Thanks to Donovan for uploading and posting my picks. As I stated earlier, the location AND the angle of the missing black is too similar to the Tapani on the NNOF sheet to not be something significant. There is a closeup of the NNOF Tapani back on page 11 of this thread. If you look back, you will see what I mean. Then, when you consider it was pulled from the same group of packs as my Thomas error -which again overlaps with the location of the missing ink on the NNOF. There is too much here to just "brush under the rug." It is as if small parts of whatever caused the NNOF blackless area was "left behind" to create my errors. Weird.
<< <i>Thanks to Donovan for uploading and posting my picks. As I stated earlier, the location AND the angle of the missing black is too similar to the Tapani on the NNOF sheet to not be something significant. There is a closeup of the NNOF Tapani back on page 11 of this thread. If you look back, you will see what I mean. Then, when you consider it was pulled from the same group of packs as my Thomas error -which again overlaps with the location of the missing ink on the NNOF. There is too much here to just "brush under the rug." It is as if small parts of whatever caused the NNOF blackless area was "left behind" to create my errors. Weird. >>
I have to agree with Ross and say that it is mostly wishful thinking that these were created by the same plate. Related? Possibly, but I had a long discussion with my offset printer today and he explained that a modern plate wouldn't "deteriorate" in such a way that we would end up with various "stages" of blackless problems. If we were talking about letterpress or perhaps linoleum/woodblocks off which a piece could break, that theory would make sense. In this case, I think it's an exaggeration to associate the two plates.
<< <i>The faulty plate theory simply doesn't support or explain the finding of my additional "new" errors. You can't just brush it under the rug. And your theory about employees trying to fix my error plate, and then somehow ruining the plate 1000 times worse to create the NNOF is far more far-fetched than anything else presented here. None of it jives. >>
You're assuming that there can't be more than one faulty plate, which there absolutely can.
<< <i>You're assuming that there can't be more than one faulty plate, which there absolutely can. >>
That's it in a nut shell. The assumption that these two cards have to be explained in the same manner as the NNOF and its partners is just a bit of a stretch without real evidence to support that idea.
I do think the possibility is strong that two different black plates are connected to one another in some way...as in they share common production origins.
I would like to note that the Thomas card posted above appears to have a small fleck of black missing in an area that the NNOF is actually whole (left border, about cleat). I'm not positive on this though.
I think the most important distinction to draw here is the NNOF and related cards in the swath are missing all of the black pigment in certain areas of the card, not just in the border.
The Thomas and Tapani mentioned here just have border breaks. There are several cards pictured in this thread with similar variations. The Drabek from the blue sheet comes to mind. Someone also mentioned finding some Robin Venturas with border breaks.
Good luck with your box break.
Always looking for 1993-1999 Baseball Finest Refractors and1994 Football Finest Refractors. saucywombat@hotmail.com
There was an auction on Ebay this week (hopefully someone didn't bite on the BIN b/c its not up now) for a fake Thomas NNOF. It was actually a decent fake, the border breaks were in the right places but the "swath" area still had the black pigments like a regular card.
Always looking for 1993-1999 Baseball Finest Refractors and1994 Football Finest Refractors. saucywombat@hotmail.com
slantycouch, I never said that the plate gradually changed during printing to create the different errors - that WOULD be impossible. I said an obstruction or other problem could have been gradually changed.
What I have said all along was that everyone is COMPLETELY locked into the "bad plate theory." Nobody can say its impossible for something to get in the way of the print to block out any area of black ink - BIG or SMALL. But that is exactly what a few are suggesting but saying ABSOULUTELY % it was a bad plate. And that was BEFORE I presented my findings.
Several posts from "printing experience" often used language like "most likely" or "lean towards" the idea of it being a bad plate. And again that was BEFORE my findings. There is nothing definite in any such theory - now or before (as Ross is insisting)
Someone said they felt an obstruction would not stick around very long. Well, maybe it did stick around for 100 sheets or so before beginning to come dislodged. I think the likelihood of this occurence is much greater than the likelihood that the people who made and inspected the supposed bad plate were asleep to totally miss such a large blatant error - as also suggested by another poster.
Now, if you want some mathematical odds of both of my 2 errors just "randomly" ending up in the the same NNOF blackless streak. Being a calculus teacher, I can say that simple geometric probability puts the odds at about 1 in 3000, and that is BEFORE we factor in the similarity of the angle of missing ink on the Tapani.
I do find it odd that the Tapini appears to have the same angle and location as the NNOF neighbor. Someone have a fancy program that makes red lines to line them up?
This wont help but..... Here's a few with odd black missing.
1990 Pacific Senior, partial top black horizontal line (hard to see but when enlarged, some areas do have black) and full black. The 'missing' line, has normal Black on the rest of the card.
Actually, I am glad you posted these billripken. What caused the black to be missing on these cards? According to Ross' "100% solid in stone" theory, only a bad plate could have caused them - there is NO WAY that something could have been on the press to block the missing ink for a while and then fallen off. Is that reasonable to say?
The Reuschel seems to me like a great example of an obstruction. See how the black ink is missing the whole width of the card (you can see it clearly on his belt). All the black on this card would be printed at the same time, and it clearly shows the "break" is not just in the borders, but affects the black on the rest of the card as well. Seems likely the Ollie Brown could be the same.
<< <i>Actually, I am glad you posted these billripken. What caused the black to be missing on these cards? According to Ross' "100% solid in stone" theory, only a bad plate could have caused them - there is NO WAY that something could have been on the press to block the missing ink for a while and then fallen off. Is that reasonable to say? >>
None of this is a personal attack on you. You said yourself that there will likely never be an absolute answer to this, so I don't understand why you seem so offended by the fact that no one here is hopping on the wagon for your theory.
No one here but you has anything to gain, or lose, by your cards being related to the NNOF.
<< <i>slantycouch, I never said that the plate gradually changed during printing to create the different errors - that WOULD be impossible. I said an obstruction or other problem could have been gradually changed. >>
Okay, that said, the problem with the obstruction theory for the "original" blackless cards found earlier in this thread is that they don't seem to be obstructions. See this card:
Obstruction errors that I've seen have pretty 'absolute' borders. By definition, something was in the way of the ink reaching its final destination. But if you look at the black edges on the card above, they are "fuzzy". This better lends itself to a faulty plate based on the comments we've heard from experienced individuals.
<< <i>What I have said all along was that everyone is COMPLETELY locked into the "bad plate theory." Nobody can say its impossible for something to get in the way of the print to block out any area of black ink - BIG or SMALL. But that is exactly what a few are suggesting but saying ABSOULUTELY % it was a bad plate. And that was BEFORE I presented my findings. >>
Right. MANY people here made some assumptions/conclusions BEFORE you ever showed up. I don't think anything you've presented changes those assumptions. Nothing I've seen so far wants me to draw a line between the "original" blackless cards, and yours.
