Home Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum

1990 Topps Frank Thomas NNOF revisited...introduction to my theory

1131416181927

Comments

  • slantycouchslantycouch Posts: 1,704 ✭✭✭


    << <i>

    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. >>



    It certainly does.

    And, TRUTH. It's been a lot of fun just to read along.
  • richtreerichtree Posts: 1,500 ✭✭✭


    << <i>Dave...its good to see you got in on the article.

    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 >>




    ANY SCANS OF ALL OF THESE YET /??????????????

    THANKS RICH!
    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”
  • RookieWaxRookieWax Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭
    Rich, I don't expect to see them in my mailbox until sometime late next week.
  • saucywombatsaucywombat Posts: 1,221 ✭✭✭
    Topps needs to study up.

    image
    Always looking for 1993-1999 Baseball Finest Refractors and1994 Football Finest Refractors.
    saucywombat@hotmail.com
  • RookieWaxRookieWax Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭
    The graded cards just arrived. Here is a scan of some of them. They did make a note of the "partial missing black" error on the Frank Thomas card, although they did not categorize it separately. Note that it is Frank Thomas #414B- the same as the regular Thomas card. I am speculating that they did not want to lock themselves into giving every missing black Thomas variation its own label, in case more surface with varying amounts of missing black. I also believe that the only reason they did it in this case is because it is clearly related to the full, famous NNOF Thomas error. All of the other blackless errors were given their own new "version A" label - which is the error label separate from the regular version B non-error cards.

    image
  • richtreerichtree Posts: 1,500 ✭✭✭
    sweet !!!!!!

    scan them all and sell them 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”
  • RookieWaxRookieWax Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭
    OK, here are the others. I think I am also going to put them under a separate thread - just to make the pics easier to find from a search.

    image
    image
    image
  • JustfishinjjJustfishinjj Posts: 113 ✭✭✭
    Very nice stuff Rookiewax...you are a lucky man to have such a rarity. Congrats to Buncho and Ripkencol.(aka D) for making the mag. I enjoyed the read. I just wanted to say that it is very cool to enjoy the hobby a little more with fellow error variation collectors and keep up the good work. I still need to get back to my parents place states away and check my HUGE box of 90s Topps in hopes of striking it big like Rookiewax here.

    Wax....going to sell any??

    While we are on the topic of Ripken FF and BGS grades, I just wanted to post my new piece to the collection. It beat out my already exsisting BGS 8!!!

    image

    Keep up the good work guys!! We are reading!
    Error and RC collector.
  • RookieWaxRookieWax Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭
    Nice Ripken....that is still one I need to add to my collection. Actually, to answer your question, I just tonight listed the "Partial Blackless" Thomas card on ebay. I have received a few PMs about selling the entire graded blackless set. Since I do have a second copy of most of the errors, I am at least considering putting it up for auction. It would provide me the funds to add to my Topps rookie card collection. I am currently working my way back through the 1960s and recently added a nice Johnny Bench rookie. Nolan Ryan is next on my radar.
  • Bosox1976Bosox1976 Posts: 8,528 ✭✭✭✭✭
    This thread is great every time it pops back up image
    Mike
    Bosox1976
  • JustfishinjjJustfishinjj Posts: 113 ✭✭✭


    << <i>Nice Ripken....that is still one I need to add to my collection. Actually, to answer your question, I just tonight listed the "Partial Blackless" Thomas card on ebay. I have received a few PMs about selling the entire graded blackless set. Since I do have a second copy of most of the errors, I am at least considering putting it up for auction. It would provide me the funds to add to my Topps rookie card collection. I am currently working my way back through the 1960s and recently added a nice Johnny Bench rookie. Nolan Ryan is next on my radar. >>



    Wax-

    I would be interested and helping you out with a ripken whiteout. I have the BGS 8.5 and a BGS 8. If you want to part with some of the 90 topps blackless...lets make a deal!
    Error and RC collector.
  • RookieWaxRookieWax Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭
    Thanks fishin. The Ripken I will get to at some point down the road. The Topps rookie collection is currently my focus.
  • this is interesting

    THOMAS
  • slantycouchslantycouch Posts: 1,704 ✭✭✭


    << <i>this is interesting

    THOMAS >>



    That's his ^^
  • saucywombatsaucywombat Posts: 1,221 ✭✭✭
    These cards must really be quite rare as the Beckett story this summer has resulted in exactly ZERO new cards turning up on Ebay.

