<< <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. >>
Yeah, I'm serious. If I recall the scan correctly, it was a strange-looking black bar, not like a sharpie but printed or stamped. I was willing to throw a few bucks at it just to see it in person. As a long time collector of error and variation cards, I thought I had seen it all when it came to faking that card (and others like the still-consistently bought/sold Ripken RC "blank back") so it was interesting to me based the scan alone.
Yes. I was curious as to what ended up happening with it (positive feedback, how much it sold for, did anyone on here win it, etc). A really strange idea for a counterfeit f you ask me, given that it's the opposite of what led to the original printing mistake.
No, the writer emailed me to ask permission to use images of some of my cards.
My hope is that it will lead to an article about the cards that have been found in this thread. He said he'd approach the editors with the information, so we should keep our fingers crossed.
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 know justfishin wants a raw NNOF card, but he might have to settle for a graded copy. Months ago, I sent in 3 of my 4 NNOFs for grading (all got a PSA 8), and I wanted to keep my 4th copy raw. So, even if I was interested in parting with any (which I am not), I wouldn't have what he is looking for. Buying a graded copy is the safe route to go anyway.
HAHA...thanks for the heads up bro! I saw this earlier today! I actually just picked this up off a guy on Craigslist- Some damage, but got a good price. What do you think? He pulled this card from a pack in Jacksonville, FL back in the 90s so that shows that these errors made it down to FL!!!
corner damage., looks like a PSA 5 -- hope u didn't pay more than 250-275 range
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”
Its true, I will have my first, but I would like to get a better shape one. The BGS 6.5 is a solid card. I am thinking about biting on it...havent decided yet. When I get my first in the mail, I will give the details. Question for you guys--What grade do you think is the minimum to be in the top 10% best condition of these nnof? It looks like maybe a 7.5-8 and above, since there isnt a 10?? and 9 is the highest??? I think that is ideal card I would ultimately like to have. I have one, but the search continues......
PS..Thanks to BunchO, D aka RipkenCollector, and richtree for giving me info and helping to better my collection. You guys are a wealth of knowledge and you have put the life back into my collective spirirt. Thanks again!
<< <i>An article in the new Tuff Stuff featuring a couple of my cards:
>>
Awesome news BunchOBull!! Maybe this article will be a segway to an article on NNOF (& Blackless 1990 Topps) cards.
<< <i>slightly OT,
Does anyone have a PSA population report for the Frank Thomas NNOF? I just registered my PSA9 and 18 exist. So that makes 22 graded 9's. Anyone ever hear of any 10's? [EDIT: Goofing around on the site, I found that one is ranked above a 9, so that makes 1 PSA 10, and 115 ranked below. So 42+1+18+115=176 Correct?]
Are there any other card grading companies besides BGS that have a pop report?
BTW, I didn't even realize that this forum was related to PSA until today.
Cheers, gigfy >>
Digging up an old thread. I'm curious to see how many NNOFs have been graded now?
From March 2009: BGS = 42 PSA = 134 Total = 176
BGS/PSA 9.0 = 22
And if an article was written on the NNOF cards, I believe it would be necessary to mention the PSA 10 NNOF and how it was a standard card with wrong flip info. Man, I wish I could find a photo of that card!!!
<< <i>There isn't actually a PSA 10 NNOF. It was a regular RC that was labeled as a NNOF. Mechanical error that we want to try to get off the registry. >>
Understood! I tried to differentiate the old quoted post (in italics) and my new post (in bold) that says the PSA 10 has the wrong flip info.
<< <i>There isn't actually a PSA 10 NNOF. It was a regular RC that was labeled as a NNOF. Mechanical error that we want to try to get off the registry. >>
Understood! I tried to differentiate the old quoted post (in italics) and my new post (in bold) that says the PSA 10 has the wrong flip info.
cheers, gigfy >>
. Hey gigfy ! -- u ever get my PM"s ?
