very noticeable printing line. when looking at the group of them that came from the boxes (all from the same case), I had a sequence of Griffeys that seemed to go from the early stage of the print line to the late stage with the full line....pretty cool

Combing eBay I can find no other Griffeys with the print line....

Thoughts? Would it make sense to keep these all together - kind of like a mint error coin - early stage to late stage die error?

Comments

  • No one has any idea on these? does any one else at least have one in their collection?

  • countdouglascountdouglas Posts: 1,047 ✭✭✭✭

    My personal opinion is that it is, at best, an ignored and inconsequential imperfection. At worst, it's going to be docked as an undesired print defect.

    There is a much more egregious recurring imperfection on the full sized 1975 Topps Robin Yount, a big splotch of blue color right between his legs, that no one seems to care at all about. I refer to it as a "puddle", and while, to my knowledge, a PD grade is never given because of it, I try to avoid examples with the puddle on it. Once you see it, you can't unsee it. Now that you've pointed out the eyelash, if I'm ever in the market for a Griffey, I will try to avoid one with that imperfection.

  • countdouglascountdouglas Posts: 1,047 ✭✭✭✭

    The puddle only shows up on the full sized versions, maybe 10 or 20 percent of the time. There's an old thread where it's discussed more. But apparently, no premium or negative value is assigned to this variation. I would assume the same collector response for the Griffey eyelash variation.

  • ReggieClevelandReggieCleveland Posts: 3,368 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The difference between a print defect and a variation is art, not science. Here are a few things I've learned over the years about the subject.

    1. You need a good story. Letters printed in a different color. No name on front. Blackless. Blue heart. Colored lines are much more likely to gain traction than just a black line. Was the print defect consciously fixed (airbrushed) or did it resolve itself in the natural printing process?

    2. It needs to be rare but not obscure. If there are too many (1990 Topps Griffey bloody arm), no one cares. If there are too few, it gets written off as an outlier. It needs to find that magical wheelhouse where it's rare enough to command a premium but not so rare that people don't buy in.

    3. It has to be multi-sourced. I see that you've found other examples, that's good. For anyone ripping a box and thinking they found a variation, you have to perform redundancy. Find the same variation from another source in another piece of unopened. If your case is the only place it occurs, it's not a variation.

    4. Don't hype bogus sales. If the card is selling for $3 at auction but there are a few $100 BINs, don't point to those BINs as reference points. Those are BS sales that were created solely to manipulate the market. If you want your research to be taken seriously, be serious about your research.

    Cool card. I'll definitely keep my eye out for them when I look from now on.

    Arthur

  • soxaddictsoxaddict Posts: 92 ✭✭✭

    Pretty sure PSA views it as a print defect. I’ve never seen one of these with a grade above an 8.

  • HorseHorse Posts: 460 ✭✭✭

    If you could get Billie Eyelash to sign those then you'd have something.

  • cool - thanks!!! we shall see how this plays out over the years - reminds me of a 1952 topps black and red star backs

    pretty cool thing in my opinion having the variation from light line to dark line....

  • NGS428NGS428 Posts: 1,043 ✭✭✭✭

    My 7 has it... none of my others do... inconsequential in my book..

    Nic

    PSA Digital Albums - Ken Griffey, Jr. - Basic Set | Rookie Set | 1989 Set
    Guides Authored - Graded Card Scanning Guide PDF | History of the PSA Label PDF

  • ldfergldferg Posts: 6,503 ✭✭✭

    1981 Topps Harold Baines has a similar eyelash version. Inconsequential at this point.



    Thanks,

    David (LD_Ferg)



    1985 Topps Football (starting in psa 8) - #9 - started 05/21/06
  • dictoresno1dictoresno1 Posts: 208 ✭✭✭

    @soxaddict said:
    Pretty sure PSA views it as a print defect. I’ve never seen one of these with a grade above an 8.

    now you have......heres mine. this was one of the cards that appeared in that quasi-famous YouTube video of the guy who subbed 52 or so pack fresh Griffeys and had a variety of grades ranging from PSA 6 to PSA 10. he revealed each one in the video after he got them back and didn't check the grades ahead of time. spoiler - there were a surprising amount of PSA 6, 7 and 8's among the batch.

  • dictoresno1dictoresno1 Posts: 208 ✭✭✭

    on a side note, I wonder if it was indeed an eyelash or similar particle caught in the printing plate and by the time a ton of sheets were printed, it was noticed during QC, cleaned and printing resumed.

  • jackstrawjackstraw Posts: 3,860 ✭✭✭

    I used to search for hours upon hours and then it turned into days, months and years for the "purple hat" variation which I thought was rare and incredibly hard to find but finally came to the conclusion that I was on an island all by myself and nobody really viewed it as a "variation" so I just gave up! I would put this in that category now the trademark icon vs the TM in the grass should be considered a variation.. I think this is cool and I will check for them! Here is another variation that I bought hook, line and sinker! Someone erased the name, which is a thing!

    Collector Focus

    ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
  • Thanks for all the replies!!!

  • soxaddictsoxaddict Posts: 92 ✭✭✭

    @dictoresno1 said:

    @soxaddict said:
    Pretty sure PSA views it as a print defect. I’ve never seen one of these with a grade above an 8.

    now you have......heres mine. this was one of the cards that appeared in that quasi-famous YouTube video of the guy who subbed 52 or so pack fresh Griffeys and had a variety of grades ranging from PSA 6 to PSA 10. he revealed each one in the video after he got them back and didn't check the grades ahead of time. spoiler - there were a surprising amount of PSA 6, 7 and 8's among the batch.

    Yes it is!

    I may have watched that video. He had a stack of 6,7 and 8s. I started feeling for that guy. Man, that was brutal.

  • Everybody should probably buy one of each.

Sign In or Register to comment.