<< <i>Several posts from "printing experience" often used language like "most likely" or "lean towards" the idea of it being a bad plate. And again that was BEFORE my findings. There is nothing definite in any such theory - now or before (as Ross is insisting)
Someone said they felt an obstruction would not stick around very long. Well, maybe it did stick around for 100 sheets or so before beginning to come dislodged. I think the likelihood of this occurence is much greater than the likelihood that the people who made and inspected the supposed bad plate were asleep to totally miss such a large blatant error - as also suggested by another poster. >>
So when we say "most likely" or "lean towards" it's ridiculous, but when you present your "maybe" situation based solely on your ideas, it's okay?
<< <i>Now, if you want some mathematical odds of both of my 2 errors just "randomly" ending up in the the same NNOF blackless streak. Being a calculus teacher, I can say that simple geometric probability puts the odds at about 1 in 3000, and that is BEFORE we factor in the similarity of the angle of missing ink on the Tapani.
People need to keep an open mind. >>
How did you come to that mathematical certainty when you don't know how many cards were produced, how many plates were created, how many presses were utilized, etc?
I don't think anyone is against keeping an open mind. But I think you're getting frustrated because people aren't quickly accepting your theory.
Look, I have presented my findings. You can go ahead and deny the similarities and keep brushing them under the rug. Nobody knows how the errors did or did not happen.
<< <i>Look, I have presented my findings. You can go ahead and deny the similarities and keep brushing them under the rug. Nobody knows how the errors did or did not happen. >>
If you'll read above, I actually posted what I think is a significant difference. You seem to be "brushing it under the rug". I'm not denying the similarities. But I don't think a few similarities instantly make the connection you want there to be.
I agree, no one knows. So don't be offended that the connection between yours and the others isn't instantly made. Hopefully someone will come along now or in the future that can add more information and help us all come to a better hypothesis. That's the whole point of this thread. Your findings are just another possible piece of an incomplete puzzle.
I have been actively seeking and pulling cards with missing portions of ink since 1990. In those years I have amassed a gigantic collection of what the common collector would call "printing flaws". Some are angular, some are straight, but most are blotchy, scribbly or random shapes of affected area.
Now, to use Donovan's scans for example: The 1973 Topps set is full of left-to-right border breaks, ususally in the same spot ( I can think of appx 20 diff players ), this is probably due to a bad plate ( aka BOB's theory ). The fact that 1000's of these exist for the same set of players draws parallels to the 1990 Topps blackless cards in that 100's of these exist for the same set of players. (BTW, can't wait to see them start to show up!!)
To cite my 1990 Topps Drabek (shown earlier in this thread), it appears as if something 'streaked' along while the plate hit, be it debris or un-inked spot on the plate itself. But it was most likely temporary and probably didn't affect many cards with it's exact shape, if it affected more than just that copy at all. It's likely that for a few presses, the next Drabeks had slightly different portions of it's missing black ink, probably within the same vicinity of my example.
Here are a few items that share a 'bad plate' type of continuous printing variety:
These all are missing their top black borders. A very specific list of affected players exist. While not scarce, they probably number in the thousands. Bad plate ran a while, was corrected, end of story.
These two guys are another example where a portion went missing for an extended period of time (Probably longer than the 1981's and certainly way longer than the 1990's).
Another 1973 Topps example.
Included in this next scan is an example of what I believe is your type of printing flaw, again, similar to the 1990 Topps Drabek (sorry for the group scan but check out the top of Mike Scott's card):
Again, this looks like something was dragged through the ink on the plate or along the surface of the sheet. On an interesting note, Juan Berenguer's 1990 Topps card, also shown, can be found with a small gap in the black ink on back. This went uncorrected for most of the run (based on what I have noticed % wise).
A good example that mirrors the type of printing error as your Thomas.
And another.
So, for what my two cents worth:
It's possible that before the NNOF's were caused or after they were fixed that something got in the way of that section of his name, but doubtful that it immediately proceeded it or immediately followed it, which, I think we'd all agree, would be the only way for them to be truly 'related'. There just isn't enough evidence to support it....yet. Which brings me to...
Open the rest. If within a month, you are still sitting on the world's largest batch of 1990 Topps that has some weird print variation of Frank Thomas' RC and no one's jumping over themselves at $8 a pack, then get started on what sounds like weeks of color-exercise for your eyeballs. Within those packs is the only chance to find out how much weight your theory holds. In 600+ packs, you should see between 15-20 Thomas RC's and thousands of other F* sheet players. Cross-check the confirmed "blackless" players with what you pull. If each of those majorly affected guys comes out of your packs with a similar, semi-affected area, then you may be on to something big.
And last, I personally think you found a couple of really cool-looking printing errors that I would've jumped out of my chair when pulling them (especially if it were a Ventura!), and would absolutely consider them a valuable addition to any variation/player collection. Good find!
<< <i>Look, I have presented my findings. You can go ahead and deny the similarities and keep brushing them under the rug. Nobody knows how the errors did or did not happen. >>
I don't really think your attitude here is going to win you many friends, you need to take thing a little less personally. It basically sounds like you are getting upset that no one is agreeing with you and you might not be able to sell your 1990 Topps packs for $8 bucks a pop.
jacksoncoupage- Great post ! Thanks. IIRC most of those ('73's) are yours.
Also of note- That 1990 Pacific Senior missing top black line, I've found 2 out of appx. 30 sets and a few wax boxes. One that I found had about 1/3 the rest of the set with similar missing/partial black border lines. Those cards were unfortunately accidentally given away.
OT: I just bought two sets of the Pacific Seniors, I'll have to dig them back out and check through mine. Both sets came in the same packaging but one was the 'glossy' version. Have you experienced this too?
There is the error run (Nettles), corrected run (Nettles) and the Glossy set.
Glossy set has all the corrections but has a new error. Bobby Bonds NNOF. Glossy was only avail. in sets.
Glossy Nettles only has 1 version and I've never seen the Glossy Bonds corrected.
I've seen either in Gilkeson or Daum E/V guides errors with corrections for Senior. In my findings, the only corrections were in glossy, not the non gloss issue.
PSA recently started recognizing the Glossy (pats self on back) and the only difference in packaging is the Glossy has a foil sticker on the cellophane wrap on the sealed set.