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”
actually it was likely a follow through on contact Beckett made with me recently. Back in December I sent them an e-mail with scans telling them about all of the findings from the wax case I had opened - including all of the full and partial blackless errors. I told them about Ross theorizing on this Collector's Universe message board that other blackless errors might exist surrounding Thomas and how that began the search for these errors by others like myself. They did not respond at that time. It was then just recently (about 2 weeks ago) that they e-mailed me and asked if I could send them new scans of everything again minus the card holders. I did that and also reminded them again how this all began...and even gave them Ross' full name (Ross Clark...I am correct on that, right?). I figured if they were planning an article, Ross should receive due credit.
They did not go into much detail about any upcoming article, but said that an error issue might be a long term project. Looks like it is going to happen soon though. They did say they might be willing to grade all of my errors for free so that they could take a look at them and have the info for their grading records. They were supposed to follow up with me on that......but I have not heard from them since.
Got home late to happily see beckett baseball monthly in my mailbox. Unless there is another expert on Frank Thomas 1990 error named Ross Clark you have been quoted. The last thing I expected today was to read a quote from Ross while sitting on my toilet. (I know TMI)
<< <i>No pictures of the other errors? And no mention of the partial errors? They asked for pictures of everything, and they did not show any of them? >>
They really could care less about these cards and certainly don't care about accurate reporting. Hopefully Tuff Stuff will do an informative segment.
Nice for this to be printed but it seems bizarre that they would not show these cards. I mean if you were hearing about it for the first time isn't that what you'd want to see?
Always looking for 1993-1999 Baseball Finest Refractors and1994 Football Finest Refractors. saucywombat@hotmail.com
Perhaps, as the editor noted in his blog, some of the intended content was squeezed out with the Strasburg stuff. At least Beckett Grading followed through and asked me to send in all of my errors as I mentioned. I just sent them out 2 days ago.
<< <i>Perhaps, as the editor noted in his blog, some of the intended content was squeezed out with the Strasburg stuff. At least Beckett Grading followed through and asked me to send in all of my errors as I mentioned. I just sent them out 2 days ago. >>
Well thats a good deal there Joe.
Maybe they'll follow up in the future after the cards are "examined" by the Beckett team.
Always looking for 1993-1999 Baseball Finest Refractors and1994 Football Finest Refractors. saucywombat@hotmail.com
Dave, I was thinking the same thing. They stated they would agree to grade them for free in exchange for the use of them in their records and in any writings. So maybe they are planning an article in their graded card publication. Hopefully, someone on here subscribes to that magazine.
I'll be surprised if they actually start listing these, even after their examination. I've sent scans of cards that they don't list and have never heard back from them. They're pretty much a joke of a guide these days.
I picked up a copy of this new Beckett baseball today. Perhaps some of you have seen the entire article by now, but they do show most of the blackless streak on the page adjacent to the article posted above - it starts with Mcgriff and goes down to John Hart. They show the missing black streak in yellow highlight.
<< <i>I picked up a copy of this new Beckett baseball today. Perhaps some of you have seen the entire article by now, but they do show most of the blackless streak on the page adjacent to the article posted above - it starts with Mcgriff and goes down to John Hart. They show the missing black streak in yellow highlight. >>
Well that makes more sense!
Always looking for 1993-1999 Baseball Finest Refractors and1994 Football Finest Refractors. saucywombat@hotmail.com
Also, here is something that should be of interest to everyone as well: I just received notice that Beckett finished grading my 13 blackless streak errors. They are now all officially cataloged with Beckett as "Blackless Errors". The other Thomas on the list was the partial blackless Thomas I sent in with them. I got an e-mail stating they were considering adding that as its own variation because I had pulled 5 of them with identical missing black ink, but it looks like they decided not to and just graded it as a regular Thomas card at this point.
