<< <i>It looks like I need to go through everything again. There were at least 5 different variations of the Tapani errors and Marcus Lawton found in my case alone, including the 3 Marcus Lawton cards that show the "gradual" progression of the blackless error "going away" - exactly as my theory suggested, even before I pulled any Lawton errors. Look at the blackless areas under his chin!
And every variation of my Tapani error cards in my case that were missing black had the same blue diagonal print line... adding to the probability that all 5 variations passed through the SAME printing presses/plates - receiving their black ink and blue ink from the same source. It's illogical to suggest that my various Tapani blackless errors passed through the same blue plate, but then somehow got split up and went to at least 5 different bad black plates, then all ended up back in the same case???
Using more common sense, if it WAS a bad plate, there would have been many more NNOF errors out there. EVERYTHING here points to a very temporary blockage of the black ink to cause the NNOF and surrounding blackless errors, and the evidence shows the pattern of how the blockage gradually fell off or dissolved. Additionally, the several pieces of stray torn paper/cardboard found directly behind an orange sheet card each time, if nothing else, points to there being some sort of spilling accident (where debries ended up on the presses of the orange sheets at the time the errors were made).
if you are a printing expert sticking absolutely with the bad plate theory, please explain how the 5 different blackless Tapani errors I found all have the identical slanted blue print line? By the way, please go back and read early on where plenty of people with printing experience were not even completely locked into the bad plate theory. It was only discussed that the bad plate theory was the "most likely" cause - nothing definite in many of their postings - and that was before all of my findings were eventually revealed.
<< <i>if you are a printing expert sticking absolutely with the bad plate theory, please explain how the 5 different blackless Tapani errors I found all have the identical slanted blue print line? By the way, please go back and read early on where plenty of people with printing experience were not even completely locked into the bad plate theory. It was only discussed that the bad plate theory was the "most likely" cause - nothing definite in many of their postings - and that was before all of my findings were eventually revealed. >>
Edit. Forget it. You win. I'm with Ross. You're a tool.
You are amazing, Ross. Right from the start of my discovery, you displayed complete arrogance in saying that you had absolutely determined how the NNOF error occured, and that my original Frank Thomas discovery was completely unrelated and my ideas that there likley was a link was completely "wishful thinking". Then, as more and more was uncovered in my case supporting my theory, you kept changing your theory on the fly, trying to explain away everything I found one after another- even as each discovery made your theory more improbable. And now, you say your theory is as as solid as ever?? And I am a tool because I have a different theory? By the way, where are the pics of the blue ink variations among the same black variations involving cards in the blackless streak you claim to have?
<< <i>You are amazing, Ross. Right from the start of my discovery, you displayed complete arrogance in saying that you had absolutely determined how the NNOF error occured, and that my original Frank Thomas discovery was completely unrelated and my ideas that there likley was a link was completely "wishful thinking". Then, as more and more was uncovered in my case supporting my theory, you kept changing your theory on the fly, trying to explain away everything I found one after another- even as each discovery made your theory more improbable. And now, you say your theory is as as solid as ever?? And I am a tool because I have a different theory? By the way, where are the pics of the blue ink variations among the same black variations involving cards in the blackless streak you claim to have? >>
If you're going to attack Ross I'll jump back in because that's absurd. You're the only one who has been completely unwilling to listen to anything but the theory that you developed... which originally you concocted to help you sell unopened packs on eBay. No one here but you ever tried to capitalize on this. We were all here to learn and enjoy a hobby oddity. A discovery that makes otherwise worthless cards worth looking through and searching.
Finding the reason for these "errors"... after nearly 20 years... is not something that can be figured out instantly. Ross would tell you the same thing. We've all changed our theory as evidence has come up. This thread was fun until you arrived.
You're a tool for many reasons. Not the least of which is you managed to change a thread that was fun and interesting into an annoyance.
I "ruined" the fun by posting my new discoveries that suggest a different possible cause??? Ross knew i had a differnet thoery when he suggested i share them here. And I did not profit from the case at all - I enjoy owning my NNOF cards and I am happy with my decision to open all the packs. You were one of the people who kept saying I needed to uncover more support for my theory - and I did that many times over! But none of it was ever going to matter on this board - I could tell from the start that I was the new guy, and everyone was going to side with Ross no matter what.