1990 Pacific Senior I have seen these listed as variations. My conclusion is the corrections are only in the Glossy set. Minus the Nettles. 20 A- Zachary B- Bosman 26 A- Holland B- Contreras 48 A-Richards B- Scott 51 Nottle A- Sun Sox B- Super Sox 109 A- Coleman B- Torcia 120 Jerry Grote A- In action B- Catcher 125 A- Grote B- Stanley 126 Jim Nettles A- Vulgarity on bat knob B- Airbrushed bat knob ,missing top horizontal line below stars on front C- Airbrushed bat knob, top horizontal line below stars present on front D- Airbrushed bat knob, partial letters show (Glossy Set Only) 128 Bobby Bonds A-On front lists name and position (Normal Set Only) B- No name or position (Glossy Only) 187 Checklist A- Error B- Shows name corrections above 218 Checklist A- Error B- Shows name corrections above
Hello jacksoncoupage. You have provided several examples of varying blackless areas. Do we know how any of these were caused? Are they all proven plate issues?
It is not just the Thomas card and its blackless location that makes my argument. It is the COMBINATION of the Thomas AND the Tapani, AND additionally and especially the angle and location of the Tapani error that makes the good possibility of a connection. There are many unexplained things going on here. What that connection might be, who knows? People can only speculate one way or another. But to completely deny the unusual similarities is just wrong -which is what a few posters on here have done.
As far as opening ALL of my packs, I can't do it. I might give into the temptation and open a few more packs. As I have stated, though, I would like whatever further Thomas cards that come out of these packs to be documented on ebay. Unopened packs in general hold a much higher value than whatever cards eventually come out -which is again why I would like to keep the packs intact. Unopened packs that have been shown to produce any kind of blackless Frank Thomas variation should hold a good premium. My Thomas error card itself should also hold a good premium given its uniqueness.
I had a tough time determining what price to set my auction at for these packs. Is $8 a perfect price? Don't know. I would say though that a wax pack from a box or case that produced a full NNOF error - if such a siuation ever occured - would probably sell more along the lines of $25 to $30. So, again, is my price set "right"? I am not sure. I have only owned the case for a very short time. I am in no hurry to part with this case.
I am trying to refrain from opening up any more packs - for the reasons mentioned. It is very, very tempting though. I would really like the next Thomas card to be found by a buyer - to document it. If I started opening up more packs, it might take me another 30 to 40 packs or more to hit another Thomas - and then it still would not be documented.
My local dealer, still can't find the one and only Witt he had......
Now you got me mad I don't have it
thanks alot D !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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”
What could possibly cause the missing ink on any card besides the following:
-Something (paper, liquid, etc) on the plate obstructing the black from hitting the card.
-or-
-Something (paper, liquid, etc) on the sheet obstructing the black ink plate from properly printing on the card.
I'm not sure of what's left to debate on this. I provided several examples that are certain to fall into either of those two categories. Again, the cards, like your Thomas, Tapani, my Drabek, Mike Scott etc...all look like something verytemporarily got in the way. Does it matter if it was something on the plate or on the sheet? Not really, but until you find multiple examples of the Thomas, Tapani, et al from your run of packs, there isn't a case for it being related to the NNOF/Blackless.
I'll say it again: Without you continuing to open those packs, or better yet someone very savvy in the 1990 Topps Blackless matter, you won't be able to add any weight to your theory. That doesn't mean it's wrong yet, you could very well open another pack and find a Thomas that has slightly more black ink missing and open another and find an even larger part missing and on and on. This is when your theory starts getting some meat on it's bones. As far as your find goes, I rank it as very exciting and full of potential, but a long way from connecting the two dots, basically you are at step 1 and the NNOF/Blackless Thomas we all know and love, is step 10. Fill in the gaps.
And I understand that you want to keep them sealed, and you are hoping to receive info back from buyers but you are pretty much dealing with your demographic right now in this thread. I seriously doubt that anyone who hasn't been actively following this thread and the incredible work achieved in it, who buys and opens your packs are going to let you know that they discovered a Marcus Lawton with 2mm of black ink missing. Or a John Hart with black missing from the same area, etc etc.
BTW, have you checked the confirmed list in this thread of Blackless players and cross-referenced yours? I strongly believe that the All-Star cards you pull from your packs will be of big help in determining whether there's any weight to your theory.
Also, if you have 600+ packs, and you opened just a few thus far, would it really hurt to try another box worth?
My local dealer, still can't find the one and only Witt he had......
Now you got me mad I don't have it
thanks alot D !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >>
No problem, anytime.
You going all out when another hits ebay?
My dealer is doing the same- Bought a collection, has 10-20 FF versions. He said he dont know which and I can have them free. But everytime I go in, more than normal, to get the cards, he has yet to dig them up. So I grab some packs and hope for the next time. If I didn't know him for 22 years, I'd swear he's stringing me along knowing I have a minor pack busting addiction.
My guy retired and sold his inventory in bulk but whatever was on display the buyer didn't take.
The "Witt" was a display card, but he always told me it was a "promo" card for 1990 UD.
I think he had a $250 or $299 price tag on it....I told him I would pay whatever the sticker says but still no luck....
richtree
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”
Thanks for your input. You ask me to fill in the "blanks" between my Thomas and the full NNOF? I can't do that for the same reasons nobody else can explain the similarities between the 2 Thomas' and especially the 2 Tapani's. Explaining it off as "pure coincidence" doesn't hold much weight either. I have always wondered why no major publication has sought Topps input on the issue - that is where our possible answers lie.
I have already explained my position on the packs. As of now, I will try to avoid the temptation to open them.
Isn't the other thing with the 1990 UD Witt that its really not part of the set. That another card with the same number took its place (Expos Rookie Stars with Larry Walker, Marquis Grissom and Delino DeShields) and is what you are pulling from packs?
Always looking for 1993-1999 Baseball Finest Refractors and1994 Football Finest Refractors. saucywombat@hotmail.com
<< <i>Thanks for your input. You ask me to fill in the "blanks" between my Thomas and the full NNOF? I can't do that for the same reasons nobody else can explain the similarities between the 2 Thomas' and especially the 2 Tapani's. Explaining it off as "pure coincidence" doesn't hold much weight either. >>
I think finding out what other "variations" of cards are in your packs would help fill in those blanks. That's what he was saying. You hold the key on this one. I think with some additional examples certainly would be able to explain the similarities or identify further differences.
<< <i>I have always wondered why no major publication has sought Topps input on the issue - that is where our possible answers lie. >>
Likely because, beyond us geeks in this thread, very few people really care. Other than here, they aren't even identified in any publication.
Save the Thomas, they haven't proven yet to have very high value. You've said you want to maximize your profit. Most of the people here are really more interested in the research and findings than $.
<< <i>I am trying to refrain from opening up any more packs - for the reasons mentioned. It is very, very tempting though. I would really like the next Thomas card to be found by a buyer - to document it. If I started opening up more packs, it might take me another 30 to 40 packs or more to hit another Thomas - and then it still would not be documented. >>
You didn't really answer my question though, did YOU personally pull anymore Thomas's form the packs you opened, blackless or regular?