ItemID Set Name Player Final Grade 6536796 1990 Topps Jim Acker ERR BL 8.5 6536795 1990 Topps Darrin Jackson ERR BL 8.0 6536794 1990 Topps Frank Thomas 8.5 6536793 1990 Topps FrankThomas ERR NNOF 8.5 6536792 1990 Topps Joe Magrane AS ERR BL 8.5 6536791 1990 Topps Craig Biggio AS ERR BL 8.5 6536790 1990 Topps Jeff Russell AS ERR BL 8.5 6536789 1990 Topps Carlton Fisk AS ERR BL 6.0 6536788 1990 Topps Julio Franco AS ERR BL 8.0 6536787 1990 Topps Fred McGriff AS ERR BL 8.0 6536786 1990 Topps John Morris ERR BL 8.5 6536785 1990 Topps Marcus Lawton ERR BL 8.0 6536784 1990 Topps Kevin Tapani ERR BL 7.5 6536783 1990 Topps John Hart MG ERR BL 8.5
<< <i>I have two of the partial Thomas cards myself Joe. They are out there. >>
That is what I figured. I will try to find out more about their thought process on that. If they were to reconsider, I am sure that knowing others like yourself have copies as well would help in their decision. He at first stated that they would not categorize it as its own variation because they felt it might be the only one like it. Then I told them I had 4 more like it. I thought that might do it, but they did not come through on it.
<< <i>I have two of the partial Thomas cards myself Joe. They are out there. >>
That is what I figured. I will try to find out more about their thought process on that. If they were to reconsider, I am sure that knowing others like yourself have copies as well would help in their decision. He at first stated that they would not categorize it as its own variation because they felt it might be the only one like it. Then I told them I had 4 more like it. I thought that might do it, but they did not come through on it. >>
I find this interesting for a number or reasons and I am eager to hear the results.
If Beckett and SCD will not acknowledge the multitude of intentional and very-noticeable changes (aka stages) of the 1989 Fleer Randy Johnson, then it seems doubtful that they would recognize any printing flaws that led to or followed the NNOF card.
Also, on that matter. Now that Beckett gives their official stamp of approval to this understandably-famous printing flaw, will they relax on their "printing flaws lower the value of a card" and "printing flaws aren't true variations" stance they have taken since their beginning? The crude "spill" or whatever it is that caused the lack of black ink on the sheet is not unique to 1990 Topps, or even this particular sheet. These types of flaws are prevalent in their junk era issues, especially 1987 and 1988 Topps. Obstructions of all shapes and sizes have affected portions of black ink (and other plates) on hundreds (if not thousands) of Topps cards. Shouldn't these be recognized as well? And if so, at what point does the line get drawn? Plate-shifting flaws? Low-ink flaws? Who determines whether it's worthy of acknowledging or not?
Jackson, I agree. These cards benefit from the fact that they're attached to the hobby accepted NNOF...no other reason.
I doubt you'll see some great shift in catalog opinion now. This is no precedence.
That being said, I think the story they tell is worth mentioning because it is likely that they're the only "error" to be postulated 20 years after the fact, and one of only a few to garner so much hobby invovement. In terms of the scope and final outcome, the Bill Ripken FF is probably the only error to rival the findings in this thread.
New errors/variations are found every year as you know, this one just had the key components of a notable story, and the errors themselves benefited from being quite stark.
<< <i>Jackson, I agree. These cards benefit from the fact that they're attached to the hobby accepted NNOF...no other reason.
I doubt you'll see some great shift in catalog opinion now. This is no precedence.
That being said, I think the story they tell is worth mentioning because it is likely that they're the only "error" to be postulated 20 years after the fact, and one of only a few to garner so much hobby invovement. In terms of the scope and final outcome, the Bill Ripken FF is probably the only error to rival the findings in this thread.
New errors/variations are found every year as you know, this one just had the key components of a notable story, and the errors themselves benefited from being quite stark. >>
That about sums it up.
Ross I'd say your thread was a great success and certainly the most interesting thing I have been involved with in the context of collecting baseball cards, its hard to imagine that something would top this in the future.
Always looking for 1993-1999 Baseball Finest Refractors and1994 Football Finest Refractors. saucywombat@hotmail.com
All in all, I've just been along for the ride. The research and knowledge of everyone who contributed are the actual findings here. I'm glad to have seen it come together.
