<< <i>I worked prepress for a commercial printing press for 7 years. I think this was either a bad black plate or possibly (less likely) a bad blanket. The way offset printing works is the ink goes onto the plate, the plate then comes in contact with the blanket, which then comes in contact with the paper. So the plate never actually touches the paper.
Now a plate is good for a certain number of impressions and then has to be remade, the blanket lasts much much longer. When the plate was being exposed something could have obstructed the light from exposing that area or something could have happened when it went through the chemical bath to cure it. Back in 1990 the plate would have been made by placing film on top of the plate and then exposing it to light for a few minutes, and then running the pate through a processor. Now plates are directly printed from the computer and then run through a processor (direct to plate). We had to really inspect the plates before they went on press, because all kinds of imperfections could cause "holes" in the image. Somebody must have been asleep not to catch that bad black plate.
I do not think it was a just a loose piece of stock, this would seem to only block the image for 1 sheet and then be gone. Presses have too much going on to have something block the image and then stick around. It would have to be something actually wrong with the plate or blanket. >>
14 years in the printing industry here also, before I made a career change in 1998. I agree with this theory and would bet on it. As reference my background was as a field technician in pre-press, production, and bindery equipment. Spent my days diagnosing problems that operators could not figure out or required repair or adjustment. I would go with the bad plate theory first also rather than the blanket.
As for this being intentional I would think not but it is easy to make a part of the plate non sensitive to ink, thereby erasing that part of the image from the finished product. If done in the right manner there would be no evidence. Usually it's done unintentionally and you can see it on the product, a blur or smudge.
You know guys, now that I think about it, I did pull an all white or almost all white card out of a pack as well. Didn't see it anywhere. Hopefully, I'll run across another stash and find it. (I have no rhyme or reason how I loaded my cards in the large flat boxes, so it could be anywhere!)
In looking closer at the samples of different cards from the sheet, I would look at the somewhat sharp or defined area of "blackless" print. You can see that it's really well defined and has pretty sharp edges.
If a solution was applied or random swipe from a rag with a solution that would desensitize the plate, this area would not be as well defined. Also, we see that some cards have broken borders, where the line stops for a short space then continues on. Looking for any missing black area helps. One card has a gradient black border that is missing. It's not limited to the type or slim border. Obviously this is because any black or shade of black was applied by that plate, but bears mentioning as you look at the sheet.
I would now narrow this down to two possible causes which have been touched on already but could help determine the total cards produced.
1. The negative used to "burn" the image to the plate was defective, exposed improperly, or accidentally masked - this may not have been noticed for some time. In the first two, numerous plates may have been produced and run before the mistake was corrected. The unintentional masking is close to your theory about a piece of paper on the plate but happens earlier in the process. Photographic negatives of the sheet are taped to large sheets of paper, masking sheets. The sheets are cut out where the negative is mounted so that light can pass through the neg. The sheet is used for registration purposes and to handle the neg without getting fingerprints on it. It is possible that a plate was burned with a neg, and a stray piece of masking sheet was between the neg and plate during the process. In the pre-press "stripping" rooms there are always pieces of masking sheets laying around. This mistake may have produced only one or a small number of plates with the bad area.
2. Defective plate - it is possible that a plate was exposed to light before being burned, processed, then put on the press. Plates cannot be exposed to heavy light for any long period of time. In my experience they were wrapped in opaque paper or plastic. A package can be accidentally left partially open or open enough to expose an area but without the knowledge of the pressman unless he looks closely, especially if someone else burns the plates and gives them to him. The plate could also have been defective straight out of the box. This theory could probably have produced only one plate with the error or at the most a small number. The plates are stacked tightly in a package. One can be exposed on top but the others not exposed or effected.
<< <i>Ok, its come to the point that you guys need to petition PSA to recognize these errors in a subset or master set. Great freaking work!! >>
Yeah if they recognize the Thomas as a variation, they have to recognize these too, since they'd likely be out there in similar numbers.... even though they're all just printing errors.
Still amazing to me that this was never researched earlier.
<< <i>In looking closer at the samples of different cards from the sheet, I would look at the somewhat sharp or defined area of "blackless" print. You can see that it's really well defined and has pretty sharp edges.