Sorry, no I did not pull any other Frank Thomas cards from the 24 packs. Just the one I provided a scan of missing the black. I would like the next 1 or 2 to be pulled by an ebay buyer and documented in the feedback.
Not since the Clinton/Bush/Perot debates has America been so torn. When will the great 1990 Blackless Debate end? I wish I could give you an answer; it could go on for years. What I do know is this: This country will never be the same.
When I spoke with Topps about another issue, they told me they keep records for 2 years. (Pictures)
Fleer kept loose records as well. At least in the late 80's to my knowledge.
I assume most if not all Topps employees that were around in 1989 have since moved on. Also Unlikely Topps will have notes on what went wrong with a printer for a day or so 19 years ago.
I've been looking for these women. They have stories I bet. I think that one is searching the pack and got caught.
<< <i>Sorry, no I did not pull any other Frank Thomas cards from the 24 packs. Just the one I provided a scan of missing the black. I would like the next 1 or 2 to be pulled by an ebay buyer and documented in the feedback. >>
What will that help? Only your sales, correct?
Doubt Beckett and the AP will see your fb and go "That's good enough for me, write up a story on that."
<< <i>Why the smark aleck comments? I assume then, if this case was in your possesssion, you would be donating it to charity? >>
Well herein lies all of our answers. Okay, it's a money thing.
I was actually trying to make a case for your theory, but that will obviously only happen if you open the packs now, wouldn't it.
You really think that you are going get people leaving feedback saying "Sweet! Pulled a Thomas missing small bits of black ink A+++"?
That by "resisting the urge to open" you are going to collect nearly $5000? Based on a scan of a Thomas RC missing a barely noticeable amount of ink?
Here's an offer, just to show you how insignificant your discovery is beyond this thread and those following it:
I'll pay your insertion fees if you put up the Thomas you pulled, set the reserve just beyond what you think is fair (or what you're willing to let it go at) and let's see what happens. By auction's end you'll have a very good idea of what the 600+ 1990 Topps packs is worth to the collecting community beyond this faction.
After all, maybe it'll sell for an insane amount and then you can revise your packs auction to say...$20 a pack??
Well, so I deserve all of this hostility due to the fact that I want to sell some of the packs? Unbelievable. I am a collector as well like all of you. Who hasn't sold parts of their collection? I could never part with all of the packs in my case - that is the collector side of me. You should all tell by my username, that I enjoy collecting unopened material. I just feel that I have a more unique thing on my hands in unopened form- and yes, I think everyone would agree products have more value in unopened form. I have had people contacting me on ebay interested in buying my Thomas card. Again, as I have told them, as a collector I would like to hang on to my Thomas. I have already stated that I don't know if $8 a pack is fair for what I have found - why am I being attacked for trying to find out? Unbelievable. I was invited by Ross to come on this forum and share my findings and theory. Now I feel I was invited for the sole purpose of getting attacked, ripped and piled on.
<< <i>Well, so I deserve all of this hostility due to the fact that I want to sell some of the packs? Unbelievable. I am a collector as well like all of you. Who hasn't sold parts of their collection? I could never part with all of the packs in my case - that is the collector side of me. You should all tell by my username, that I enjoy collecting unopened material. I just feel that I have a more unique thing on my hands in unopened form- and yes, I think everyone would agree products have more value in unopened form. I have had people contacting me on ebay interested in buying my Thomas card. Again, as I have told them, as a collector I would like to hang on to my Thomas. I have already stated that I don't know if $8 a pack is fair for what I have found - why am I being attacked for trying to find out? Unbelievable. I was invited by Ross to come on this forum and share my findings and theory. Now I feel I was invited for the sole purpose of getting attacked, ripped and piled on. >>
Take it easy.
A lot of interesting points have been brought up since you posted but it sounds as though your interest in 1990 Topps is merely to help make a profit. If you had taken the time to read through this thread, you'd find that a lot of hard work has been put into the discovery and tracking of the NNOF/Blackless cards. You were quick to link your recent discovery to all of that info after opening what, 24 packs? You've yet to compare your copies of the John Hart, John Morris, Julio Franco AS, Biggio AS, Fisk AS etc cards to what has been confirmed to be a part of the Thomas sheet and is shown numerous times in previous posts. It doesn't seem that you are even very interested in doing that.
I have tried to explain to you that if you want to come in here and build toward proving your theory that your Thomas and the known Thomas are related, then it will take much more research than 24 packs. I'll say it again, you could really be on to something, but there is much more of investigation at hand before your cards have anything to do with the NNOF/Blackless Thomas.
No problem in wanting to make some money, I think I had just hoped there'd be a little more genuine interest in the subject instead of you just trying to sell your packs or add credibility to your auction. As Donovan mentioned before, what's another box or two going to hurt you beyond adding new info to either theory.
I agree with Jackson. No one is trying to pile on you.
You've simply said that you want to link with some certainty the items in question, and implied that you want us to make that jump as well. Most everyone here has put a lot of time and effort into reaching the conclusions we have, and personally I feel like you're not willing to do the same, and are just accepting the theory that best fits your situation.
We've suggested ways to further aid your position, but unfortunately they interfere with your potential to make money. When faced repeatedly with the advice to open a few packs and help prove your theory, you've instead decided to throw your hands up and suggested that 'no one can ever be sure what happened' and that 'you've posted your facts and are not sure how to convince us' of your theory, ignoring the advice we've given. Again, you hold the key here. Opening more packs would certainly provide more input and information for all involved to make a better hypothesis. It might even prove that you ARE right! But it might also deter your ability to profit from all this.
So you see, the frustrating part is that you want all of us to take your side and back your argument, so that you can (admittedly) go to ebay and make money. But you're not willing to make any sacrifices to do so. We've certainly all profited from selling parts of our collection - no one is specifically blaming you for trying to do the same. But sometimes you have to make sacrifices. I can promise you we've all also done that at one time or another.
I'll ask you directly because I haven't seen you respond to this yet. Have you found any of the other "blackless" cards in the packs you've opened, besides the Tapani? If so, will you post scans? If you've answered this and I've missed it, I'm sorry.
Well, so I deserve all of this hostility due to the fact that I want to sell some of the packs? Unbelievable. I am a collector as well like all of you. Who hasn't sold parts of their collection? I could never part with all of the packs in my case - that is the collector side of me. You should all tell by my username, that I enjoy collecting unopened material. I just feel that I have a more unique thing on my hands in unopened form- and yes, I think everyone would agree products have more value in unopened form. I have had people contacting me on ebay interested in buying my Thomas card. Again, as I have told them, as a collector I would like to hang on to my Thomas. I have already stated that I don't know if $8 a pack is fair for what I have found - why am I being attacked for trying to find out? Unbelievable. I was invited by Ross to come on this forum and share my findings and theory. Now I feel I was invited for the sole purpose of getting attacked, ripped and piled on.