    The difficulty in locating these cards as really put into perspective the scarcity of the Thomas NNOF.
    Always looking for 1993-1999 Baseball Finest Refractors and1994 Football Finest Refractors.
    saucywombat@hotmail.com
  • It is odd. Everytime the FF gets mentioned in Beckett (about 2x a year on average) I usually see more FF versions on ebay, some from non collectors, based on their other current/past auctions. Not a huge increase but something...
    imageimageimage
  • RookieWaxRookieWax Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭


    << <i>These cards must really be quite rare as the Beckett story this summer has resulted in exactly ZERO new cards turning up on Ebay.

    The difficulty in locating these cards as really put into perspective the scarcity of the Thomas NNOF. >>



    I think it is due to a combination of there being a very small number of the errors printed to begin with, along with them ending up in grocery packs - meaning much of them were bought for kids by grocery shopping parents instead of by serious collectors or dealers. Who knows what ended up happening to those cards over the years after that? I guess it is fitting that the Thomas error was part of the 2010 "Cards Your Mom Threw Out" set.
  • saucywombatsaucywombat Posts: 1,221 ✭✭✭
    Received the 2011 Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards today.

    An incredibly thick book which is noticeably larger than the last version I got in 2009.

    Sad to report no mention of the "blackless" variations reported in this thread.

    Would like to thank Bob Lemke though for correcting the 1994 Finest Checklist to show card 196 as Dave Staton rather than Mark Gardner.
    Always looking for 1993-1999 Baseball Finest Refractors and1994 Football Finest Refractors.
    saucywombat@hotmail.com
  • fkwfkw Posts: 1,766 ✭✭
    edited: crazy multi duplicate posts, sorry
  • fkwfkw Posts: 1,766 ✭✭
    edited: double post
  • fkwfkw Posts: 1,766 ✭✭
  • fkwfkw Posts: 1,766 ✭✭
    Didnt read all the posts......

    There is a big difference in a "Man Made Error" or "Variation" card, ..................and a machine made "Print Defect".

    This NNOF Thomas sounds like a common "Print Freak" to me, and will suffer value wise in the future if this is fact.

    There are thousands of Print Freaks known from thousands of sets (Im sure every single set has some form of a defect), they are collectible but should never be part of a complete master set. And that is KEY to long term value.

    Most desirable
    A "Man Made Error" is something like a corrected misspelled name (ie T206 Magie/Magee), corrected design change (ie 1969T Nettles, 1958 & 1969 white/yellow letter variations), corrected team name (ie. 1979T Wills). The error/corrected card in shorter supply is the more valuable, the shorter the printing the more $$ (ie T206 Magie corrected very early on).

    A "Variation" card is usually similar to a "Man Made Error" value and demand wise, if one was short printed, A "Variation" card is a card that was changed for some reason other than an error. (ie 1973 Manager cards with or w/o backgrounds, ie. 1954B #66 T.Williams contract prob., 1969T Dalrymple team change, etc.),

    Less Desirable (usually)
    A "Print Defect" is something like the 1949 Leaf Hermansk("i") missing "i" card, or the 1958T Herrer("a"), or the T206 ("S")nodgrass, etc. or all the missing ink T206 cards ie. Speaker w/o "Boston" on uni, 1990 Thomas NNOF, etc. and these should not be a part of any checklist for a master set. IMO If the printers had good Quality Control they should have caught and destroyed.

    Now someone needs to go and remove all these "Print Freaks" from set checklists they never should have been a part of.