<< <i>You are amazing, Ross. Right from the start of my discovery, you displayed complete arrogance in saying that you had absolutely determined how the NNOF error occured, and that my original Frank Thomas discovery was completely unrelated and my ideas that there likley was a link was completely "wishful thinking". Then, as more and more was uncovered in my case supporting my theory, you kept changing your theory on the fly, trying to explain away everything I found one after another- even as each discovery made your theory more improbable. And now, you say your theory is as as solid as ever?? And I am a tool because I have a different theory? By the way, where are the pics of the blue ink variations among the same black variations involving cards in the blackless streak you claim to have? >>
I'd like to quote myself from back on Sunday, August 16, 2009 at 6:53 PM.
Ok, I need the professional printers to step in on this one, but I want to open a discussion.
Back story: The gentleman who found the Thomas error variation also found a Tapani with some black border missing on the right side. This is similar to the findings that have been made thus far.
----
It was once mentioned by one of our resident printers that during the production of the printing plates, errors are supposed to be isolated and corrected by one of several different means.
Is it possible that the plate that caused the recently found errors was the precursor in plate production to the plate that caused the NNOF Thomas and blackless errors? What I'm saying is, might it be possible that small discrepancies in the production process of the first plate were isolated and "corrections" made; however, these corrections were either not completed, or done incorrectly, leading to an even more catastrophic error...the blackless cards.
From what we've been told by the pros, the blackless errors were caused by a faulty plate. That in itself should eliminate the possibility that the newly isolated error card was created by the same black plate. However, I think it may be possible that the two black plates have some relation.
This is layman speak obviously, but if one of you can take what we know and run with it, I'd appreciate it.
----------------
Now that we've clarified that I've not changed my stance...in fact, I've only stood by the same view of your discoveries the whole time...I'll move on.
-----------------
My very first post on this thread I said I believed a piece of cardstock obstructed the printing process, but I was quickly educated to the improbability, if not impossibility, of that happening. Many, many pros have spoken up here and elsewhere and the signs of such an event occuring just aren't there.
----------------
So, to say I've changed my story every step of the way is a complete falsehood. I've just gotten fed up of "your" theory as gospel with no printing science to support it.
This isn't my project. I made a post, and MANY MANY others did all of the work.
<< <i>I "ruined" the fun by posting my new discoveries that suggest a different possible cause??? Ross knew i had a differnet thoery when he suggested i share them here. And I did not profit from the case at all - I enjoy owning my NNOF cards and I am happy with my decision to open all the packs. You were one of the people who kept saying I needed to uncover more support for my theory - and I did that many times over! But none of it was ever going to matter on this board - I could tell from the start that I was the new guy, and everyone was going to side with Ross no matter what. >>
You're right, I did know your theory. I didn't agree with it, but it was worth revisiting the obstruction theory if solid proof could be had.
Your "proof" is like saying, "when I throw a ball into the air, the ball comes back down because invisible hands reach up and pull it back down. The proof is that the ball comes back down." Well yeah, the ball comes back down.
edited to add:
WHY DO YOU KEEP CALLING IT MY THEORY? That's the point, it's not my theory...my theory was just as wrong as yours.
<< <i>I "ruined" the fun by posting my new discoveries that suggest a different possible cause??? Ross knew i had a differnet thoery when he suggested i share them here. And I did not profit from the case at all - I enjoy owning my NNOF cards and I am happy with my decision to open all the packs. You were one of the people who kept saying I needed to uncover more support for my theory - and I did that many times over! But none of it was ever going to matter on this board - I could tell from the start that I was the new guy, and everyone was going to side with Ross no matter what. >>
So you're saying at the same time you first posted here you weren't also trying to sell packs on eBay for what... $8-10 a pack? More? I'm glad that you ultimately changed your mind and opened them all. That's great. Congratulations. It just didn't sit well that your main goal in proclaiming your finds was monetary. Acting innocent now doesn't change the fact that it happened.