I would be siding with you in spirit because I am an entrepenuer, but the fact remains: YOU HAVE OVER 600 PACKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
For the love of god, will your collection be that different if you had 550? Clearly this is financially motivated and nothing else. Anything you are stating under the guise of "being a collector" is shot to hell because the fact remains YOU HAVE OVER 600 PACKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is why you are being attacked in a thread that's sole purpose is to uncover the mystery that is 1990 blackless: You are the only person in the world that claims to have unopened packs with blackless cards, yet the only way they will be uncovered is if someone ponies up $8 a pack. And you're saying it's not financially motivated? There's nothing wrong with trying to make a buck, but don't stand there and defend your theory to the death and expect somebody else to foot the bill to prove it.
If you really wanted to try and prove your theory, you'd open some more packs and see what else is in there. More evidence of blackless printing on F sheet cards would certainly do that. Obviously you don't want to do that for fear of losing money or fear of being proven wrong. You have over 600 loose packs that may or may not prove a theory that you claim. To say that your stance is anything but financially motivated is laughable and insulting. "Unbelievable".
These two new discoveries are very interesting indeed. I've never seen either one of them before.
Back on page 12, I posted a Magrane AS that is missing part of the border just to the right of the "J" in his first name. The upper right border, however, is completely intact. According to the overall pattern, a sizeable portion of the upper right border should be missing.
It seems that there are several pieces to this puzzle that just do not fit. Perhaps we are dealing with more than one puzzle. The plot thickens.....................................................
<< <i>Perhaps we are dealing with more than one puzzle. The plot thickens..................................................... >>
We may certainly still need to continue to hunt for the Magrane, I'm going to pose a few questions to some printing guys and see where it leads.
I can say, I have seen at least 5 variations of missing ink on the Thomas RC that affect the name and name box...including some missing blue. Random errors certainly aren't uncommon, and with the presses running into the millions during that era, the opportunity was certainly there.
Because black ink is often used as a solid color, it seems we tend to notice those errors first while initially overlooking slight deficiencies to multicolor images.
Ok, people, brace for a shocker! All of your peer pressure got to me yesterday. After sleeping on it, I decided to open a few more packs today. On my 2nd pack, I pulled the missing Joe Magrane All-Star piece from the original "NNOF streak". It fits perfectly, with the entire top right corner of black missing. I will need billripken.com's help again though to post the scan. WOW!
Comments
<< <i>Thanks to Donovan for uploading and posting my picks. As I stated earlier, the location AND the angle of the missing black is too similar to the Tapani on the NNOF sheet to not be something significant. There is a closeup of the NNOF Tapani back on page 11 of this thread. If you look back, you will see what I mean. Then, when you consider it was pulled from the same group of packs as my Thomas error -which again overlaps with the location of the missing ink on the NNOF. There is too much here to just "brush under the rug." It is as if small parts of whatever caused the NNOF blackless area was "left behind" to create my errors. Weird. >>
I have to agree with Ross and say that it is mostly wishful thinking that these were created by the same plate. Related? Possibly, but I had a long discussion with my offset printer today and he explained that a modern plate wouldn't "deteriorate" in such a way that we would end up with various "stages" of blackless problems. If we were talking about letterpress or perhaps linoleum/woodblocks off which a piece could break, that theory would make sense. In this case, I think it's an exaggeration to associate the two plates.
Edited for clarification. It was late last night.
<< <i>The faulty plate theory simply doesn't support or explain the finding of my additional "new" errors. You can't just brush it under the rug. And your theory about employees trying to fix my error plate, and then somehow ruining the plate 1000 times worse to create the NNOF is far more far-fetched than anything else presented here. None of it jives. >>
You're assuming that there can't be more than one faulty plate, which there absolutely can.
<< <i>You're assuming that there can't be more than one faulty plate, which there absolutely can. >>
That's it in a nut shell. The assumption that these two cards have to be explained in the same manner as the NNOF and its partners is just a bit of a stretch without real evidence to support that idea.
I do think the possibility is strong that two different black plates are connected to one another in some way...as in they share common production origins.
I would like to note that the Thomas card posted above appears to have a small fleck of black missing in an area that the NNOF is actually whole (left border, about cleat). I'm not positive on this though.
The Thomas and Tapani mentioned here just have border breaks. There are several cards pictured in this thread with similar variations. The Drabek from the blue sheet comes to mind. Someone also mentioned finding some Robin Venturas with border breaks.
Good luck with your box break.
saucywombat@hotmail.com
saucywombat@hotmail.com
What I have said all along was that everyone is COMPLETELY locked into the "bad plate theory." Nobody can say its impossible for something to get in the way of the print to block out any area of black ink - BIG or SMALL. But that is exactly what a few are suggesting but saying ABSOULUTELY % it was a bad plate. And that was BEFORE I presented my findings.
Several posts from "printing experience" often used language like "most likely" or "lean towards" the idea of it being a bad plate. And again that was BEFORE my findings. There is nothing definite in any such theory - now or before (as Ross is insisting)
Someone said they felt an obstruction would not stick around very long. Well, maybe it did stick around for 100 sheets or so before beginning to come dislodged. I think the likelihood of this occurence is much greater than the likelihood that the people who made and inspected the supposed bad plate were asleep to totally miss such a large blatant error - as also suggested by another poster.
Now, if you want some mathematical odds of both of my 2 errors just "randomly" ending up in the the same NNOF blackless streak. Being a calculus teacher, I can say that simple geometric probability puts the odds at about 1 in 3000, and that is BEFORE we factor in the similarity of the angle of missing ink on the Tapani.
People need to keep an open mind.
This wont help but..... Here's a few with odd black missing.
1990 Pacific Senior, partial top black horizontal line (hard to see but when enlarged, some areas do have black) and full black. The 'missing' line, has normal Black on the rest of the card.
Ignore those arrows to the right. Just fisheyes.
The Reuschel seems to me like a great example of an obstruction. See how the black ink is missing the whole width of the card (you can see it clearly on his belt). All the black on this card would be printed at the same time, and it clearly shows the "break" is not just in the borders, but affects the black on the rest of the card as well. Seems likely the Ollie Brown could be the same.
Just guesses.
<< <i>Actually, I am glad you posted these billripken. What caused the black to be missing on these cards? According to Ross' "100% solid in stone" theory, only a bad plate could have caused them - there is NO WAY that something could have been on the press to block the missing ink for a while and then fallen off. Is that reasonable to say? >>
None of this is a personal attack on you. You said yourself that there will likely never be an absolute answer to this, so I don't understand why you seem so offended by the fact that no one here is hopping on the wagon for your theory.
No one here but you has anything to gain, or lose, by your cards being related to the NNOF.
Edited because I thought it was a good idea.
