Talk about a nail bitter............... When you reply hit the green picture frame right above the message box. Copy and paste the URL in the the address bar and hit reply
I need to take a good shower (had just gotten off the treadmill when I decided to sit down and open a few packs while I cooled down).....and then think about what to do next!
saucy, are you still doubting this??? Seriously? The only cards in the original streak that do not look like simple border errors are those that have black in the background - making it more obvious. Go back and look at the big picture again. If the blackless portion on the NNOF Thomas card had not extended through his name - it would have appeared as being simply a border error. Same for the Tapani in the original streak - that card had a blue background- so again it comes off as looking like a simple border issue. Come on now!
<< <i>saucy, are you still doubting this??? Seriously? The only cards in the original streak that do not look like simple border errors are those that have black in the background - making it more obvious. Go back and look at the big picture again. If the blackless portion on the NNOF Thomas card had not extended through his name - it would have appeared as being simply a border error. Same for the Tapani in the original streak - that card had a blue background- so again it comes off as looking like a simple border issue. Come on now! >>
The blackless area on the Thomas is easily discernible by the way it cuts through is arm and cleat too. Most cards have some portion of K ink on them to bring out detail.
Notice the "line" on his arm and cleat where the black ink is missing. Again, black (K) ink is used on most, if not all, cards to bring out detail. All the blank ink that is displayed on a card comes from a single plate.
I don't understand what you're saying... there's no difference in the blackless areas, except that one has black and the other doesn't? Isn't that kind of the point?
I'm beginning to think that my Magrane AS is not related at all as it clearly doesn't fit in the puzzle. I pulled it way back in the day and only recently discovered the variation. When I saw this thread back in March, I dug up all of my 90 Topps cards and looked them over. The Magrane AS was the only blackless variant that I found.
<< <i>I'm beginning to think that my Magrane AS is not related at all as it clearly doesn't fit in the puzzle. I pulled it way back in the day and only recently discovered the variation. When I saw this thread back in March, I dug up all of my 90 Topps cards and looked them over. The Magrane AS was the only blackless variant that I found. >>
Oh interesting. I thought there were more you had as well.
slantycouch, yes, that is my point...you will only see a difference in the background if there is black - otherwise it would look like a border issue. The Tapani NNOF strip error and the all-star cards in the NNOF strip show exactly what I mean - where there is no black in the affected blackless "strip", it appears to only be a missing border issue - but we know it is more than that.
<< <i>slantycouch, yes, that is my point...you will only see a difference in the background if there is black - otherwise it would look like a border issue. The Tapani NNOF strip error and the all-star cards in the NNOF show exactly what I mean - where there is no black, it looks like a border issue. >>
Seems to me that's why Saucy said you need to find one in your group that shows black missing other than the border... to confirm. One where the affected area stretches into the image. That doesn't seem like an outrageous request/comment.
<< <i>saucy, are you still doubting this??? Seriously? The only cards in the original streak that do not look like simple border errors are those that have black in the background - making it more obvious. Go back and look at the big picture again. If the blackless portion on the NNOF Thomas card had not extended through his name - it would have appeared as being simply a border error. Same for the Tapani in the original streak - that card had a blue background- so again it comes off as looking like a simple border issue. Come on now! >>
Slantycouch has shown what I'm getting at here. The Tapani (and the Morris I have) do have color degradation running across the card where as Slany pointed out black was used to give the photo a sharper appearance.
If you have cards where the degradation is present then that sets this card apart from the other Magrane in this thread where just the border is missing. Yours seems to fit though.
As pointed about by Jackson Coupage it is very significant if you have exact duplicates of what has already been discovered. This is known for the McGriff, Fisk, Biggio, and Thomas cards.
At this point the Magrane does not prove what you are asserting - that you have a box full of 1990 Topps Blackless.
BTW- I look forward to seeing what else you uncover.
Always looking for 1993-1999 Baseball Finest Refractors and1994 Football Finest Refractors. saucywombat@hotmail.com
I just offered to buy a box from him for a reasonable price (at least in my mind). If he agrees I will post the results in my rip thread. If his boxes are legit he will have the independent verification he is looking for.
Let me know if you find anything unusual on Ventura's card. No amount of missing black ink is too small ! >>
I think I mentioned this on the beckett boards a while back but...