I think we were all excited about the prospect of "new" finds and that it would help us figure out what happened. Then on your second post here you told the individual who has done more to research and make public these errors, that his theory was completely wrong. Neither Ross, nor anyone else here, ever claimed to know exactly what happened. Yet you showed up and claimed that all the other research already done was useless.
It had nothing to do with you being new. It had to do with you being the one that displayed "complete arrogance".
I'll admit with running with my theory too soon with only my initial few discoveries. However, as more and more was uncovered, my theory gained more support. I have yet to read an alternative explanation for many of the things I have presented. The totality of my findings is certainly enough to support another possible cause -besides a bad plate. And I repeat, I only came here to present my theory because Ross asked me to - I had no intention to otherwise. Ross is the one who posted the link to my pack auction - not me. I have always been as fascinated as anyone else on this board by the Thomas NNOF and what could have caused the error.
Yes, I invited you to join in, I wanted you to join in, what you found was valuable to our cause. I didn't know what that would cause. Your insistence that the work we had done had to be completely rewritten or changed is what is sickening. I think you believe your findings debunk all previous work and that's the wrong stance to take. The original "final" theory that came to be accepted is as solid as it always was. Nothing that has been found changes its validity, it only adds to it.
If that would have been recognized from the start, my acceptance of your findings would have been much more welcoming. However, it is my strong opinion (and it will remain that way until a printing professional gives me a reason to not believe it) that a plate error is the cause of each and everyone of the errors...even if that means multiple plates were damaged.
I really wish I could opt out of the email notifications for this thread. If someone can tell me how, it would be great. I really don't want to get sucked into it anymore.
I guess as you "wait", I wait as well for an explanation to my questions...and Ross, I would love to see your pics of these varying blue with identical blackless variations.
isn't that something, claiming you "have evidence" of these such cards, then saying you don't feel like posting pics....nice. You really want to leave things that way?
Finally, got in slabbed. I think it was an 8 but whatever !!!!!!!!!
Buying: Topps White Out (silver) letters Alex Gordon 80 Topps Greg Pryor “No Name" 90 ProSet Dexter Manley error 90 Topps Jeff King Yellow back 1958 Topps Pancho Herrera (no“a”) 81 Topps Art Howe (black smear above hat) 91 D A. Hawkins BC-12 “Pitcher”
I am new to the forum and have been following this thread. Noticed you have pulled some extra Thomas NNOFs. Would you be interested in selling or trading for them? Interesting thread by the way. Took me over an hour to get through it last night...lol! I will look through my 1990 Topps collection if you think it will help....
I have had quite a bit of interest in these cards. I enjoy owning the NNOF cards I pulled....just not interested in parting with any at this time. Thanks.
<< <i>Ok so Rookiewax doesnt want to give'em up...
who has a Thomas NNOF for sale?? Anyone? >>
Jay, I couldn't get you one. Sorry, about that. You should create an avatar and turn on the PMs in your profile.
Also, if you share some of you cards (via scanning, then putting in photobucket, and posting them here) people will get to know you.
The NNOF Thomas's turn up a lot more lately and I am sure I will eventually find one for you (or someone else here).
It just depends how quick and how much you want to spend.
Ill keep in touch with you . If you have BBM -- email it to me .
Buying: Topps White Out (silver) letters Alex Gordon 80 Topps Greg Pryor “No Name" 90 ProSet Dexter Manley error 90 Topps Jeff King Yellow back 1958 Topps Pancho Herrera (no“a”) 81 Topps Art Howe (black smear above hat) 91 D A. Hawkins BC-12 “Pitcher”
Buying: Topps White Out (silver) letters Alex Gordon 80 Topps Greg Pryor “No Name" 90 ProSet Dexter Manley error 90 Topps Jeff King Yellow back 1958 Topps Pancho Herrera (no“a”) 81 Topps Art Howe (black smear above hat) 91 D A. Hawkins BC-12 “Pitcher”
Hey donovan- good to see you again. I am still hanging on to the bgs 8 ripken whiteout you hooked me up with. Thanks again!
Richtree- thank you for being on the look out. Donovan will tell you I am persistent when I want something I.e. Thomas nnof. I will get my settings figured out on here. Thanks again guys for helping me out. Jason
Instead of reading back I will just ask you. What type of boxes/cases were you pulling the nnofs from? Where did you get it etc.? Thinking about getting a case online. What do you guys think? Waste of money?