  • The NNOF Thomas is very desirable. What separates this card from other “man made”, “variation”, or “print defects” is due in part to the myth and publicity of this card. The regular version of this card is desirable due to the fact it the rookie card of a future HOF’r. Couple that with a card that has very low print numbers and the NNOF is and will be in high demand.


  • << <i>Didnt read all the posts......

    There is a big difference in a "Man Made Error" or "Variation" card, ..................and a machine made "Print Defect".

    This NNOF Thomas sounds like a common "Print Freak" to me, and will suffer value wise in the future if this is fact.

    There are thousands of Print Freaks known from thousands of sets (Im sure every single set has some form of a defect), they are collectible but should never be part of a complete master set. And that is KEY to long term value.

    Most desirable
    A "Man Made Error" is something like a corrected misspelled name (ie T206 Magie/Magee), corrected design change (ie 1969T Nettles, 1958 & 1969 white/yellow letter variations), corrected team name (ie. 1979T Wills). The error/corrected card in shorter supply is the more valuable, the shorter the printing the more $$ (ie T206 Magie corrected very early on).

    A "Variation" card is usually similar to a "Man Made Error" value and demand wise, if one was short printed, A "Variation" card is a card that was changed for some reason other than an error. (ie 1973 Manager cards with or w/o backgrounds, ie. 1954B #66 T.Williams contract prob., 1969T Dalrymple team change, etc.),

    Less Desirable (usually)
    A "Print Defect" is something like the 1949 Leaf Hermansk("i") missing "i" card, or the 1958T Herrer("a"), or the T206 ("S")nodgrass, etc. or all the missing ink T206 cards ie. Speaker w/o "Boston" on uni, 1990 Thomas NNOF, etc. and these should not be a part of any checklist for a master set. IMO If the printers had good Quality Control they should have caught and destroyed.

    Now someone needs to go and remove all these "Print Freaks" from set checklists they never should have been a part of. >>



    Or maybe it will bring more interest in this type of collectible, thus rising prices on rare "print defect" cards across the board. Who cares that it's a "print defect". It's different and rarer than the original.
  • RookieWaxRookieWax Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭
    As someone already stated, the regular 1990 Topps Frank Thomas card is popular itself due to it having nice eye-appeal and being a classic, old style Topps rookie card of a great player. Thus the super rare No Name error version, with likely less than 200 of them printed, automatically becomes an extremely desirable card in the collecting world.

    Like many other collectors, I have been intrigued by the Thomas No Name error since first reading an article about it in SCD back in the early 1990s. Anyone who owns one of these error cards can tell you that there is something just completely amazing about actually holding this card in your hand and staring at that empty bright blue name box where “FRANK THOMAS” should be.

    If anything, a freakish error like this should be more desirable than “man made” errors – most of which were likely intentional. And very few of those types of errors are ever corrected in time to make the error card scarce.

    Whether the Frank Thomas No Name error occurred during the during the printing process itself or was caused by a bad plate, it is just incredible that it affected only 13 out of the 790 cards in the set and that the Thomas card (which turned out to be the top rookie card in the set) was the only one where the entire player name was cut off. It’s incredible that the very narrow blackless streak fell perfectly across that card to just barely block out his entire name. And the recent discoveries about the Thomas error help confirm that the error was in no way intentional.

    The 1958 Topps Herrera error is the most comparable error card in terms of the type of error and the scarcity. That card is much less impressive than the Thomas card though, because it only affected one letter in his name and Herrera was a nobody. The Thomas card will be a HOF rookie card.

    Those Herrera error cards have sold for upwards of $25,000. So, if anything, the Thomas error card is underappreciated at this point in time.
  • BunchOBullBunchOBull Posts: 6,188 ✭✭✭
    I highly respect Frank's opinion on all that is cards, but I have to agree with Joe here. The NNOF has long secured its place in baseball card history and desirability.
    Collector of most things Frank Thomas. www.BigHurtHOF.com


  • << <i>Didnt read all the posts......