A longtime customer of mine ( from 1996-2001 or so ), once told me that he and a friend purchased a massive amount of "Junk" Topps vending boxes in the mid 90's to stock $0.25 machines in the friend's video arcade. He said that they opened up a few 1990 ones in search of the NNOF Thomas, but to their disappointment, they found a couple copies of the Thomas card with THOM or THOMA or something to that affect. He says they were pretty bummed at the time, which is kind of funny, if true.
Despite knowing him as a trustworthy guy, I figured he probably just remembered the details incorrectly but I asked him to try and dig it out when he could (this was almost 5 years ago now), plus I was pretty skeptical of how the NNOF was released into the hobby before this thread. I think I'll have to call him again and put the pressure to get on unearthing that card.
Ok, well now my original theory is about as solid as ever: Whatever caused the blockage in black ink on the NNOF, gradually resolved itself on its own. I developed this theory when I pulled my partial NNOF, however I wasn't sure if it "fixed itself" within one case of wax boxes, or over a larger sample of cases/packs. My 2 Thomas findings pulled from within the same case proves that this indeed did happen. One more weird thing is that in the last 5 packs I opened, I got another Tapani that was perfectly fine - no black missing at all.
<< <i>Ok, well now my original theory is about as solid as ever: Whatever caused the blockage in black ink on the NNOF, gradually resolved itself on its own. I developed this theory when I pulled my partial NNOF, however I wasn't sure if it "fixed itself" within one case of wax boxes, or over a larger sample of cases/packs. My 2 Thomas findings pulled from within the same case proves that this indeed did happen. One more weird thing is that in the last 5 packs I opened, I got another Tapani that was perfectly fine - no black missing at all. >>
Interesting that you just found now that it had "fixed" itself. Guess that means there are no guarantees for anyone who buys packs or a box.
And you still need to realize that an obstruction would only work for part of this theory. If the obstruction was retained (blocked the ink to the card but then stuck to the card) for the Thomas for example, there would only be ONE single NNOF in existence. If the obstruction stuck to the plate, then it would get inked the next time it went past a roller, meaning the ink would still touch the next virgin stock it touched.
Funny how you're now saying you've come to a complete conclusion, when two pages ago you were saying "no one can ever be sure what happened."
What I am saying is that Ross kept insisting that there is no way the errors could have been caused by anything but a bad plate. He was using that to say that there is no way my partial NNOF card could have any connection because it certainly came from a different plate as he claimed. With my uncoverings today, we now know that not to be true. It was clearly not a bad plate issue - it was some other ink blockage during the printing of the cards. Unless you are suggesting that two cards in the same case were printed with different plates? Is that logical?
In any case, there is plenty of mystery left: What blocked the ink during the printing?
<< <i>What I am saying is that Ross kept insisting that there is no way the errors could have been caused by anything but a bad plate. He was using that to say that there is no way my partial NNOF card could have any connection because it certainly came from a different plate as he claimed. With my uncoverings today, we now know that not to be true. It was clearly not a bad plate issue - it was some other ink blockage during the printing of the cards. Unless you are suggesting that two cards in the same case were printed with different plates? Is that logical?
In any case, there is plenty of mystery left: What blocked the ink during the printing? >>
I still insist they could only be caused by a bad plate, but we need to talk some more.
Guys, I am certainly hanging onto my NNOF Thomas card. A bit nervous about sending it through the mail to get graded. What to do now with the rest of the case? I really don't know. I need some time for this to all sink in...
<< <i>What I am saying is that Ross kept insisting that there is no way the errors could have been caused by anything but a bad plate. He was using that to say that there is no way my partial NNOF card could have any connection because it certainly came from a different plate as he claimed. With my uncoverings today, we now know that not to be true. It was clearly not a bad plate issue - it was some other ink blockage during the printing of the cards. Unless you are suggesting that two cards in the same case were printed with different plates? Is that logical?
In any case, there is plenty of mystery left: What blocked the ink during the printing? >>
Yes. Yes it is logical. You're making the assumption that there was only ONE SINGLE set of plates making all the millions of 1990 Topps cards produced. That's not logical. Say there were two (or more) presses going, and all the cards were stacked in sheets and then moved to the cutters to be sliced and packaged. Very easily cards produced by different plates could end up in the same case/box. This could also explain why you found a normal Tapani in the same box/case.
