Options
1987 Topps “Scarface” Error- Has anyone ever seen another like it?
Tyspies
Posts: 17 ✭
Hi, I’m new here. I pulled this out of a 1987 topps hand boxed complete set. I have a ton of stuff to go through that my father and I collected when I was young. It’s in new condition with a very cool error. What’s something like this potentially worth? Thanks for all your help!
Tagged:
1
Comments
The only reason I pulled this box out is because of the well known 1987 topps Barry Bonds rookie double misprint error. I found it. 2 out of two hand boxed sets. They’re both very nice. Both have number error, only one had both errors. It’s a good find. So I decided to look through a few of the other cards in the set and also found my buddy “Scarface”. Must’ve been a rough day at the factory. Thank you to anyone who can help me find out if there are more like it out there and if it holds much value to collectors? If it’s not worth a lot of money Im definitely keeping it because I love it!
I'll bite: what is the Bonds error?
The number error is on all Bonds cards. On the back, the "320" has a part of the first "3" missing. I think the second "misprint" is that part of the 0 is cut off on top. Again, I assume this is on all Bonds cards, but not really sure.
In order to find what the true value, you need to look at sold prices on ebay, not asking prices. That will give you a more accurate value.
As for the Parrish, I would think that your scarface Parrish would be worth less than a regular Parrish. Sorry.
>
Successful transactions on the BST boards with rtimmer, coincoins, gerard, tincup, tjm965, MMR, mission16, dirtygoldman, AUandAG, deadmunny, thedutymon, leadoff4, Kid4HOF03, BRI2327, colebear, mcholke, rpcolettrane, rockdjrw, publius, quik, kalinefan, Allen, JackWESQ, CON40, Griffeyfan2430, blue227, Tiggs2012, ndleo, CDsNuts, ve3rules, doh, MurphDawg, tennessebanker, and gene1978.
Agree. That’s a print defect that makes it less valuable, not more.
Yaz Master Set
#1 Gino Cappelletti master set
#1 John Hannah master set
Also collecting Andre Tippett, Patriots Greats' RCs, 1964 Venezuelan Topps, 1974 Topps Red Sox
This is one of my Barry bonds double misprint error cards.
I pulled this out off a sealed box today. Has an error correct??? Crack in the name.
ok, to answer your question from another thread, yes. you are being silly.
what you are posting are print defects, not errors. big difference.
I see. Fair enough, I’ve always been an easy target.
Thank you. If that crack on the Ken Griffey Jr letters is on several others is it considered a print defect or an error? Thanks for all the information. We have a ton of cards to carefully work through. My son and I are building a very cool little collection together 🙂
Error - a mistake that was subsequently corrected by the manufacturer. Scarcity makes the card more valuable. Best example is Magee being spelled Magie. If you have that card, congrats.
Print Defect - (PD) - an imperfection in the printing process. Happens all the time, and why perfect copies are so desirable. Grading takes this into account. PDs are less valuable, not more.
In the era you seem to be searching, you need to stop looking for errors and starting looking for perfection.
still just a print defect. and happy building and collecting w the son!
the real collection will be of the memories. the cards are just an added bonus! 😉
Congrats pulling griffey!
Might be worth while subbing.
Grab some '90 topps. Who knows, there might be NNOF Thomas out there
We have so much to go through. We’re having such a great time with this. Yeah I was thinking I need to get that and some of our nicer stuff graded as well. Thank you!!
Every 87 Bonds has that defect on the 320.
There are a few print defects that recur and have value. There is a thread with them somewhere here, but the most famous are likely the 1958 Pancho Herrera missing the final a, the aforementioned Thomas, and the 1982 Topps "Blackless". Print defects not in that thread likely devalue the card rather than enhance the value.
The bonds rookie smudge on the name isn’t on all of them. Is that a print defect. It’s called a misprint on eBay
I don't know what it is, but again, you need to look at sold auctions to see what this might be selling for. I've never heard of it before and I've been collecting 1987 Topps Bonds since 1987. I assume it gives no premium to the card.
Also, just because someone is asking $800 for a Bonds rookie that has part of the '3' missing on the back of the card doesn't mean it actually sells for that. Again, all of the 1987 Topps Bonds have that.
>
Successful transactions on the BST boards with rtimmer, coincoins, gerard, tincup, tjm965, MMR, mission16, dirtygoldman, AUandAG, deadmunny, thedutymon, leadoff4, Kid4HOF03, BRI2327, colebear, mcholke, rpcolettrane, rockdjrw, publius, quik, kalinefan, Allen, JackWESQ, CON40, Griffeyfan2430, blue227, Tiggs2012, ndleo, CDsNuts, ve3rules, doh, MurphDawg, tennessebanker, and gene1978.
Thank you!
The 1987 Topps Bonds number error was not corrected. Despite what you see listed on ebay, it is a common card that was never corrected.
As for the smudge mark before his name, this is known as a recurring print defect (RPD), which is a printing flaw that affects a significant portion of the run, not quite earning it an error status but more known than the odd print flaw. However, in this card's case, the card can be found with a partially visible smudge or without the smudge (to date, a full, unedited smudge has never been found). I have been selling this variation pair since 2005. Neither version is very hard to find.
The Lance Parrish card is a print flaw. Specifically caused by the ink getting smeared or scrawled across the surface by debris. These are fairly common for junk Topps sets. I have found many across every set from 1977-1991. This is not a recurring print defect since it hasn't affected a large portion of the run and it doesn't qualify as an error (by most standards) due to it not being an intentional change made by the company to the printing plate.