It was a retail wax pack case. Buying unopened product is always like buying lottery tickets - its a long shot. You can still buy 1990 Topps at reasonable prices though...and it is fun to open. My persistence paid off after years of buying cases and large lots of unopened retail boxes. I would often open a box or two, then down they went to my basement onto shelves along with all the other 1990 boxes I accumulated. I sold a lot of it over the years, and still have tons of it sitting there. Once in a while, I will get the urge to go grab a pack or box off the shelf and open it up.
You gotta want something besides owning 2, 3+(how ever many you have) Thomas nnofs. I just want one in the raw. I am going to my bank on Friday to check and pull some of the stashed collection. I will trade and pay. Just want one in the raw. What do you say? Do you really need additional copies?...share the hobby with me. Let me know and thanks....
You gotta want something besides owning 2, 3+(how ever many you have) Thomas nnofs. I just want one in the raw. I am going to my bank on Friday to check and pull some of the stashed collection. I will trade and pay. Just want one in the raw. What do you say? Do you really need additional copies?...share the hobby with me. Let me know and thanks.... >>
Why not get one off ebay? Usually 1 or 2 show up a week.
Because the second to last one that was on eBay was a fake and went for over 400 and the most recent was of the graded kind. I would like to get a raw. Do you have one you want to sell or trade?
<< <i>Because the second to last one that was on eBay was a fake and went for over 400 and the most recent was of the graded kind. I would like to get a raw. Do you have one you want to sell or trade? >>
Buying: Topps White Out (silver) letters Alex Gordon 80 Topps Greg Pryor “No Name" 90 ProSet Dexter Manley error 90 Topps Jeff King Yellow back 1958 Topps Pancho Herrera (no“a”) 81 Topps Art Howe (black smear above hat) 91 D A. Hawkins BC-12 “Pitcher”
These have been floating around for the last year. They have the Topps logo but are missing ink. The problem is, the ink isn't missing in quite the right places, the angle that the inkless streak cuts through is too sharp and runs up Frank's forearm too high.
They are also slightly undersized. Whomever made this did a REALLY good job. The size and the Topps logo are the only thing that immediately scream fake. Closer examination shows that it's missing several other important "birthmarks."
Buying: Topps White Out (silver) letters Alex Gordon 80 Topps Greg Pryor “No Name" 90 ProSet Dexter Manley error 90 Topps Jeff King Yellow back 1958 Topps Pancho Herrera (no“a”) 81 Topps Art Howe (black smear above hat) 91 D A. Hawkins BC-12 “Pitcher”
I have been checking to see if he got feedback for this sale, but he hasnt. I asked him if he would take returns if I got it graded and it came back altered or fake and he said he would. Thats why I think it got so high in price because he was backing it up. I agree it is a fake. I want mine soooo bad!!!
<< <i>These have been floating around for the last year. They have the Topps logo but are missing ink. The problem is, the ink isn't missing in quite the right places, the angle that the inkless streak cuts through is too sharp and runs up Frank's forearm too high.
They are also slightly undersized. Whomever made this did a REALLY good job. The size and the Topps logo are the only thing that immediately scream fake. Closer examination shows that it's missing several other important "birthmarks." >>
Can you imagine the countless hours of work the counterfeiter put into making this card, only to overlook the Topps logo? I would love to have seen the look on that guy's face when that realization occured.
It hurts my eyes looking at that. I can see the Topps logo over the foot of the player, the only thing I noticed was the borders look a bit thin. Either way, I wouldn't touch that one.
I agree about not touching it. My max bid was $80. When the seller first placed the ad, he had a feedback of 0 and was selling random unlocked phones. I thought no way in heck this card would get as high as it did. Not to mention the pics were blurry and I asked him a few times to send me additional pics and he did not reply. Glad I didnt win it because I bet you guys can help me land a "real" quality one. Right???
Does anyone know what ever happened to the "black-out" name box card?
As skeptical as I was, I did bid on it at the time (low) because I was very curious as to what it looked like in person but I vaguely remember it selling for much higher than I imagined it would. Did anyone on the boards win it? Was feedback ever posted?
