1985 Topps McGwire: Are These Different or Not?

detroitfan2

In an earlier post regarding a BGS 10 1985 Topps McGwire card, our friend MuckyMutt made a keen observation regarding the two MgGwire cards shown at the top of the following scan. Because the thread went way off into the weeds, there was no discussion regarding Mucky's post. So please discuss, are these cards different, or is it an optical illusion? Look at Mark's teeth and eyes:

ArnyVee

Whoa.....that's interesting. Was there some photoshop magic involved? That's something that I had never noticed before.

fiveniner

Definetly a difference!

coachh

They look different to me.

tennesseebanker

Wow! As a 85 Topps registry set participant, and an avid 85 Topps collector I must say I have never seen this before. I have several mcgwires that I am going to look at to see if there is a difference. Definately something going on here.

pandrews

seems like there was a mention about variation on an older topps card (i wanna say 1968 or 1969) that somebody had "discovered", and i think people were calling it the "looking down" variation or something? i think it was just something with the printing..

onlyanumber

Definitely a printing variation--Look at the name on both cards.

jmbkb4

Look at the dopey smile on that 9.5

tennesseebanker

I have looked at the four Mcgwire cards of mine and all of them look like the one on the left. This is either a rare print variation or some type of picture manipulation.

EagleEyeKid

First of all, I have a problem with both Mac's (chugging down my 4th beer) and I will attempt to say why. What I don't like first of all is the uneven baseball on the left. It is not perfectly circular (burp*) . During the 98 season, I personally held 100 counterfeit McGwires that all had the oval shaped baseball with too much yellow on sewn string part, and those suckers couldn't even be creased. I bent them like crazy and nada. (Snapping off my 5th beer....I've had a rough day) Okay, with that aside I will now attempt to narrow it down. The one on the right to me looks very strange and I don't like the font on Mark McGwire First Base (I'm still seeing straight mind you). Also, the one on the left has shorter borders than the one on the right.....all 4 borders are shorter so that's why it's a BS 10. My McGwire blows both of these cards away.

Ain't she a beaut?

NewJerseyMeatHook

The one on the right is actually Oscar Gamble.

tennesseebanker

I thought there might be a difference in the regular issue and the tiffany issue, and that bgs may have mistakedly slabbed a tiffany as a regular.
But they look the same also

EagleEyeKid

No, those are both regular issues. The tiffany has that yellowy haze on the surface with rough edges. I also doubt there were sheets of the tiffany to be sheetcut and sent to bgs.

sagard

The '85 McGwires are the same. The color is just really weak on the 10. There are McGwires with nice deep red jerseys, and some with weak pink jerseys. I prefer the red ones, but grading companies don't seem to care.

tennesseebanker

<< <i>No, those are both regular issues. The tiffany has that yellowy haze on the surface with rough edges. I also doubt there were sheets of the tiffany to be sheetcut and sent to bgs. >>



I agree, now, that they are both regular issue, but it was just a hunch. So are you saying the one on the right is counterfiet? Why would the picture be different if it were counterfiet? Wouldnt the scam artist have used the original picture to duplicate another

tennesseebanker

<< <i>The '85 McGwires are the same. The color is just really weak on the 10. There are McGwires with nice deep red jerseys, and some with weak pink jerseys. I prefer the red ones, but grading companies don't seem to care. >>



I am not looking at the jersey, Look at the face, the expressions are totally different !

EagleEyeKid

The mouth part is probably just the twinking of the scan which may give it that look. I just don't like the oval shape baseball on either one of them and yes I agree with sagard that there were deep red ones and faded ones. The deep red ones had the better eye appeal. Doesn't anyone else agree that the font on the right one looks like bit strange? I'll stop drinking now.

detroitfan2

I have looked at the four Mcgwire cards of mine and all of them look like the one on the left. This is either a rare print variation or some type of picture manipulation.

tennessebanker, did you mean the one on the right? To me, your scans resemble the "eyes/mouth open" variation, as do pretty much all of the McGwires I saw on ebay when I did a search.

Also, onlyanumber makes a good point about McGwire's name, it's located differently on both cards. To me, though, that seems more reasonable (a slightly different printing position) than an actual photo difference.

<<The one on the right is actually Oscar Gamble.>>

bsfastball

Don't quote me on this, but I think there was a (small) article in Beckett about the variation. I think one was slightly rarer than the other, but I'm not positive. Maybe one was distributed in packs and the other in factory sets?

tennesseebanker

Those arent my Mcgwires, they are some I pulled off e-bay while researching the situation.
To me his mouth and eyes look totally different, almost like a totally different photo. I agree that there are other differences between the two cards but the photo is what looks strange to me.

tennesseebanker

<< <i>Don't quote me on this, but I think there was a (small) article in Beckett about the variation. I think one was slightly rarer than the other, but I'm not positive. Maybe one was distributed in packs and the other in factory sets? >>




I have two I know came from factory sets and two from rack boxes, they all look the same. However, wax or vending may be different.

tennesseebanker

Now that I have looked at my four again I think they may resemble the one on the right more.

schr1st

I think it's more of a print and registration issue than anything else. I've seen some really dark 85 Topps cards, particularly ones that came from rack packs.

5STAT

Cummon it's obvious...the pic on the left is 1st thing in the Am...the pic on the right is right after his shot of juice..he's just jacked with adrenalin....

Or..the right is just counterfiet...

Maybe both!!

HMMMM !!??!!

TripleCrown

Both of my McGwires' look like the one on the right also.

The 1994 Sportscard Counterfeit Detector book says that all the usual traits of a counterfeit would be visible under magnification. On the front, all black border lines around baseball, picture, etc... should show solid black print lines and not composites of tiny dots making up the black line.
On the back, the small red letters should be distinct and show clarity and separation. The counterfeits' small type is blown out evidently.
The weight on the the forgery is nearly identical to the real deal so it's hard to judge by just that.

I think I agree with schr1st , that it's probably just a registration thing. I worked in a printing firm that did "old school" offset printing, and registration issues, especially where the black overlay doesn't land right can create some strange final products.

J.M.O.
TC

Stingray

Someone mentioned that the names were in different spots on the cards. It appear that his name in the first card is slightly lower in the redbox. Maybe during the printing of the cards the black ink was not "sprayed" or what ever process it is called, in the exact same location on certain cards causing a distortion of the picture, i.e. his eyes look more shut in the first card (or slightly stoned).


Stingray

rmoss

I am no expert on baseball cards but look at the tape on the bat. On the picture on the left it appears to reach the top of the U in USA and on the picture on the right it doesn't go that high.

Stingray

On a side note, what stadium is in the background of this picture?? It looks to me to be the old Tiger Stadium??


Stingray

Tabe

<< <i>On a side note, what stadium is in the background of this picture?? It looks to me to be the old Tiger Stadium??


Stingray >>


Yep!

Tabe