It is incorrect to say this is "clearly not a bad plate issue".
So then, there would have to be 3 plates involved in the printing of the cards within one case? And two of them within a close distance had some or part a problem to create a partial and a full NNOF Thomas?
<< <i>What I am saying is that Ross kept insisting that there is no way the errors could have been caused by anything but a bad plate. He was using that to say that there is no way my partial NNOF card could have any connection because it certainly came from a different plate as he claimed. With my uncoverings today, we now know that not to be true. It was clearly not a bad plate issue - it was some other ink blockage during the printing of the cards. Unless you are suggesting that two cards in the same case were printed with different plates? Is that logical?
In any case, there is plenty of mystery left: What blocked the ink during the printing? >>
Ok first of all, I never said they couldn't have any connection. I said the obstruction theory is wrong...and without further proof, you could not tie the cards together as having been produced by the same plate. I stand by that initial thought process, though I now believe the potential exists under the right circumstances for them to have been produced by the same plate.
You need to understand Joe, I am your biggest supporter here. I want information to come out. I do not want people to misread evidence to support a desired conclusion. You've taken this as a personal attack all along and I've asked you not to. Please put it aside so we can talk about this.
-----------------------------------------
It is "clear" that it wasn't a bad plate is not true.
This is how it has been explained to me: The amount of repetition that occurred to create the NNOF Thomas in mass quantity can hypothetically only be created by a faulty plate. If the obstruction were on the blanket, black ink from the plate would still transfer to a solid obstruction and the ink would then transfer to the sheet. If a chemical obstruction appeared on the blanket, you would see pooling of ink around the perimeter of the obstruction and possibly randomly through the obstruction itself. If the obstruction were directly on the sheet, only one run would be affected.
Beyond that, the shape of the error is organic, not fixed as would be expected by a physical obstruction. I do now think they were potentially created by the same plate, and if not the same plate, plates that were side by side in production.
I now need printers to step in and explain the course of action when a faulty plate is recognized and attempts to repair it are made.
Comments
Interested to see it.
Shoot the pic my way and I'll get it up.
<< <i>I am completely new to this site, how about sending me your e-mail through a PM, and I will send it to you through e-mail. >>
Donovan's e-mail is 2 posts up.
When you reply hit the green picture frame right above the message box. Copy and paste the URL in the
the address bar and hit reply
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
Now get to rippin' more packs !!!
'Older' Discovery
saucywombat@hotmail.com
I still wonder if we're dealing with two (or more) separate bad plates, or something else.
It's tough not knowing how many plates were produced, how many presses were used, how many facilities, etc.
<< <i>saucy, are you still doubting this??? Seriously? The only cards in the original streak that do not look like simple border errors are those that have black in the background - making it more obvious. Go back and look at the big picture again. If the blackless portion on the NNOF Thomas card had not extended through his name - it would have appeared as being simply a border error. Same for the Tapani in the original streak - that card had a blue background- so again it comes off as looking like a simple border issue. Come on now! >>
The blackless area on the Thomas is easily discernible by the way it cuts through is arm and cleat too. Most cards have some portion of K ink on them to bring out detail.
<< <i>go back and compare the NNOF Thomas with a regular Thomas - I see no difference except for the borders and his name. >>
Sure thing. Give me a minute to upload a pic.
Awesome Discovery!!
That Magrane definitely fits in the puzzle while mine doesn't seem to at all.
It's great to actually see the proper Magrane after all this time.
<< <i>Awesome Discovery!!
That Magrane definitely fits in the puzzle while mine doesn't seem to at all.
It's great to actually see the proper Magrane after all this time. >>
But yours all came from the same collection, right?
<< <i>sorry...I meant in the blackless areas. >>
I don't understand what you're saying... there's no difference in the blackless areas, except that one has black and the other doesn't? Isn't that kind of the point?
I pulled it way back in the day and only recently discovered the variation.
When I saw this thread back in March, I dug up all of my 90 Topps cards and looked them over.
The Magrane AS was the only blackless variant that I found.