    There is a big difference in a "Man Made Error" or "Variation" card, ..................and a machine made "Print Defect".

    This NNOF Thomas sounds like a common "Print Freak" to me, and will suffer value wise in the future if this is fact.

    There are thousands of Print Freaks known from thousands of sets (Im sure every single set has some form of a defect), they are collectible but should never be part of a complete master set. And that is KEY to long term value.

    Most desirable
    A "Man Made Error" is something like a corrected misspelled name (ie T206 Magie/Magee), corrected design change (ie 1969T Nettles, 1958 & 1969 white/yellow letter variations), corrected team name (ie. 1979T Wills). The error/corrected card in shorter supply is the more valuable, the shorter the printing the more $$ (ie T206 Magie corrected very early on).

    A "Variation" card is usually similar to a "Man Made Error" value and demand wise, if one was short printed, A "Variation" card is a card that was changed for some reason other than an error. (ie 1973 Manager cards with or w/o backgrounds, ie. 1954B #66 T.Williams contract prob., 1969T Dalrymple team change, etc.),

    Less Desirable (usually)
    A "Print Defect" is something like the 1949 Leaf Hermansk("i") missing "i" card, or the 1958T Herrer("a"), or the T206 ("S")nodgrass, etc. or all the missing ink T206 cards ie. Speaker w/o "Boston" on uni, 1990 Thomas NNOF, etc. and these should not be a part of any checklist for a master set. IMO If the printers had good Quality Control they should have caught and destroyed.

    Now someone needs to go and remove all these "Print Freaks" from set checklists they never should have been a part of. >>



    I have been reading this thread since it's inception and enjoyed the discussion. Figured I would chime in on this.

    The above may be true to a certain extent but it doesn't take into consideration other factors, such as the player or the era. Others have already mentioned it but the card is corrected version is the best card in the set, a rookie card of a future hall of famer, and a very popular player shortly after the set's debut.

    Second, it was produced in the middle of the error card craze. I fell for error cards hook, line, and sinker at the time. And still to this day collect error cards. Eventually we all realized that some of the "error" cards were not really error cards, rather intentional mistakes. Others were reprinted. However, the Thomas was a true error card. No one intended for that to happen, whether it be done by man or done by machine is irrelevant (IMO). To me, this card is the most significant card of the first phase of my card collecting years (1987-1994). And I would assume others would agree. For these reasons I can not see this card devaluating much. I think this thread may have overly increased it's value (heck, I went out and bought one after reading this thread). But it is always going to be remembered fondly be the hard core collectors from that era.
  • RookieWaxRookieWax Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭
    I stand corrected: Several of the 1958 Topps Pancho Herrera missing "a" error cards have sold for 5 figures over the past 2 to 3 years...including one that went for a whopping $25, 000+.
  • RookieWaxRookieWax Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭
    Has anyone here tried to contact PSA after the Beckett article or after BGS started grading the other blackless errors? I would like to see some of my others in PSA holders.
  • BunchOBullBunchOBull Posts: 6,188 ✭✭✭
    PSA will not recognize them if the standard catalog won't. Just policy from what I understand.
    Collector of most things Frank Thomas. www.BigHurtHOF.com
  • RookieWaxRookieWax Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭
    Thanks Ross....I didn't know they stuck by that 100%. That's too bad.

    By the way, do you have a copy of the SCD article about the NNOF Thomas card from back in 1992 or 1993? Or perhaps do you at least know what issue it was in? I remember it was a 2 page spread and I thought I had saved a photocopy of it all these years, but I haven't been able to find it.
  • BunchOBullBunchOBull Posts: 6,188 ✭✭✭
    I don't. I've spoken to several other collectors looking for a copy, but it's been fruitless. A lot of folks remember it, none can find it.
    Collector of most things Frank Thomas. www.BigHurtHOF.com
  • saucywombatsaucywombat Posts: 1,221 ✭✭✭
    edited February 26, 2024 4:36PM
    Bob Lemke of the Standard Catalog (who has posted in this thread) as part of his column in Sports Collectors Digest (the 11/12/2010 issue) wrote this concerning the NNOF variations in an article about two versions of the 1961 Topps Jim Golden card and his general feelings about errors, variations and printing defects.