By years end I expect PSA will be grading these, and I'll send my few copies in. My only goal beyond this point is to finish the set, which may likely never happen. I search almost daily though and will continue to do so.
If it does, the set will be framed on my wall.
Although the wishful thinker in me hopes to one day come across an uncut sheet with the swath of black ink missing!
Comments
<< <i>
<< <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. >>
Yeah, I'm serious. If I recall the scan correctly, it was a strange-looking black bar, not like a sharpie but printed or stamped. I was willing to throw a few bucks at it just to see it in person. As a long time collector of error and variation cards, I thought I had seen it all when it came to faking that card (and others like the still-consistently bought/sold Ripken RC "blank back") so it was interesting to me based the scan alone.
Collecting Robin Ventura and Matt Luke.
<< <i>^^ Not this one, right?
Yes. I was curious as to what ended up happening with it (positive feedback, how much it sold for, did anyone on here win it, etc). A really strange idea for a counterfeit f you ask me, given that it's the opposite of what led to the original printing mistake.
Collecting Robin Ventura and Matt Luke.
My hope is that it will lead to an article about the cards that have been found in this thread. He said he'd approach the editors with the information, so we should keep our fingers crossed.
JJay --- HERE YA GO !
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>BGS Graded Frank Thomas NNOF for Sale
JJay --- HERE YA GO ! >>
HAHA...thanks for the heads up bro! I saw this earlier today! I actually just picked this up off a guy on Craigslist- Some damage, but got a good price. What do you think? He pulled this card from a pack in Jacksonville, FL back in the 90s so that shows that these errors made it down to FL!!!
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”
Nevermind my OC comment in the email. I guess my eyes seriously deceived me.
Its true, I will have my first, but I would like to get a better shape one. The BGS 6.5 is a solid card. I am thinking about biting on it...havent decided yet. When I get my first in the mail, I will give the details. Question for you guys--What grade do you think is the minimum to be in the top 10% best condition of these nnof? It looks like maybe a 7.5-8 and above, since there isnt a 10?? and 9 is the highest??? I think that is ideal card I would ultimately like to have. I have one, but the search continues......
PS..Thanks to BunchO, D aka RipkenCollector, and richtree for giving me info and helping to better my collection. You guys are a wealth of knowledge and you have put the life back into my collective spirirt. Thanks again!
<< <i>An article in the new Tuff Stuff featuring a couple of my cards:
Awesome news BunchOBull!! Maybe this article will be a segway to an article on NNOF (& Blackless 1990 Topps) cards.
<< <i>slightly OT,
Does anyone have a PSA population report for the Frank Thomas NNOF? I just registered my PSA9 and 18 exist. So that makes 22 graded 9's. Anyone ever hear of any 10's?
[EDIT: Goofing around on the site, I found that one is ranked above a 9, so that makes 1 PSA 10, and 115 ranked below. So 42+1+18+115=176 Correct?]
Are there any other card grading companies besides BGS that have a pop report?
BGS Pop Report
BGS 3.5 ... 1
BGS 5 ...... 4
BGS 5.5 ... 1
BGS 6 ...... 1
BGS 6.5 ... 3
BGS 7.5 ... 5
BGS 8 ...... 6
BGS 8.5 ... 17
BGS 9 ...... 4
Total 42
BTW, I didn't even realize that this forum was related to PSA until today.
Cheers,
gigfy >>
Digging up an old thread. I'm curious to see how many NNOFs have been graded now?