<< <i>Does anyone know what ever happened to the "black-out" name box card?
As skeptical as I was, I did bid on it at the time (low) because I was very curious as to what it looked like in person but I vaguely remember it selling for much higher than I imagined it would. Did anyone on the boards win it? Was feedback ever posted? >>
you're kidding, right? Curious what it looked like in person? Probably what it looked like in the pic....some jaggoff took a sharpie and blacked out the name box. Definitely one of the dumbest things I've ever seen on Ebay, and that's saying a hell of a lot.
<< <i>It hurts my eyes looking at that. I can see the Topps logo over the foot of the player, the only thing I noticed was the borders look a bit thin. Either way, I wouldn't touch that one. >>
Yes, the borders are thin. The card is undersized. No real NNOF has ever come from a pack with that kind of centering. Whomever did these corrected the mistake later and made a version without the Topps logo; however, the blackless streak was still a bit off and the borders still cut too tight.
<< <i><< Does anyone know what ever happened to the "black-out" name box card? As skeptical as I was, I did bid on it at the time (low) because I was very curious as to what it looked like in person but I vaguely remember it selling for much higher than I imagined it would. Did anyone on the boards win it? Was feedback ever posted?
you're kidding, right? Curious what it looked like in person? Probably what it looked like in the pic....some jaggoff took a sharpie and blacked out the name box. Definitely one of the dumbest things I've ever seen on Ebay, and that's saying a hell of a lot. >> >>
Is there a white scribble version? Give me a few minutes and I can get you the "white out" version
Comments
<< <i>It looks like I need to go through everything again. There were at least 5 different variations of the Tapani errors and Marcus Lawton found in my case alone, including the 3 Marcus Lawton cards that show the "gradual" progression of the blackless error "going away" - exactly as my theory suggested, even before I pulled any Lawton errors. Look at the blackless areas under his chin!
And every variation of my Tapani error cards in my case that were missing black had the same blue diagonal print line... adding to the probability that all 5 variations passed through the SAME printing presses/plates - receiving their black ink and blue ink from the same source. It's illogical to suggest that my various Tapani blackless errors passed through the same blue plate, but then somehow got split up and went to at least 5 different bad black plates, then all ended up back in the same case???
Using more common sense, if it WAS a bad plate, there would have been many more NNOF errors out there. EVERYTHING here points to a very temporary blockage of the black ink to cause the NNOF and surrounding blackless errors, and the evidence shows the pattern of how the blockage gradually fell off or dissolved. Additionally, the several pieces of stray torn paper/cardboard found directly behind an orange sheet card each time, if nothing else, points to there being some sort of spilling accident (where debries ended up on the presses of the orange sheets at the time the errors were made).
Lawton errors >>
You really don't understand the printing process.
<< <i>if you are a printing expert sticking absolutely with the bad plate theory, please explain how the 5 different blackless Tapani errors I found all have the identical slanted blue print line? By the way, please go back and read early on where plenty of people with printing experience were not even completely locked into the bad plate theory. It was only discussed that the bad plate theory was the "most likely" cause - nothing definite in many of their postings - and that was before all of my findings were eventually revealed. >>
Edit. Forget it. You win. I'm with Ross. You're a tool.
<< <i>You are amazing, Ross. Right from the start of my discovery, you displayed complete arrogance in saying that you had absolutely determined how the NNOF error occured, and that my original Frank Thomas discovery was completely unrelated and my ideas that there likley was a link was completely "wishful thinking". Then, as more and more was uncovered in my case supporting my theory, you kept changing your theory on the fly, trying to explain away everything I found one after another- even as each discovery made your theory more improbable. And now, you say your theory is as as solid as ever?? And I am a tool because I have a different theory? By the way, where are the pics of the blue ink variations among the same black variations involving cards in the blackless streak you claim to have? >>
If you're going to attack Ross I'll jump back in because that's absurd. You're the only one who has been completely unwilling to listen to anything but the theory that you developed... which originally you concocted to help you sell unopened packs on eBay. No one here but you ever tried to capitalize on this. We were all here to learn and enjoy a hobby oddity. A discovery that makes otherwise worthless cards worth looking through and searching.