<< <i>slantycouch, I never said that the plate gradually changed during printing to create the different errors - that WOULD be impossible. I said an obstruction or other problem could have been gradually changed. >>
Okay, that said, the problem with the obstruction theory for the "original" blackless cards found earlier in this thread is that they don't seem to be obstructions. See this card:
Obstruction errors that I've seen have pretty 'absolute' borders. By definition, something was in the way of the ink reaching its final destination. But if you look at the black edges on the card above, they are "fuzzy". This better lends itself to a faulty plate based on the comments we've heard from experienced individuals.
<< <i>What I have said all along was that everyone is COMPLETELY locked into the "bad plate theory." Nobody can say its impossible for something to get in the way of the print to block out any area of black ink - BIG or SMALL. But that is exactly what a few are suggesting but saying ABSOULUTELY % it was a bad plate. And that was BEFORE I presented my findings. >>
Right. MANY people here made some assumptions/conclusions BEFORE you ever showed up. I don't think anything you've presented changes those assumptions. Nothing I've seen so far wants me to draw a line between the "original" blackless cards, and yours.
<< <i>Several posts from "printing experience" often used language like "most likely" or "lean towards" the idea of it being a bad plate. And again that was BEFORE my findings. There is nothing definite in any such theory - now or before (as Ross is insisting)
Someone said they felt an obstruction would not stick around very long. Well, maybe it did stick around for 100 sheets or so before beginning to come dislodged. I think the likelihood of this occurence is much greater than the likelihood that the people who made and inspected the supposed bad plate were asleep to totally miss such a large blatant error - as also suggested by another poster. >>
So when we say "most likely" or "lean towards" it's ridiculous, but when you present your "maybe" situation based solely on your ideas, it's okay?
<< <i>Now, if you want some mathematical odds of both of my 2 errors just "randomly" ending up in the the same NNOF blackless streak. Being a calculus teacher, I can say that simple geometric probability puts the odds at about 1 in 3000, and that is BEFORE we factor in the similarity of the angle of missing ink on the Tapani.
People need to keep an open mind. >>
How did you come to that mathematical certainty when you don't know how many cards were produced, how many plates were created, how many presses were utilized, etc?
I don't think anyone is against keeping an open mind. But I think you're getting frustrated because people aren't quickly accepting your theory.
<< <i>Look, I have presented my findings. You can go ahead and deny the similarities and keep brushing them under the rug. Nobody knows how the errors did or did not happen. >>
If you'll read above, I actually posted what I think is a significant difference. You seem to be "brushing it under the rug". I'm not denying the similarities. But I don't think a few similarities instantly make the connection you want there to be.
I agree, no one knows. So don't be offended that the connection between yours and the others isn't instantly made. Hopefully someone will come along now or in the future that can add more information and help us all come to a better hypothesis. That's the whole point of this thread. Your findings are just another possible piece of an incomplete puzzle.
Now, to use Donovan's scans for example: The 1973 Topps set is full of left-to-right border breaks, ususally in the same spot ( I can think of appx 20 diff players ), this is probably due to a bad plate ( aka BOB's theory ). The fact that 1000's of these exist for the same set of players draws parallels to the 1990 Topps blackless cards in that 100's of these exist for the same set of players. (BTW, can't wait to see them start to show up!!)
To cite my 1990 Topps Drabek (shown earlier in this thread), it appears as if something 'streaked' along while the plate hit, be it debris or un-inked spot on the plate itself. But it was most likely temporary and probably didn't affect many cards with it's exact shape, if it affected more than just that copy at all. It's likely that for a few presses, the next Drabeks had slightly different portions of it's missing black ink, probably within the same vicinity of my example.
Here are a few items that share a 'bad plate' type of continuous printing variety:
These all are missing their top black borders. A very specific list of affected players exist. While not scarce, they probably number in the thousands. Bad plate ran a while, was corrected, end of story.
These two guys are another example where a portion went missing for an extended period of time (Probably longer than the 1981's and certainly way longer than the 1990's).
Another 1973 Topps example.
Included in this next scan is an example of what I believe is your type of printing flaw, again, similar to the 1990 Topps Drabek (sorry for the group scan but check out the top of Mike Scott's card):
Again, this looks like something was dragged through the ink on the plate or along the surface of the sheet. On an interesting note, Juan Berenguer's 1990 Topps card, also shown, can be found with a small gap in the black ink on back. This went uncorrected for most of the run (based on what I have noticed % wise).
A good example that mirrors the type of printing error as your Thomas.
And another.
So, for what my two cents worth:
It's possible that before the NNOF's were caused or after they were fixed that something got in the way of that section of his name, but doubtful that it immediately proceeded it or immediately followed it, which, I think we'd all agree, would be the only way for them to be truly 'related'. There just isn't enough evidence to support it....yet. Which brings me to...
Open the rest. If within a month, you are still sitting on the world's largest batch of 1990 Topps that has some weird print variation of Frank Thomas' RC and no one's jumping over themselves at $8 a pack, then get started on what sounds like weeks of color-exercise for your eyeballs. Within those packs is the only chance to find out how much weight your theory holds. In 600+ packs, you should see between 15-20 Thomas RC's and thousands of other F* sheet players. Cross-check the confirmed "blackless" players with what you pull. If each of those majorly affected guys comes out of your packs with a similar, semi-affected area, then you may be on to something big.
And last, I personally think you found a couple of really cool-looking printing errors that I would've jumped out of my chair when pulling them (especially if it were a Ventura!), and would absolutely consider them a valuable addition to any variation/player collection. Good find!
Collecting Robin Ventura and Matt Luke.
<< <i>Look, I have presented my findings. You can go ahead and deny the similarities and keep brushing them under the rug. Nobody knows how the errors did or did not happen. >>
I don't really think your attitude here is going to win you many friends, you need to take thing a little less personally. It basically sounds like you are getting upset that no one is agreeing with you and you might not be able to sell your 1990 Topps packs for $8 bucks a pop.
Also of note- That 1990 Pacific Senior missing top black line, I've found 2 out of appx. 30 sets and a few wax boxes. One that I found had about 1/3 the rest of the set with similar missing/partial black border lines. Those cards were unfortunately accidentally given away.
Collecting Robin Ventura and Matt Luke.
Glossy set has all the corrections but has a new error. Bobby Bonds NNOF. Glossy was only avail. in sets.
Glossy Nettles only has 1 version and I've never seen the Glossy Bonds corrected.
I've seen either in Gilkeson or Daum E/V guides errors with corrections for Senior. In my findings, the only corrections were in glossy, not the non gloss issue.
PSA recently started recognizing the Glossy (pats self on back) and the only difference in packaging is the Glossy has a foil sticker on the cellophane wrap on the sealed set.