From March 2009:
BGS = 42
PSA = 134
Total = 176
BGS/PSA 9.0 = 22
And if an article was written on the NNOF cards, I believe it would be necessary to mention the PSA 10 NNOF and how it was a standard card with wrong flip info. Man, I wish I could find a photo of that card!!!
cheers,
gigfy
<< <i>There isn't actually a PSA 10 NNOF. It was a regular RC that was labeled as a NNOF. Mechanical error that we want to try to get off the registry. >>
Understood! I tried to differentiate the old quoted post (in italics) and my new post (in bold) that says the PSA 10 has the wrong flip info.
cheers,
gigfy
<< <i>
<< <i>There isn't actually a PSA 10 NNOF. It was a regular RC that was labeled as a NNOF. Mechanical error that we want to try to get off the registry. >>
Understood! I tried to differentiate the old quoted post (in italics) and my new post (in bold) that says the PSA 10 has the wrong flip info.
cheers,
gigfy >>
.
Hey gigfy ! -- u ever get my PM"s ?
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>Beckett Blog mentions NNOF "neighbors" in upcoming issue >>
Thats exciting!
Ross - did they contact you about the article?
That'll be the first Beckett I've picked up since they went to the new format.
saucywombat@hotmail.com
Very exciting news. I haven't heard from Tuff Stuff in awhile, so I assume no article prospects on their end.
Congratulations on the big write up as well!
Very cool. You are living the hobby dream.
Dave
saucywombat@hotmail.com
They did not go into much detail about any upcoming article, but said that an error issue might be a long term project. Looks like it is going to happen soon though. They did say they might be willing to grade all of my errors for free so that they could take a look at them and have the info for their grading records. They were supposed to follow up with me on that......but I have not heard from them since.
<< <i>Donovan
Congratulations on the big write up as well!
Very cool. You are living the hobby dream.
Dave >>
Thanks and yes I'm very fortunate to have found a niche I truly enjoy and others care to talk about.
Any updates?
saucywombat@hotmail.com
My Sandberg topps basic set
My Sandberg Topps Master set
My Sandberg topps basic set
My Sandberg Topps Master set
<< <i>No pictures of the other errors? And no mention of the partial errors? They asked for pictures of everything, and they did not show any of them? >>
They really could care less about these cards and certainly don't care about accurate reporting. Hopefully Tuff Stuff will do an informative segment.
saucywombat@hotmail.com
<< <i>Perhaps, as the editor noted in his blog, some of the intended content was squeezed out with the Strasburg stuff. At least Beckett Grading followed through and asked me to send in all of my errors as I mentioned. I just sent them out 2 days ago. >>
Well thats a good deal there Joe.
Maybe they'll follow up in the future after the cards are "examined" by the Beckett team.
saucywombat@hotmail.com
My Sandberg topps basic set
My Sandberg Topps Master set
<< <i>I picked up a copy of this new Beckett baseball today. Perhaps some of you have seen the entire article by now, but they do show most of the blackless streak on the page adjacent to the article posted above - it starts with Mcgriff and goes down to John Hart. They show the missing black streak in yellow highlight. >>
Well that makes more sense!
saucywombat@hotmail.com
saucywombat@hotmail.com
Not sure if its supposed to be rarer than the regular Thomas RC Reprint in the same insert set.
The card is not a true reprint of the NNOF however - it just has a blank blue box where the name should be.
saucywombat@hotmail.com
Bosox1976
Also, here is something that should be of interest to everyone as well: I just received notice that Beckett finished grading my 13 blackless streak errors. They are now all officially cataloged with Beckett as "Blackless Errors". The other Thomas on the list was the partial blackless Thomas I sent in with them. I got an e-mail stating they were considering adding that as its own variation because I had pulled 5 of them with identical missing black ink, but it looks like they decided not to and just graded it as a regular Thomas card at this point.