Finding the reason for these "errors"... after nearly 20 years... is not something that can be figured out instantly. Ross would tell you the same thing. We've all changed our theory as evidence has come up. This thread was fun until you arrived.
You're a tool for many reasons. Not the least of which is you managed to change a thread that was fun and interesting into an annoyance.
<< <i>You are amazing, Ross. Right from the start of my discovery, you displayed complete arrogance in saying that you had absolutely determined how the NNOF error occured, and that my original Frank Thomas discovery was completely unrelated and my ideas that there likley was a link was completely "wishful thinking". Then, as more and more was uncovered in my case supporting my theory, you kept changing your theory on the fly, trying to explain away everything I found one after another- even as each discovery made your theory more improbable. And now, you say your theory is as as solid as ever?? And I am a tool because I have a different theory? By the way, where are the pics of the blue ink variations among the same black variations involving cards in the blackless streak you claim to have? >>
I'd like to quote myself from back on Sunday, August 16, 2009 at 6:53 PM.
Ok, I need the professional printers to step in on this one, but I want to open a discussion.
Back story:
The gentleman who found the Thomas error variation also found a Tapani with some black border missing on the right side. This is similar to the findings that have been made thus far.
----
It was once mentioned by one of our resident printers that during the production of the printing plates, errors are supposed to be isolated and corrected by one of several different means.
Is it possible that the plate that caused the recently found errors was the precursor in plate production to the plate that caused the NNOF Thomas and blackless errors? What I'm saying is, might it be possible that small discrepancies in the production process of the first plate were isolated and "corrections" made; however, these corrections were either not completed, or done incorrectly, leading to an even more catastrophic error...the blackless cards.
From what we've been told by the pros, the blackless errors were caused by a faulty plate. That in itself should eliminate the possibility that the newly isolated error card was created by the same black plate. However, I think it may be possible that the two black plates have some relation.
This is layman speak obviously, but if one of you can take what we know and run with it, I'd appreciate it.
----------------
Now that we've clarified that I've not changed my stance...in fact, I've only stood by the same view of your discoveries the whole time...I'll move on.
-----------------
My very first post on this thread I said I believed a piece of cardstock obstructed the printing process, but I was quickly educated to the improbability, if not impossibility, of that happening. Many, many pros have spoken up here and elsewhere and the signs of such an event occuring just aren't there.
----------------
So, to say I've changed my story every step of the way is a complete falsehood. I've just gotten fed up of "your" theory as gospel with no printing science to support it.
This isn't my project. I made a post, and MANY MANY others did all of the work.
<< <i>I "ruined" the fun by posting my new discoveries that suggest a different possible cause??? Ross knew i had a differnet thoery when he suggested i share them here. And I did not profit from the case at all - I enjoy owning my NNOF cards and I am happy with my decision to open all the packs. You were one of the people who kept saying I needed to uncover more support for my theory - and I did that many times over! But none of it was ever going to matter on this board - I could tell from the start that I was the new guy, and everyone was going to side with Ross no matter what. >>
You're right, I did know your theory. I didn't agree with it, but it was worth revisiting the obstruction theory if solid proof could be had.
Your "proof" is like saying, "when I throw a ball into the air, the ball comes back down because invisible hands reach up and pull it back down. The proof is that the ball comes back down." Well yeah, the ball comes back down.
edited to add:
WHY DO YOU KEEP CALLING IT MY THEORY? That's the point, it's not my theory...my theory was just as wrong as yours.
<< <i>I "ruined" the fun by posting my new discoveries that suggest a different possible cause??? Ross knew i had a differnet thoery when he suggested i share them here. And I did not profit from the case at all - I enjoy owning my NNOF cards and I am happy with my decision to open all the packs. You were one of the people who kept saying I needed to uncover more support for my theory - and I did that many times over! But none of it was ever going to matter on this board - I could tell from the start that I was the new guy, and everyone was going to side with Ross no matter what. >>
So you're saying at the same time you first posted here you weren't also trying to sell packs on eBay for what... $8-10 a pack? More? I'm glad that you ultimately changed your mind and opened them all. That's great. Congratulations. It just didn't sit well that your main goal in proclaiming your finds was monetary. Acting innocent now doesn't change the fact that it happened.