If a solution was applied or random swipe from a rag with a solution that would desensitize the plate, this area would not be as well defined. Also, we see that some cards have broken borders, where the line stops for a short space then continues on. Looking for any missing black area helps. One card has a gradient black border that is missing. It's not limited to the type or slim border. Obviously this is because any black or shade of black was applied by that plate, but bears mentioning as you look at the sheet.
I would now narrow this down to two possible causes which have been touched on already but could help determine the total cards produced.
1. The negative used to "burn" the image to the plate was defective, exposed improperly, or accidentally masked - this may not have been noticed for some time. In the first two, numerous plates may have been produced and run before the mistake was corrected. The unintentional masking is close to your theory about a piece of paper on the plate but happens earlier in the process. Photographic negatives of the sheet are taped to large sheets of paper, masking sheets. The sheets are cut out where the negative is mounted so that light can pass through the neg. The sheet is used for registration purposes and to handle the neg without getting fingerprints on it. It is possible that a plate was burned with a neg, and a stray piece of masking sheet was between the neg and plate during the process. In the pre-press "stripping" rooms there are always pieces of masking sheets laying around. This mistake may have produced only one or a small number of plates with the bad area.
2. Defective plate - it is possible that a plate was exposed to light before being burned, processed, then put on the press. Plates cannot be exposed to heavy light for any long period of time. In my experience they were wrapped in opaque paper or plastic. A package can be accidentally left partially open or open enough to expose an area but without the knowledge of the pressman unless he looks closely, especially if someone else burns the plates and gives them to him. The plate could also have been defective straight out of the box. This theory could probably have produced only one plate with the error or at the most a small number. The plates are stacked tightly in a package. One can be exposed on top but the others not exposed or effected. >>
This is great info.
I'm voting number two. If you look at the McGriff especially, there are places where the edge of the missing black aren't as defined. If you look at the Thomas in a vacuum, a stray piece of paper always made sense to me. But now seeing how the missing black area is "fluid", I'm more on board with bad exposure to the plate.
I'm leaning toward a defective plate or neg also. The emulsion may have been faulty and did not allow the image to be exposed on the neg or plate.
While we are trying to connect the entire piece, the upper left may actually be some smaller bits that are not connected. I notice in the Lawton and McGriff that the irregular pattern of the black is more prevalent.
It will be interesting to see the Fisk and Magrane.
It looks like a liquid that affected the neg or plate when it was produced before exposure, but the sharper edges still draw me to something more mechanical or solid. Rollers that apply chemical during production could give a combined appearance like this.
Either way I'm still guessing that the neg or plate was bad right from the factory and that this was not caused in the printing house.
take a look at Tapani again at 1600 resolution. It looks like the top black border is intact. It looks like it has a few iffy spots but not completely gone in those areas. Let me know what you think.
I want all these cards.....and you can't even get them
dammit!
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>Rich...can I see your raw pick up? Got a link? >>
Yeah, I ll scan it on the weekend..
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 went thru my stash of 1990 Topps and I found this Magrane AS. Just to the right of the "J" in his first name, there is a noticeable portion of the black border missing. I'm not sure if it matches the pattern, but it's definitely missing a portion of the border.
Edited to wonder why it took this long to uncover all of this? On the Thomas card, besides there just being no name, it's pretty obvious that the black ink is missing all together across the card.
<< <i>Ok, its come to the point that you guys need to petition PSA to recognize these errors in a subset or master set. Great freaking work!! >>
Hopefully someone has had better luck than I on this front, but I have been trying to get PSA to recognize that card number 196 in the 1994 Finest Set is not Jeff Gardner but rather Dave Staton (I'm putting together a set of refractors) Even though they slabbed the Staton as 196 they will not change the set registry because they rely strictly on Beckett checkists, then they may consider if its in the Standard catalog differently. In my case neither Beckett or the Standard Catalog get it right, they both have Jeff Gardener (who incidently does not appear in the set).
Beckett is a dead end trying to contact.
Wrote a letter to Standard Catalog and hope that they may act on it and change their list.
I guess point is if you can get it in Beckett, PSA will definitly recognize it; if you can get it in the Standard Catalog PSA will likely recognize it, especially if there is no conflict with Beckett.
So if somebody knows somebody who knows somebody at one of those publications...