ItemID Set Name Player Final Grade
6536796 1990 Topps Jim Acker ERR BL 8.5
6536795 1990 Topps Darrin Jackson ERR BL 8.0
6536794 1990 Topps Frank Thomas 8.5
6536793 1990 Topps FrankThomas ERR NNOF 8.5
6536792 1990 Topps Joe Magrane AS ERR BL 8.5
6536791 1990 Topps Craig Biggio AS ERR BL 8.5
6536790 1990 Topps Jeff Russell AS ERR BL 8.5
6536789 1990 Topps Carlton Fisk AS ERR BL 6.0
6536788 1990 Topps Julio Franco AS ERR BL 8.0
6536787 1990 Topps Fred McGriff AS ERR BL 8.0
6536786 1990 Topps John Morris ERR BL 8.5
6536785 1990 Topps Marcus Lawton ERR BL 8.0
6536784 1990 Topps Kevin Tapani ERR BL 7.5
6536783 1990 Topps John Hart MG ERR BL 8.5
<< <i>I have two of the partial Thomas cards myself Joe. They are out there. >>
That is what I figured. I will try to find out more about their thought process on that. If they were to reconsider, I am sure that knowing others like yourself have copies as well would help in their decision. He at first stated that they would not categorize it as its own variation because they felt it might be the only one like it. Then I told them I had 4 more like it. I thought that might do it, but they did not come through on it.
Will be cool to see the next Beckett catalog.
saucywombat@hotmail.com
<< <i>
<< <i>I have two of the partial Thomas cards myself Joe. They are out there. >>
That is what I figured. I will try to find out more about their thought process on that. If they were to reconsider, I am sure that knowing others like yourself have copies as well would help in their decision. He at first stated that they would not categorize it as its own variation because they felt it might be the only one like it. Then I told them I had 4 more like it. I thought that might do it, but they did not come through on it. >>
I find this interesting for a number or reasons and I am eager to hear the results.
If Beckett and SCD will not acknowledge the multitude of intentional and very-noticeable changes (aka stages) of the 1989 Fleer Randy Johnson, then it seems doubtful that they would recognize any printing flaws that led to or followed the NNOF card.
Also, on that matter. Now that Beckett gives their official stamp of approval to this understandably-famous printing flaw, will they relax on their "printing flaws lower the value of a card" and "printing flaws aren't true variations" stance they have taken since their beginning? The crude "spill" or whatever it is that caused the lack of black ink on the sheet is not unique to 1990 Topps, or even this particular sheet. These types of flaws are prevalent in their junk era issues, especially 1987 and 1988 Topps. Obstructions of all shapes and sizes have affected portions of black ink (and other plates) on hundreds (if not thousands) of Topps cards. Shouldn't these be recognized as well? And if so, at what point does the line get drawn? Plate-shifting flaws? Low-ink flaws? Who determines whether it's worthy of acknowledging or not?
Collecting Robin Ventura and Matt Luke.
I doubt you'll see some great shift in catalog opinion now. This is no precedence.
That being said, I think the story they tell is worth mentioning because it is likely that they're the only "error" to be postulated 20 years after the fact, and one of only a few to garner so much hobby invovement. In terms of the scope and final outcome, the Bill Ripken FF is probably the only error to rival the findings in this thread.
New errors/variations are found every year as you know, this one just had the key components of a notable story, and the errors themselves benefited from being quite stark.
<< <i>Jackson, I agree. These cards benefit from the fact that they're attached to the hobby accepted NNOF...no other reason.
I doubt you'll see some great shift in catalog opinion now. This is no precedence.
That being said, I think the story they tell is worth mentioning because it is likely that they're the only "error" to be postulated 20 years after the fact, and one of only a few to garner so much hobby invovement. In terms of the scope and final outcome, the Bill Ripken FF is probably the only error to rival the findings in this thread.
New errors/variations are found every year as you know, this one just had the key components of a notable story, and the errors themselves benefited from being quite stark. >>
That about sums it up.
Ross I'd say your thread was a great success and certainly the most interesting thing I have been involved with in the context of collecting baseball cards, its hard to imagine that something would top this in the future.
saucywombat@hotmail.com
All in all, I've just been along for the ride. The research and knowledge of everyone who contributed are the actual findings here. I'm glad to have seen it come together.
By years end I expect PSA will be grading these, and I'll send my few copies in. My only goal beyond this point is to finish the set, which may likely never happen. I search almost daily though and will continue to do so.
If it does, the set will be framed on my wall.
Although the wishful thinker in me hopes to one day come across an uncut sheet with the swath of black ink missing!