Home› Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum

My Error Card Barry Sanders

jfkheatjfkheat Posts: 2,750 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum
I see that a few of you are posting some of your error cards so I thought I would post this one. I have never seen another one like it. It's more of a misprint that an error card but I thought it was cool. In the 1999 Leaf Rookies & Stars there was an insert called Statistical Standout (SS) that were serial numbered to 1250. There was also a die-cut version that was serialnumbered to a player stat. The die-cut one was called Super Statistical Standout (SSS). The white print on the front of these is like a hologram. The Barry Sanders card is numbered to 76. I have regular SS one that is die-cut like the SSS one. I know, you are saying to yourself that anyone can cut the card to match the SSS one but this one is also serial numbered to 76 like the SSS one. I have no idea where I got the card from. I started doing the set back in 1999 when they came out and had the card for a while before I noticed the difference. If anyone knows of any others from this set that are like this please let me know.
James

image

image

Comments

  • slantycouchslantycouch Posts: 1,704 ✭✭✭
    Maybe I'm confused, but I think what you have is not a regular one that was die cut, but a die cut one that was misprinted without the holographic foil layer.

    Since they're both numbered to x/76, isn't the lack of the holo foil the difference?

    Again, I could be totally confused.
  • detroitfan2detroitfan2 Posts: 3,366 ✭✭✭✭
    I'm totally confused about the cards too.

    What I'm not confused about is that Emmitt couldn't carry Barry's jockstrap.

    Wouldn't you agree Matt?
  • jfkheatjfkheat Posts: 2,750 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>Maybe I'm confused, but I think what you have is not a regular one that was die cut, but a die cut one that was misprinted without the holographic foil layer.

    Since they're both numbered to x/76, isn't the lack of the holo foil the difference?

    Again, I could be totally confused. >>



    I would agree but the misprinted one is also missing the SUPER at the top of the card. The die-cut ones look like they went torough a conpletely different printing process. They weren't printed with the white letters and then printed over again with the holographic layer.
    James
  • MeteoriteGuyMeteoriteGuy Posts: 7,140 ✭✭


    << <i>Maybe I'm confused, but I think what you have is not a regular one that was die cut, but a die cut one that was misprinted without the holographic foil layer.

    Since they're both numbered to x/76, isn't the lack of the holo foil the difference?

    Again, I could be totally confused. >>




    I think you are correct. Meaning there likely is not another 65/76 that has the holographic printing. I imagine with such a low print run there could not be more then a couple out there....and that there is at least one complete set. They likely did a whole sheet that way.
    Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards.
    Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
  • jfkheatjfkheat Posts: 2,750 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I doubt that there is a complete set. Some of the cards are serial numbered to as low as 5. That is the Terrell Davis. I have one and have seen 3 of the others. Those 3 were fine. I think there are more Barry Sanders cards than any others in the set. There are 25 cards in the set. I have 20.
    James

    Just checked, there are 2 cards numbered higher than the Sanders; Fred Taylor at 77 and Marshall Faulk at 86.
  • slantycouchslantycouch Posts: 1,704 ✭✭✭


    << <i>

    << <i>Maybe I'm confused, but I think what you have is not a regular one that was die cut, but a die cut one that was misprinted without the holographic foil layer.

    Since they're both numbered to x/76, isn't the lack of the holo foil the difference?

    Again, I could be totally confused. >>



    I would agree but the misprinted one is also missing the SUPER at the top of the card. The die-cut ones look like they went torough a conpletely different printing process. They weren't printed with the white letters and then printed over again with the holographic layer.
    James >>



    I know nothing about this card, but that doesn't sound right. Unless the white text was stamped on, it would have been part of the CMYK printing process (or, actually, an area where no ink was printed on card stock). The holo foil would have then been stamped on.

    For efficiency, they very likely printed unstamped (holo) sheets of this card, and then reran them through for die cut and stamping.
Sign In or Register to comment.