<< <i>I'm beginning to think that my Magrane AS is not related at all as it clearly doesn't fit in the puzzle.
I pulled it way back in the day and only recently discovered the variation.
When I saw this thread back in March, I dug up all of my 90 Topps cards and looked them over.
The Magrane AS was the only blackless variant that I found. >>
Oh interesting. I thought there were more you had as well.
<< <i>slantycouch, yes, that is my point...you will only see a difference in the background if there is black - otherwise it would look like a border issue. The Tapani NNOF strip error and the all-star cards in the NNOF show exactly what I mean - where there is no black, it looks like a border issue. >>
Seems to me that's why Saucy said you need to find one in your group that shows black missing other than the border... to confirm. One where the affected area stretches into the image. That doesn't seem like an outrageous request/comment.
<< <i>saucy, are you still doubting this??? Seriously? The only cards in the original streak that do not look like simple border errors are those that have black in the background - making it more obvious. Go back and look at the big picture again. If the blackless portion on the NNOF Thomas card had not extended through his name - it would have appeared as being simply a border error. Same for the Tapani in the original streak - that card had a blue background- so again it comes off as looking like a simple border issue. Come on now! >>
Slantycouch has shown what I'm getting at here. The Tapani (and the Morris I have) do have color degradation running across the card where as Slany pointed out black was used to give the photo a sharper appearance.
If you have cards where the degradation is present then that sets this card apart from the other Magrane in this thread where just the border is missing. Yours seems to fit though.
As pointed about by Jackson Coupage it is very significant if you have exact duplicates of what has already been discovered. This is known for the McGriff, Fisk, Biggio, and Thomas cards.
At this point the Magrane does not prove what you are asserting - that you have a box full of 1990 Topps Blackless.
BTW- I look forward to seeing what else you uncover.
saucywombat@hotmail.com
Oh wait...nevermind.
Collecting Robin Ventura and Matt Luke.
<< <i>Sweet! You better hurry up and end the pack auction.
Oh wait...nevermind. >>
It was down this morning, maybe sooner.
Robb
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
Collecting Robin Ventura and Matt Luke.
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
<< <i>I'm even more excited to see scans of what exists between his original pull and the famous NNOF version. >>
Took the words out of my mouth.
"Progressive NNOF" Awesome.
<< <i>Just sent $288 for a box. Why not...
Let me know if you find anything unusual on Ventura's card. No amount of missing black ink is too small
Collecting Robin Ventura and Matt Luke.
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
What I'm selling
Building Sets, Collecting Texas Rangers, and Texas Tech Red Raiders
<< <i>
<< <i>Just sent $288 for a box. Why not...
Let me know if you find anything unusual on Ventura's card. No amount of missing black ink is too small
I think I mentioned this on the beckett boards a while back but...
A longtime customer of mine ( from 1996-2001 or so ), once told me that he and a friend purchased a massive amount of "Junk" Topps vending boxes in the mid 90's to stock $0.25 machines in the friend's video arcade. He said that they opened up a few 1990 ones in search of the NNOF Thomas, but to their disappointment, they found a couple copies of the Thomas card with THOM or THOMA or something to that affect. He says they were pretty bummed at the time, which is kind of funny, if true.
Despite knowing him as a trustworthy guy, I figured he probably just remembered the details incorrectly but I asked him to try and dig it out when he could (this was almost 5 years ago now), plus I was pretty skeptical of how the NNOF was released into the hobby before this thread. I think I'll have to call him again and put the pressure to get on unearthing that card.
Collecting Robin Ventura and Matt Luke.
<< <i>
<< <i>Just sent $288 for a box. Why not...
Let me know if you find anything unusual on Ventura's card. No amount of missing black ink is too small
Sorry. I edited my original post and deleted that statement. I was joking. I assume he'll want more for them now.
<< <i>Ok, well now my original theory is about as solid as ever: Whatever caused the blockage in black ink on the NNOF, gradually resolved itself on its own. I developed this theory when I pulled my partial NNOF, however I wasn't sure if it "fixed itself" within one case of wax boxes, or over a larger sample of cases/packs. My 2 Thomas findings pulled from within the same case proves that this indeed did happen. One more weird thing is that in the last 5 packs I opened, I got another Tapani that was perfectly fine - no black missing at all. >>
Interesting that you just found now that it had "fixed" itself. Guess that means there are no guarantees for anyone who buys packs or a box.