I think we were all excited about the prospect of "new" finds and that it would help us figure out what happened. Then on your second post here you told the individual who has done more to research and make public these errors, that his theory was completely wrong. Neither Ross, nor anyone else here, ever claimed to know exactly what happened. Yet you showed up and claimed that all the other research already done was useless.
It had nothing to do with you being new. It had to do with you being the one that displayed "complete arrogance".
If that would have been recognized from the start, my acceptance of your findings would have been much more welcoming. However, it is my strong opinion (and it will remain that way until a printing professional gives me a reason to not believe it) that a plate error is the cause of each and everyone of the errors...even if that means multiple plates were damaged.
I really wish I could opt out of the email notifications for this thread. If someone can tell me how, it would be great. I really don't want to get sucked into it anymore.
Finally, got in slabbed. I think it was an 8 but whatever !!!!!!!!!
Topps White Out (silver) letters Alex Gordon
80 Topps Greg Pryor “No Name"
90 ProSet Dexter Manley error
90 Topps Jeff King Yellow back
1958 Topps Pancho Herrera (no“a”)
81 Topps Art Howe (black smear above hat)
91 D A. Hawkins BC-12 “Pitcher”
I am new to the forum and have been following this thread. Noticed you have pulled some extra Thomas NNOFs. Would you be interested in selling or trading for them? Interesting thread by the way. Took me over an hour to get through it last night...lol! I will look through my 1990 Topps collection if you think it will help....
who has a Thomas NNOF for sale?? Anyone?
<< <i>Ok so Rookiewax doesnt want to give'em up...
who has a Thomas NNOF for sale?? Anyone? >>
Jay, I couldn't get you one. Sorry, about that. You should create an avatar and turn on the PMs in your profile.
Also, if you share some of you cards (via scanning, then putting in photobucket, and posting them here) people will get to know you.
The NNOF Thomas's turn up a lot more lately and I am sure I will eventually find one for you (or someone else here).
It just depends how quick and how much you want to spend.
Ill keep in touch with you . If you have BBM -- email it to me .
Topps White Out (silver) letters Alex Gordon
80 Topps Greg Pryor “No Name"
90 ProSet Dexter Manley error
90 Topps Jeff King Yellow back
1958 Topps Pancho Herrera (no“a”)
81 Topps Art Howe (black smear above hat)
91 D A. Hawkins BC-12 “Pitcher”
Hey ! I know you. Welcome to the forum.
Topps White Out (silver) letters Alex Gordon
80 Topps Greg Pryor “No Name"
90 ProSet Dexter Manley error
90 Topps Jeff King Yellow back
1958 Topps Pancho Herrera (no“a”)
81 Topps Art Howe (black smear above hat)
91 D A. Hawkins BC-12 “Pitcher”
Richtree- thank you for being on the look out. Donovan will tell you I am persistent when I want something I.e. Thomas nnof. I will get my settings figured out on here. Thanks again guys for helping me out. Jason
<< <i>Rictree- what's bbm? >>
I think he's referring to Blackberry messenger.
Ah the BGS 8 WO. Good card.
I'll shoot you a email tomorrow to play catch up.
Instead of reading back I will just ask you. What type of boxes/cases were you pulling the nnofs from? Where did you get it etc.? Thinking about getting a case online. What do you guys think? Waste of money?
You gotta want something besides owning 2, 3+(how ever many you have) Thomas nnofs. I just want one in the raw. I am going to my bank on Friday to check and pull some of the stashed collection. I will trade and pay. Just want one in the raw. What do you say? Do you really need additional copies?...share the hobby with me. Let me know and thanks....
<< <i>Alright Rookiewax-
You gotta want something besides owning 2, 3+(how ever many you have) Thomas nnofs. I just want one in the raw. I am going to my bank on Friday to check and pull some of the stashed collection. I will trade and pay. Just want one in the raw. What do you say? Do you really need additional copies?...share the hobby with me. Let me know and thanks.... >>
Why not get one off ebay? Usually 1 or 2 show up a week.
Collecting Robin Ventura and Matt Luke.