Always looking for 1993-1999 Baseball Finest Refractors and1994 Football Finest Refractors. saucywombat@hotmail.com
<< <i>Ok, its come to the point that you guys need to petition PSA to recognize these errors in a subset or master set. Great freaking work!! >>
Hopefully someone has had better luck than I on this front, but I have been trying to get PSA to recognize that card number 196 in the 1994 Finest Set is not Jeff Gardner but rather Dave Staton (I'm putting together a set of refractors) Even though they slabbed the Staton as 196 they will not change the set registry because they rely strictly on Beckett checkists, then they may consider if its in the Standard catalog differently. In my case neither Beckett or the Standard Catalog get it right, they both have Jeff Gardener (who incidently does not appear in the set).
Beckett is a dead end trying to contact.
Wrote a letter to Standard Catalog and hope that they may act on it and change their list.
I guess point is if you can get it in Beckett, PSA will definitly recognize it; if you can get it in the Standard Catalog PSA will likely recognize it, especially if there is no conflict with Beckett.
So if somebody knows somebody who knows somebody at one of those publications... >>
If you get a good contact, lmk.
Numerous FF versions are unlisted as is the 1990 Pacific Senior Glossy set to name a few.
I took a very good look at my Bob Kneppers this morning. Not a hint of missing border. Of course that doesn't mean that variant doesn't exist either. Looks like the Tapani might be a stopping point or maybe it extends up from the Lawton.
Man, this is interesting!! I wish I could get my hands on some untouched commons from the North East!
Why is beckett a dead end when trying to contact them ?
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”
Why is beckett a dead end when trying to contact them ? >>
I don't have the latest price guide annual book but you used to be able to write to an address in Dallas. My letter there was returned as no such address. Alot of googling could not turn up an address for these types of inquiries.
They have email contacts through their website but have not gotten a response.
Always looking for 1993-1999 Baseball Finest Refractors and1994 Football Finest Refractors. saucywombat@hotmail.com
<< <i>I don't have the latest price guide annual book but you used to be able to write to an address in Dallas. My letter there was returned as no such address. Alot of googling could not turn up an address for these types of inquiries.
They have email contacts through their website but have not gotten a response. >>
Even if you could get in contact with them, they probably wouldn't make the changes anyhow. I've tried multiple times over the years to get them to add cards that aren't in their checklists to no avail.
<< <i>I don't have the latest price guide annual book but you used to be able to write to an address in Dallas. My letter there was returned as no such address. Alot of googling could not turn up an address for these types of inquiries.
They have email contacts through their website but have not gotten a response. >>
Even if you could get in contact with them, they probably wouldn't make the changes anyhow. I've tried multiple times over the years to get them to add cards that aren't in their checklists to no avail. >>
This is what I suspected. We need a liason to present our case.
Always looking for 1993-1999 Baseball Finest Refractors and1994 Football Finest Refractors. saucywombat@hotmail.com
Several members have attempted to contact Beckett, most recently gigfy found some contact info for me. I'm going to basically copy and paste the letter I sent to Topps to several Beckett reps. The cruddy thing is, the folks who were really into variations and errors in the mid-90s aren't there anymore.
<< <i>FWIW I opened a 1990 Topps wax box today. All correct versions of the blackless cards, but a broken border Mattingly.
Edit: Along those lines, will anyone with some 1990 Topps lying around look at the bottom left border of a Ventura? I got 2 that are similar to the Mattingly. Wondering if it's a variation or if they're all like that. Thanks! >>
None of the 8 Venturas that I have have this variation.
Always looking for 1993-1999 Baseball Finest Refractors and1994 Football Finest Refractors. saucywombat@hotmail.com
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?
Walter...the PSA 10 doesn't exist...it was a standard card with the wrong flip info...mechanical error on PSA's behalf...it still sold for like $350 at auction, even though it wasn't a real NNOF.
edited to add:
Remember that population reports are skewed by the crack and resub game if they aren't reported.
I'd guess there aren't quite that many slabbed, but well over 100.
<< <i>Walter...the PSA 10 doesn't exist...it was a standard card with the wrong flip info...mechanical error on PSA's behalf...it still sold for like $350 at auction, even though it wasn't a real NNOF. >>
awesome to know...
you guys can check my scan out later .,
Im shooting for a psa 11 ...! lol
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”
Comments
<< <i>I worked prepress for a commercial printing press for 7 years. I think this was either a bad black plate or possibly (less likely) a bad blanket. The way offset printing works is the ink goes onto the plate, the plate then comes in contact with the blanket, which then comes in contact with the paper. So the plate never actually touches the paper.