And you still need to realize that an obstruction would only work for part of this theory. If the obstruction was retained (blocked the ink to the card but then stuck to the card) for the Thomas for example, there would only be ONE single NNOF in existence. If the obstruction stuck to the plate, then it would get inked the next time it went past a roller, meaning the ink would still touch the next virgin stock it touched.
Funny how you're now saying you've come to a complete conclusion, when two pages ago you were saying "no one can ever be sure what happened."
1996 Select Certified Mirror Gold Ozzie Smith
2006 Bowman Chrome Orange Refractor Chris Carpenter
In any case, there is plenty of mystery left: What blocked the ink during the printing?
I still have my doubts about a progressive error. It makes literally no sense to me. I do certainly believe 100% that the erros are related now.
<< <i>What I am saying is that Ross kept insisting that there is no way the errors could have been caused by anything but a bad plate. He was using that to say that there is no way my partial NNOF card could have any connection because it certainly came from a different plate as he claimed. With my uncoverings today, we now know that not to be true. It was clearly not a bad plate issue - it was some other ink blockage during the printing of the cards. Unless you are suggesting that two cards in the same case were printed with different plates? Is that logical?
In any case, there is plenty of mystery left: What blocked the ink during the printing? >>
I still insist they could only be caused by a bad plate, but we need to talk some more.
<< <i>What I am saying is that Ross kept insisting that there is no way the errors could have been caused by anything but a bad plate. He was using that to say that there is no way my partial NNOF card could have any connection because it certainly came from a different plate as he claimed. With my uncoverings today, we now know that not to be true. It was clearly not a bad plate issue - it was some other ink blockage during the printing of the cards. Unless you are suggesting that two cards in the same case were printed with different plates? Is that logical?
In any case, there is plenty of mystery left: What blocked the ink during the printing? >>
Yes. Yes it is logical. You're making the assumption that there was only ONE SINGLE set of plates making all the millions of 1990 Topps cards produced. That's not logical. Say there were two (or more) presses going, and all the cards were stacked in sheets and then moved to the cutters to be sliced and packaged. Very easily cards produced by different plates could end up in the same case/box. This could also explain why you found a normal Tapani in the same box/case.
It is incorrect to say this is "clearly not a bad plate issue".
<< <i>What I am saying is that Ross kept insisting that there is no way the errors could have been caused by anything but a bad plate. He was using that to say that there is no way my partial NNOF card could have any connection because it certainly came from a different plate as he claimed. With my uncoverings today, we now know that not to be true. It was clearly not a bad plate issue - it was some other ink blockage during the printing of the cards. Unless you are suggesting that two cards in the same case were printed with different plates? Is that logical?
In any case, there is plenty of mystery left: What blocked the ink during the printing? >>
Ok first of all, I never said they couldn't have any connection. I said the obstruction theory is wrong...and without further proof, you could not tie the cards together as having been produced by the same plate. I stand by that initial thought process, though I now believe the potential exists under the right circumstances for them to have been produced by the same plate.
You need to understand Joe, I am your biggest supporter here. I want information to come out. I do not want people to misread evidence to support a desired conclusion. You've taken this as a personal attack all along and I've asked you not to. Please put it aside so we can talk about this.
-----------------------------------------
It is "clear" that it wasn't a bad plate is not true.
This is how it has been explained to me:
The amount of repetition that occurred to create the NNOF Thomas in mass quantity can hypothetically only be created by a faulty plate. If the obstruction were on the blanket, black ink from the plate would still transfer to a solid obstruction and the ink would then transfer to the sheet. If a chemical obstruction appeared on the blanket, you would see pooling of ink around the perimeter of the obstruction and possibly randomly through the obstruction itself. If the obstruction were directly on the sheet, only one run would be affected.
Beyond that, the shape of the error is organic, not fixed as would be expected by a physical obstruction. I do now think they were potentially created by the same plate, and if not the same plate, plates that were side by side in production.
I now need printers to step in and explain the course of action when a faulty plate is recognized and attempts to repair it are made.