<< <i>Because the second to last one that was on eBay was a fake and went for over 400 and the most recent was of the graded kind. I would like to get a raw. Do you have one you want to sell or trade? >>
Never owned one. Do you have a link to the fake?
Collecting Robin Ventura and Matt Luke.
<< <i>Fake NNOF >>
whys that one a fake guys ?
I can't see that picture that well.
rt
Topps White Out (silver) letters Alex Gordon
80 Topps Greg Pryor “No Name"
90 ProSet Dexter Manley error
90 Topps Jeff King Yellow back
1958 Topps Pancho Herrera (no“a”)
81 Topps Art Howe (black smear above hat)
91 D A. Hawkins BC-12 “Pitcher”
<< <i>I can't see that picture that well. >>
I think that's kinda the point of the seller....
8 Feedback, blurry photo, all signs point to stay away....
What I'm selling
Building Sets, Collecting Texas Rangers, and Texas Tech Red Raiders
<< <i>
<< <i>Fake NNOF >>
whys that one a fake guys ?
I can't see that picture that well.
rt >>
Topps logo is present. Bad pic but forearm looks like it's missing ink etc.
They are also slightly undersized. Whomever made this did a REALLY good job. The size and the Topps logo are the only thing that immediately scream fake. Closer examination shows that it's missing several other important "birthmarks."
Topps White Out (silver) letters Alex Gordon
80 Topps Greg Pryor “No Name"
90 ProSet Dexter Manley error
90 Topps Jeff King Yellow back
1958 Topps Pancho Herrera (no“a”)
81 Topps Art Howe (black smear above hat)
91 D A. Hawkins BC-12 “Pitcher”
<< <i>Fake NNOF >>
I have been checking to see if he got feedback for this sale, but he hasnt. I asked him if he would take returns if I got it graded and it came back altered or fake and he said he would. Thats why I think it got so high in price because he was backing it up. I agree it is a fake. I want mine soooo bad!!!
<< <i>These have been floating around for the last year. They have the Topps logo but are missing ink. The problem is, the ink isn't missing in quite the right places, the angle that the inkless streak cuts through is too sharp and runs up Frank's forearm too high.
They are also slightly undersized. Whomever made this did a REALLY good job. The size and the Topps logo are the only thing that immediately scream fake. Closer examination shows that it's missing several other important "birthmarks." >>
Can you imagine the countless hours of work the counterfeiter put into making this card, only to overlook the Topps logo? I would love to have seen the look on that guy's face when that realization occured.
As skeptical as I was, I did bid on it at the time (low) because I was very curious as to what it looked like in person but I vaguely remember it selling for much higher than I imagined it would. Did anyone on the boards win it? Was feedback ever posted?
Collecting Robin Ventura and Matt Luke.
<< <i>Does anyone know what ever happened to the "black-out" name box card?
As skeptical as I was, I did bid on it at the time (low) because I was very curious as to what it looked like in person but I vaguely remember it selling for much higher than I imagined it would. Did anyone on the boards win it? Was feedback ever posted? >>
you're kidding, right? Curious what it looked like in person? Probably what it looked like in the pic....some jaggoff took a sharpie and blacked out the name box. Definitely one of the dumbest things I've ever seen on Ebay, and that's saying a hell of a lot.
<< <i>It hurts my eyes looking at that. I can see the Topps logo over the foot of the player, the only thing I noticed was the borders look a bit thin. Either way, I wouldn't touch that one. >>
Yes, the borders are thin. The card is undersized. No real NNOF has ever come from a pack with that kind of centering. Whomever did these corrected the mistake later and made a version without the Topps logo; however, the blackless streak was still a bit off and the borders still cut too tight.
<< <i><< Does anyone know what ever happened to the "black-out" name box card? As skeptical as I was, I did bid on it at the time (low) because I was very curious as to what it looked like in person but I vaguely remember it selling for much higher than I imagined it would. Did anyone on the boards win it? Was feedback ever posted?
you're kidding, right? Curious what it looked like in person? Probably what it looked like in the pic....some jaggoff took a sharpie and blacked out the name box. Definitely one of the dumbest things I've ever seen on Ebay, and that's saying a hell of a lot. >> >>
Is there a white scribble version? Give me a few minutes and I can get you the "white out" version