Now a plate is good for a certain number of impressions and then has to be remade, the blanket lasts much much longer. When the plate was being exposed something could have obstructed the light from exposing that area or something could have happened when it went through the chemical bath to cure it. Back in 1990 the plate would have been made by placing film on top of the plate and then exposing it to light for a few minutes, and then running the pate through a processor. Now plates are directly printed from the computer and then run through a processor (direct to plate). We had to really inspect the plates before they went on press, because all kinds of imperfections could cause "holes" in the image. Somebody must have been asleep not to catch that bad black plate.
I do not think it was a just a loose piece of stock, this would seem to only block the image for 1 sheet and then be gone. Presses have too much going on to have something block the image and then stick around. It would have to be something actually wrong with the plate or blanket. >>
14 years in the printing industry here also, before I made a career change in 1998. I agree with this theory and would bet on it. As reference my background was as a field technician in pre-press, production, and bindery equipment. Spent my days diagnosing problems that operators could not figure out or required repair or adjustment. I would go with the bad plate theory first also rather than the blanket.
As for this being intentional I would think not but it is easy to make a part of the plate non sensitive to ink, thereby erasing that part of the image from the finished product. If done in the right manner there would be no evidence. Usually it's done unintentionally and you can see it on the product, a blur or smudge.
1996 Select Certified Mirror Gold Ozzie Smith
2006 Bowman Chrome Orange Refractor Chris Carpenter
And a real Craig Biggio for good measure!
(FYI, if you want a higher resolution, copy the URL and paste in your browser and change the s400 to s1600.)
Cheers,
gigfy
This thread is one of the best I've ever read.
CDsNuts, 1/9/15
Thank you!
be back soon
looking forward to the composite photo!!
Cheers,
gigfy
If a solution was applied or random swipe from a rag with a solution that would desensitize the plate, this area would not be as well defined. Also, we see that some cards have broken borders, where the line stops for a short space then continues on. Looking for any missing black area helps. One card has a gradient black border that is missing. It's not limited to the type or slim border. Obviously this is because any black or shade of black was applied by that plate, but bears mentioning as you look at the sheet.
I would now narrow this down to two possible causes which have been touched on already but could help determine the total cards produced.
1. The negative used to "burn" the image to the plate was defective, exposed improperly, or accidentally masked - this may not have been noticed for some time. In the first two, numerous plates may have been produced and run before the mistake was corrected. The unintentional masking is close to your theory about a piece of paper on the plate but happens earlier in the process. Photographic negatives of the sheet are taped to large sheets of paper, masking sheets. The sheets are cut out where the negative is mounted so that light can pass through the neg. The sheet is used for registration purposes and to handle the neg without getting fingerprints on it. It is possible that a plate was burned with a neg, and a stray piece of masking sheet was between the neg and plate during the process. In the pre-press "stripping" rooms there are always pieces of masking sheets laying around. This mistake may have produced only one or a small number of plates with the bad area.
2. Defective plate - it is possible that a plate was exposed to light before being burned, processed, then put on the press. Plates cannot be exposed to heavy light for any long period of time. In my experience they were wrapped in opaque paper or plastic. A package can be accidentally left partially open or open enough to expose an area but without the knowledge of the pressman unless he looks closely, especially if someone else burns the plates and gives them to him. The plate could also have been defective straight out of the box. This theory could probably have produced only one plate with the error or at the most a small number. The plates are stacked tightly in a package. One can be exposed on top but the others not exposed or effected.
Bob Knepper NNOF anyone?
My Podcast - Now FEATURED on iTunes
<< <i>Ok, its come to the point that you guys need to petition PSA to recognize these errors in a subset or master set. Great freaking work!! >>
Yeah if they recognize the Thomas as a variation, they have to recognize these too, since they'd likely be out there in similar numbers.... even though they're all just printing errors.
Still amazing to me that this was never researched earlier.
<< <i>In looking closer at the samples of different cards from the sheet, I would look at the somewhat sharp or defined area of "blackless" print. You can see that it's really well defined and has pretty sharp edges.