    Always looking for 1993-1999 Baseball Finest Refractors and1994 Football Finest Refractors.
    saucywombat@hotmail.com
  • Cool. Thanks for sharing.

    imageimageimage
  • RookieWaxRookieWax Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭
    I see what he is saying....that it is difficult to recognize and catalog every small and insignificant printing error. But it does make sense to at least do so with errors that are clearly and directly connected to those few THAT ARE ALREADY highly collected and valuable blackless error cards (and already cataloged). The other 12 blackless 1990 Topps errors therefore should be cataloged in my opinion.
  • Without reading every post, what was the rhyme or reason to insertion of the No name Thomas? Was it early print runs, certain geographical areas? Reason I ask, is it worth buying a vending case with the remote possibility of getting one?
  • RookieWaxRookieWax Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭
    I think I am going to again put up 1 of my now 2 BGS graded Biggio blackless errors on ebay. If it sells for a large amount (which it might), then perhaps Mr. Lemke will have his answer. By the way, I wonder if he knows that Beckett has already recognized and began grading/slabbing the other 12 errors.
  • AUPTAUPT Posts: 806 ✭✭✭
    I've been following this thread since its inception and will continue to do so with the intent of monitoring hobby reaction to the "other" blackless errors on the 1990 Thomas sheet.
  • RookieWaxRookieWax Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭


    << <i>I've been following this thread since its inception and will continue to do so with the intent of monitoring hobby reaction to the "other" blackless errors on the 1990 Thomas sheet. >>



    That is good to hear....thank you!
  • RookieWaxRookieWax Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭


    << <i>Received the 2011 Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards today.

    An incredibly thick book which is noticeably larger than the last version I got in 2009.

    Sad to report no mention of the "blackless" variations reported in this thread.

    Would like to thank Bob Lemke though for correcting the 1994 Finest Checklist to show card 196 as Dave Staton rather than Mark Gardner. >>




    I just got a copy of this 2011 Standard Catalog myself through Amazon....and actually the 1990 Topps John Hart and John Morris blackless corner variations are listed and priced at $8.00 each. Kind of confused why only those 2 are listed but not the other 10 blackless errors.
  • BunchOBullBunchOBull Posts: 6,188 ✭✭✭


    << <i>

    << <i>Received the 2011 Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards today.

    An incredibly thick book which is noticeably larger than the last version I got in 2009.

    Sad to report no mention of the "blackless" variations reported in this thread.

    Would like to thank Bob Lemke though for correcting the 1994 Finest Checklist to show card 196 as Dave Staton rather than Mark Gardner. >>




    I just got a copy of this 2011 Standard Catalog myself through Amazon....and actually the 1990 Topps John Hart and John Morris blackless corner variations are listed and priced at $8.00 each. Kind of confused why only those 2 are listed but not the other 10 blackless errors. >>



    Those were the first to be located, the process for inclusion into the catalog is a long one; maybe they made the cut off in time.
    Collector of most things Frank Thomas. www.BigHurtHOF.com
  • RipublicaninMassRipublicaninMass Posts: 10,051 ✭✭✭
    I have to disagree Frank about them being less desirable, it isn't like a blank back, or wrong back.


    Less Desirable (usually) A "Print Defect" is something like the 1949 Leaf Hermansk("i") missing "i" card, or the 1958T Herrer("a"), or the T206 ("S")nodgrass, etc. or all the missing ink T206 cards ie. Speaker w/o "Boston" on uni, 1990 Thomas NNOF, etc. and these should not be a part of any checklist for a master set. IMO If the printers had good Quality Control they should have caught and destroyed.