Nettles - AHole knob
Corrected knob -(full airbrush) w/line
Corrected knob -(full airbrush) w/o line
Glossy -only avail. corrected (partial letters visable on knob)
1990 Pacific Senior
I have seen these listed as variations. My conclusion is the corrections are only in the Glossy set. Minus the Nettles.
20 A- Zachary B- Bosman
26 A- Holland B- Contreras
48 A-Richards B- Scott
51 Nottle A- Sun Sox B- Super Sox
109 A- Coleman B- Torcia
120 Jerry Grote A- In action B- Catcher
125 A- Grote B- Stanley
126 Jim Nettles A- Vulgarity on bat knob B- Airbrushed bat knob ,missing top horizontal line below stars on front C- Airbrushed bat knob, top horizontal line below stars present on front D- Airbrushed bat knob, partial letters show (Glossy Set Only)
128 Bobby Bonds A-On front lists name and position (Normal Set Only) B- No name or position (Glossy Only)
187 Checklist A- Error B- Shows name corrections above
218 Checklist A- Error B- Shows name corrections above
It is not just the Thomas card and its blackless location that makes my argument. It is the COMBINATION of the Thomas AND the Tapani, AND additionally and especially the angle and location of the Tapani error that makes the good possibility of a connection. There are many unexplained things going on here. What that connection might be, who knows? People can only speculate one way or another. But to completely deny the unusual similarities is just wrong -which is what a few posters on here have done.
As far as opening ALL of my packs, I can't do it. I might give into the temptation and open a few more packs. As I have stated, though, I would like whatever further Thomas cards that come out of these packs to be documented on ebay. Unopened packs in general hold a much higher value than whatever cards eventually come out -which is again why I would like to keep the packs intact. Unopened packs that have been shown to produce any kind of blackless Frank Thomas variation should hold a good premium. My Thomas error card itself should also hold a good premium given its uniqueness.
I had a tough time determining what price to set my auction at for these packs. Is $8 a perfect price? Don't know. I would say though that a wax pack from a box or case that produced a full NNOF error - if such a siuation ever occured - would probably sell more along the lines of $25 to $30. So, again, is my price set "right"? I am not sure. I have only owned the case for a very short time. I am in no hurry to part with this case.
I want that card !!!
My local dealer, still can't find the one and only Witt he had......
Now you got me mad I don't have it
thanks alot D !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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”
-Something (paper, liquid, etc) on the plate obstructing the black from hitting the card.
-or-
-Something (paper, liquid, etc) on the sheet obstructing the black ink plate from properly printing on the card.
I'm not sure of what's left to debate on this. I provided several examples that are certain to fall into either of those two categories. Again, the cards, like your Thomas, Tapani, my Drabek, Mike Scott etc...all look like something very temporarily got in the way. Does it matter if it was something on the plate or on the sheet? Not really, but until you find multiple examples of the Thomas, Tapani, et al from your run of packs, there isn't a case for it being related to the NNOF/Blackless.
I'll say it again: Without you continuing to open those packs, or better yet someone very savvy in the 1990 Topps Blackless matter, you won't be able to add any weight to your theory. That doesn't mean it's wrong yet, you could very well open another pack and find a Thomas that has slightly more black ink missing and open another and find an even larger part missing and on and on. This is when your theory starts getting some meat on it's bones. As far as your find goes, I rank it as very exciting and full of potential, but a long way from connecting the two dots, basically you are at step 1 and the NNOF/Blackless Thomas we all know and love, is step 10. Fill in the gaps.
And I understand that you want to keep them sealed, and you are hoping to receive info back from buyers but you are pretty much dealing with your demographic right now in this thread. I seriously doubt that anyone who hasn't been actively following this thread and the incredible work achieved in it, who buys and opens your packs are going to let you know that they discovered a Marcus Lawton with 2mm of black ink missing. Or a John Hart with black missing from the same area, etc etc.
BTW, have you checked the confirmed list in this thread of Blackless players and cross-referenced yours? I strongly believe that the All-Star cards you pull from your packs will be of big help in determining whether there's any weight to your theory.
Also, if you have 600+ packs, and you opened just a few thus far, would it really hurt to try another box worth?
Collecting Robin Ventura and Matt Luke.
<< <i>why did you have to post the Witt!!!!!!!!
I want that card !!!
My local dealer, still can't find the one and only Witt he had......
Now you got me mad I don't have it
thanks alot D !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >>
No problem, anytime.
You going all out when another hits ebay?
My dealer is doing the same- Bought a collection, has 10-20 FF versions. He said he dont know which and I can have them free. But everytime I go in, more than normal, to get the cards, he has yet to dig them up. So I grab some packs and hope for the next time. If I didn't know him for 22 years, I'd swear he's stringing me along knowing I have a minor pack busting addiction.
The "Witt" was a display card, but he always told me it was a "promo" card for 1990 UD.
I think he had a $250 or $299 price tag on it....I told him I would pay whatever the sticker says but still no luck....
richtree
Topps White Out (silver) letters Alex Gordon
80 Topps Greg Pryor “No Name"
90 ProSet Dexter Manley error
90 Topps Jeff King Yellow back
1958 Topps Pancho Herrera (no“a”)
81 Topps Art Howe (black smear above hat)
91 D A. Hawkins BC-12 “Pitcher”
I have already explained my position on the packs. As of now, I will try to avoid the temptation to open them.
saucywombat@hotmail.com
<< <i>Thanks for your input. You ask me to fill in the "blanks" between my Thomas and the full NNOF? I can't do that for the same reasons nobody else can explain the similarities between the 2 Thomas' and especially the 2 Tapani's. Explaining it off as "pure coincidence" doesn't hold much weight either. >>
I think finding out what other "variations" of cards are in your packs would help fill in those blanks. That's what he was saying. You hold the key on this one. I think with some additional examples certainly would be able to explain the similarities or identify further differences.
<< <i>I have always wondered why no major publication has sought Topps input on the issue - that is where our possible answers lie. >>
Likely because, beyond us geeks in this thread, very few people really care. Other than here, they aren't even identified in any publication.
Save the Thomas, they haven't proven yet to have very high value. You've said you want to maximize your profit. Most of the people here are really more interested in the research and findings than $.
<< <i>I am trying to refrain from opening up any more packs - for the reasons mentioned. It is very, very tempting though. I would really like the next Thomas card to be found by a buyer - to document it. If I started opening up more packs, it might take me another 30 to 40 packs or more to hit another Thomas - and then it still would not be documented. >>
You didn't really answer my question though, did YOU personally pull anymore Thomas's form the packs you opened, blackless or regular?
Fleer kept loose records as well. At least in the late 80's to my knowledge.
I assume most if not all Topps employees that were around in 1989 have since moved on. Also Unlikely Topps will have notes on what went wrong with a printer for a day or so 19 years ago.
I've been looking for these women. They have stories I bet.
I think that one is searching the pack and got caught.