If a solution was applied or random swipe from a rag with a solution that would desensitize the plate, this area would not be as well defined. Also, we see that some cards have broken borders, where the line stops for a short space then continues on. Looking for any missing black area helps. One card has a gradient black border that is missing. It's not limited to the type or slim border. Obviously this is because any black or shade of black was applied by that plate, but bears mentioning as you look at the sheet.
I would now narrow this down to two possible causes which have been touched on already but could help determine the total cards produced.
1. The negative used to "burn" the image to the plate was defective, exposed improperly, or accidentally masked - this may not have been noticed for some time. In the first two, numerous plates may have been produced and run before the mistake was corrected. The unintentional masking is close to your theory about a piece of paper on the plate but happens earlier in the process. Photographic negatives of the sheet are taped to large sheets of paper, masking sheets. The sheets are cut out where the negative is mounted so that light can pass through the neg. The sheet is used for registration purposes and to handle the neg without getting fingerprints on it. It is possible that a plate was burned with a neg, and a stray piece of masking sheet was between the neg and plate during the process. In the pre-press "stripping" rooms there are always pieces of masking sheets laying around. This mistake may have produced only one or a small number of plates with the bad area.
2. Defective plate - it is possible that a plate was exposed to light before being burned, processed, then put on the press. Plates cannot be exposed to heavy light for any long period of time. In my experience they were wrapped in opaque paper or plastic. A package can be accidentally left partially open or open enough to expose an area but without the knowledge of the pressman unless he looks closely, especially if someone else burns the plates and gives them to him. The plate could also have been defective straight out of the box. This theory could probably have produced only one plate with the error or at the most a small number. The plates are stacked tightly in a package. One can be exposed on top but the others not exposed or effected. >>
This is great info.
I'm voting number two. If you look at the McGriff especially, there are places where the edge of the missing black aren't as defined. If you look at the Thomas in a vacuum, a stray piece of paper always made sense to me. But now seeing how the missing black area is "fluid", I'm more on board with bad exposure to the plate.
While we are trying to connect the entire piece, the upper left may actually be some smaller bits that are not connected. I notice in the Lawton and McGriff that the irregular pattern of the black is more prevalent.
It will be interesting to see the Fisk and Magrane.
It looks like a liquid that affected the neg or plate when it was produced before exposure, but the sharper edges still draw me to something more mechanical or solid. Rollers that apply chemical during production could give a combined appearance like this.
Either way I'm still guessing that the neg or plate was bad right from the factory and that this was not caused in the printing house.
take a look at Tapani again at 1600 resolution. It looks like the top black border is intact. It looks like it has a few iffy spots but not completely gone in those areas. Let me know what you think.
Cheers,
gigfy
I went through an overstuffed 800ct box tonight and found nothing of interest.
1996 Select Certified Mirror Gold Ozzie Smith
2006 Bowman Chrome Orange Refractor Chris Carpenter
So mad I just purchased a Frank NO Name (Raw)
I want all these cards.....and you can't even get them
dammit!
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>Rich...can I see your raw pick up? Got a link? >>
Yeah, I ll scan it on the weekend..
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”
Excellent work guys,
I went thru my stash of 1990 Topps and I found this Magrane AS.
Just to the right of the "J" in his first name, there is a noticeable portion of the black border missing.
I'm not sure if it matches the pattern, but it's definitely missing a portion of the border.
The path has proven to broken in other places, and placing the Biggio beside it shows they line up pretty well.
Thank you for your work.
bobsbbcards SGC Registry Sets
Edited to wonder why it took this long to uncover all of this? On the Thomas card, besides there just being no name, it's pretty obvious that the black ink is missing all together across the card.
I think the Magrane looks like its in the pattern. Good work Cincy.
saucywombat@hotmail.com
<< <i>Tada:
Very cool. Great work here.
saucywombat@hotmail.com
<< <i>Ok, its come to the point that you guys need to petition PSA to recognize these errors in a subset or master set. Great freaking work!! >>
Hopefully someone has had better luck than I on this front, but I have been trying to get PSA to recognize that card number 196 in the 1994 Finest Set is not Jeff Gardner but rather Dave Staton (I'm putting together a set of refractors) Even though they slabbed the Staton as 196 they will not change the set registry because they rely strictly on Beckett checkists, then they may consider if its in the Standard catalog differently. In my case neither Beckett or the Standard Catalog get it right, they both have Jeff Gardener (who incidently does not appear in the set).