    Those are some of the most desired cards in the hobby, along with the 1957 Eugene Bakep variation but I do agree they should not be in a master set
  • saucywombatsaucywombat Posts: 1,221 ✭✭✭


    << <i>

    << <i>Received the 2011 Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards today.

    An incredibly thick book which is noticeably larger than the last version I got in 2009.

    Sad to report no mention of the "blackless" variations reported in this thread.

    Would like to thank Bob Lemke though for correcting the 1994 Finest Checklist to show card 196 as Dave Staton rather than Mark Gardner. >>




    I just got a copy of this 2011 Standard Catalog myself through Amazon....and actually the 1990 Topps John Hart and John Morris blackless corner variations are listed and priced at $8.00 each. Kind of confused why only those 2 are listed but not the other 10 blackless errors. >>



    Good eye - don't know how I missed that.
    Always looking for 1993-1999 Baseball Finest Refractors and1994 Football Finest Refractors.
    saucywombat@hotmail.com
  • AUPTAUPT Posts: 806 ✭✭✭
    The Hart and Morris variations are being removed from the 2012 edition.

  • RookieWaxRookieWax Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭


    << <i>The Hart and Morris variations are being removed from the 2012 edition. >>



    That would be a very strange move...IMO, the other 10 should be added to them instead. The blackless Julio Franco error sold at auction for $50 the only time it was offered. I got a formal ebay best offer of $200 for my blackless Biggio(which I turned down)...and numerous other private offers, through PMs on this board and through ebay contact, for the Biggio and my other blackless errors.
  • bishopbishop Posts: 2,917 ✭✭✭
    The proliferation in the identification of print defect "variations" due to easier access to good internet scans has made it harder on publishers to come up with criteria for what will or won't be listed in a particular catalog. It's fun to find them and natural to want them listed when you do since the value is bound to go up with more recognition, but if you follow the error and variation listings on ebay from week to week and see the large number of those not in any catalog, some more distinct than others, the chore of making those choices for an already large publication is certainly not an easy one.
    Topps Baseball-1948, 1951 to 2017
    Bowman Baseball -1948-1955
    Fleer Baseball-1923, 1959-2007

    Al
  • RookieWaxRookieWax Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭


    << <i>The proliferation in the identification of print defect "variations" due to easier access to good internet scans has made it harder on publishers to come up with criteria for what will or won't be listed in a particular catalog. It's fun to find them and natural to want them listed when you do since the value is bound to go up with more recognition, but if you follow the error and variation listings on ebay from week to week and see the large number of those not in any catalog, some more distinct than others, the chore of making those choices for an already large publication is certainly not an easy one. >>



    I understand that tough choices have to be made as far as what or what not to catalog -as it is impossible to include every minor printing error. However, given the value and status of the NNOF Frank Thomas in the history of the hobby, it should be a no-brainer to include the 12 other blackless error cards that are clearly connected to it. The selling prices/offers gained the few times these other errors have been put up for sale confirm that the connection to the Thomas card IS SIGNIFICANT!
  • tunahead08tunahead08 Posts: 1,056 ✭✭✭
    I think if the other "blackless" variations aren't going to be listed, you might as well remove the Thomas "NNOF" as well, as it falls under the same category and reasoning for not listed the others. It seems only fair. Either list them all or list none.
  • slantycouchslantycouch Posts: 1,704 ✭✭✭


    << <i>The Hart and Morris variations are being removed from the 2012 edition. >>



    That's a shame Bob, but I have to respect your opinion.

    Good to see this thread pop back up.
  • RookieWaxRookieWax Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭


    << <i>

    << <i>The Hart and Morris variations are being removed from the 2012 edition. >>



    That's a shame Bob, but I have to respect your opinion.

    Good to see this thread pop back up. >>



    I would accept it as well if it made any sense at all. As big as this story was to us old school collectors(and with the NNOF Thomas being one of the few iconic modern rookie cards), acknowledging and listing the other 12 blackless errors is unquestionably in the best interest of the hobby. Wouldn't you think SCD should have some interest in that???
Sign In or Register to comment.