<< <i>Sorry, no I did not pull any other Frank Thomas cards from the 24 packs. Just the one I provided a scan of missing the black. I would like the next 1 or 2 to be pulled by an ebay buyer and documented in the feedback. >>
What will that help? Only your sales, correct?
Doubt Beckett and the AP will see your fb and go "That's good enough for me, write up a story on that."
<< <i>..... As of now, I will try to avoid the temptation to open them. >>
Little peer preasure push
Come on now EVERYBODY does it !!!!!!
<< <i>Why the smark aleck comments? I assume then, if this case was in your possesssion, you would be donating it to charity? >>
Well herein lies all of our answers. Okay, it's a money thing.
I was actually trying to make a case for your theory, but that will obviously only happen if you open the packs now, wouldn't it.
You really think that you are going get people leaving feedback saying "Sweet! Pulled a Thomas missing small bits of black ink A+++"?
That by "resisting the urge to open" you are going to collect nearly $5000? Based on a scan of a Thomas RC missing a barely noticeable amount of ink?
Here's an offer, just to show you how insignificant your discovery is beyond this thread and those following it:
I'll pay your insertion fees if you put up the Thomas you pulled, set the reserve just beyond what you think is fair (or what you're willing to let it go at) and let's see what happens. By auction's end you'll have a very good idea of what the 600+ 1990 Topps packs is worth to the collecting community beyond this faction.
After all, maybe it'll sell for an insane amount and then you can revise your packs auction to say...$20 a pack??
Collecting Robin Ventura and Matt Luke.
<< <i>Well, so I deserve all of this hostility due to the fact that I want to sell some of the packs? Unbelievable. I am a collector as well like all of you. Who hasn't sold parts of their collection? I could never part with all of the packs in my case - that is the collector side of me. You should all tell by my username, that I enjoy collecting unopened material. I just feel that I have a more unique thing on my hands in unopened form- and yes, I think everyone would agree products have more value in unopened form. I have had people contacting me on ebay interested in buying my Thomas card. Again, as I have told them, as a collector I would like to hang on to my Thomas. I have already stated that I don't know if $8 a pack is fair for what I have found - why am I being attacked for trying to find out? Unbelievable. I was invited by Ross to come on this forum and share my findings and theory. Now I feel I was invited for the sole purpose of getting attacked, ripped and piled on. >>
Take it easy.
A lot of interesting points have been brought up since you posted but it sounds as though your interest in 1990 Topps is merely to help make a profit. If you had taken the time to read through this thread, you'd find that a lot of hard work has been put into the discovery and tracking of the NNOF/Blackless cards. You were quick to link your recent discovery to all of that info after opening what, 24 packs? You've yet to compare your copies of the John Hart, John Morris, Julio Franco AS, Biggio AS, Fisk AS etc cards to what has been confirmed to be a part of the Thomas sheet and is shown numerous times in previous posts. It doesn't seem that you are even very interested in doing that.
I have tried to explain to you that if you want to come in here and build toward proving your theory that your Thomas and the known Thomas are related, then it will take much more research than 24 packs. I'll say it again, you could really be on to something, but there is much more of investigation at hand before your cards have anything to do with the NNOF/Blackless Thomas.
No problem in wanting to make some money, I think I had just hoped there'd be a little more genuine interest in the subject instead of you just trying to sell your packs or add credibility to your auction. As Donovan mentioned before, what's another box or two going to hurt you beyond adding new info to either theory.
Collecting Robin Ventura and Matt Luke.
You've simply said that you want to link with some certainty the items in question, and implied that you want us to make that jump as well. Most everyone here has put a lot of time and effort into reaching the conclusions we have, and personally I feel like you're not willing to do the same, and are just accepting the theory that best fits your situation.
We've suggested ways to further aid your position, but unfortunately they interfere with your potential to make money. When faced repeatedly with the advice to open a few packs and help prove your theory, you've instead decided to throw your hands up and suggested that 'no one can ever be sure what happened' and that 'you've posted your facts and are not sure how to convince us' of your theory, ignoring the advice we've given. Again, you hold the key here. Opening more packs would certainly provide more input and information for all involved to make a better hypothesis. It might even prove that you ARE right! But it might also deter your ability to profit from all this.
So you see, the frustrating part is that you want all of us to take your side and back your argument, so that you can (admittedly) go to ebay and make money. But you're not willing to make any sacrifices to do so. We've certainly all profited from selling parts of our collection - no one is specifically blaming you for trying to do the same. But sometimes you have to make sacrifices. I can promise you we've all also done that at one time or another.
I'll ask you directly because I haven't seen you respond to this yet. Have you found any of the other "blackless" cards in the packs you've opened, besides the Tapani? If so, will you post scans? If you've answered this and I've missed it, I'm sorry.
Edited for clarity.
I would be siding with you in spirit because I am an entrepenuer, but the fact remains: YOU HAVE OVER 600 PACKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
For the love of god, will your collection be that different if you had 550? Clearly this is financially motivated and nothing else. Anything you are stating under the guise of "being a collector" is shot to hell because the fact remains YOU HAVE OVER 600 PACKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is why you are being attacked in a thread that's sole purpose is to uncover the mystery that is 1990 blackless: You are the only person in the world that claims to have unopened packs with blackless cards, yet the only way they will be uncovered is if someone ponies up $8 a pack. And you're saying it's not financially motivated? There's nothing wrong with trying to make a buck, but don't stand there and defend your theory to the death and expect somebody else to foot the bill to prove it.
If you really wanted to try and prove your theory, you'd open some more packs and see what else is in there. More evidence of blackless printing on F sheet cards would certainly do that. Obviously you don't want to do that for fear of losing money or fear of being proven wrong. You have over 600 loose packs that may or may not prove a theory that you claim. To say that your stance is anything but financially motivated is laughable and insulting. "Unbelievable".
These two new discoveries are very interesting indeed.
I've never seen either one of them before.
Back on page 12, I posted a Magrane AS that is missing part of the border just to the right of the "J" in his first name.
The upper right border, however, is completely intact.
According to the overall pattern, a sizeable portion of the upper right border should be missing.
It seems that there are several pieces to this puzzle that just do not fit.
Perhaps we are dealing with more than one puzzle.
The plot thickens.....................................................
<< <i>Perhaps we are dealing with more than one puzzle.
The plot thickens..................................................... >>
We may certainly still need to continue to hunt for the Magrane, I'm going to pose a few questions to some printing guys and see where it leads.
I can say, I have seen at least 5 variations of missing ink on the Thomas RC that affect the name and name box...including some missing blue. Random errors certainly aren't uncommon, and with the presses running into the millions during that era, the opportunity was certainly there.
Because black ink is often used as a solid color, it seems we tend to notice those errors first while initially overlooking slight deficiencies to multicolor images.