Beckett is a dead end trying to contact.
Wrote a letter to Standard Catalog and hope that they may act on it and change their list.
I guess point is if you can get it in Beckett, PSA will definitly recognize it; if you can get it in the Standard Catalog PSA will likely recognize it, especially if there is no conflict with Beckett.
So if somebody knows somebody who knows somebody at one of those publications...
saucywombat@hotmail.com
<< <i>
<< <i>Ok, its come to the point that you guys need to petition PSA to recognize these errors in a subset or master set. Great freaking work!! >>
Hopefully someone has had better luck than I on this front, but I have been trying to get PSA to recognize that card number 196 in the 1994 Finest Set is not Jeff Gardner but rather Dave Staton (I'm putting together a set of refractors) Even though they slabbed the Staton as 196 they will not change the set registry because they rely strictly on Beckett checkists, then they may consider if its in the Standard catalog differently. In my case neither Beckett or the Standard Catalog get it right, they both have Jeff Gardener (who incidently does not appear in the set).
Beckett is a dead end trying to contact.
Wrote a letter to Standard Catalog and hope that they may act on it and change their list.
I guess point is if you can get it in Beckett, PSA will definitly recognize it; if you can get it in the Standard Catalog PSA will likely recognize it, especially if there is no conflict with Beckett.
So if somebody knows somebody who knows somebody at one of those publications... >>
If you get a good contact, lmk.
Numerous FF versions are unlisted as is the 1990 Pacific Senior Glossy set to name a few.
Man, this is interesting!! I wish I could get my hands on some untouched commons from the North East!
Cheers,
gigfy
Beckett is a dead end trying to contact.
Why is beckett a dead end when trying to contact them ?
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 is a dead end trying to contact.
Why is beckett a dead end when trying to contact them ? >>
I don't have the latest price guide annual book but you used to be able to write to an address in Dallas. My letter there was returned as no such address. Alot of googling could not turn up an address for these types of inquiries.
They have email contacts through their website but have not gotten a response.
saucywombat@hotmail.com
<< <i>I don't have the latest price guide annual book but you used to be able to write to an address in Dallas. My letter there was returned as no such address. Alot of googling could not turn up an address for these types of inquiries.
They have email contacts through their website but have not gotten a response. >>
Even if you could get in contact with them, they probably wouldn't make the changes anyhow. I've tried multiple times over the years to get them to add cards that aren't in their checklists to no avail.
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't have the latest price guide annual book but you used to be able to write to an address in Dallas. My letter there was returned as no such address. Alot of googling could not turn up an address for these types of inquiries.
They have email contacts through their website but have not gotten a response. >>
Even if you could get in contact with them, they probably wouldn't make the changes anyhow. I've tried multiple times over the years to get them to add cards that aren't in their checklists to no avail. >>
This is what I suspected. We need a liason to present our case.
saucywombat@hotmail.com
<< <i>FWIW I opened a 1990 Topps wax box today. All correct versions of the blackless cards, but a broken border Mattingly.
Edit: Along those lines, will anyone with some 1990 Topps lying around look at the bottom left border of a Ventura? I got 2 that are similar to the Mattingly. Wondering if it's a variation or if they're all like that. Thanks! >>
None of the 8 Venturas that I have have this variation.
saucywombat@hotmail.com
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
edited to add:
Remember that population reports are skewed by the crack and resub game if they aren't reported.
I'd guess there aren't quite that many slabbed, but well over 100.
<< <i>Walter...the PSA 10 doesn't exist...it was a standard card with the wrong flip info...mechanical error on PSA's behalf...it still sold for like $350 at auction, even though it wasn't a real NNOF. >>
awesome to know...
you guys can check my scan out later .,
Im shooting for a psa 11 ...! lol
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”
Description: 1990 TOPPS 414 FRANK THOMAS NO NAME ON FRONT
Grade: 9
Pop: 18
Pop Higher: 1
Pop Lower: 115
So, there is a NNOF variant with the wrong flip info? What does the Pop Higher mean?
Crack & resub? Ahhhh, crack open, insert fake, and resubmit the original for another graded case.
Cheers,
gigfy