Did I Discover a 1969 Topps Variation?

vintagechris

I was going through some 1969 Topps baseball cards today and noticed this Jim Hannan card is different from the others I have and all the others I have seen. This one has a blue circle instead of green and his last name has white letters instead of yellow.

I have looked and looked for another one and can't seem to find one that looks like this one. Has anyone ever seen one like this before? Thoughts on this being a legit variation?
Variation?

OAKESY25

that's cool... no idea
will wait to see what more knowledgeable on the topic say

Piggs

Interesting Chris. The pop report doesn't list a variation on that card and I saw a OPC card with the yellow lettering. There are several cards further down in the set that have either yellow or white last names. I have the set but not a expert on any variations on that card. It's all in English and reads T. C. G. Printed in USA on the back right? Don't have a real answer for you. Doug

vintagechris

<< <i>Interesting Chris. The pop report doesn't list a variation on that card and I saw a OPC card with the yellow lettering. There are several cards further down in the set that have either yellow or white last names. I have the set but not a expert on any variations on that card. It's all in English and reads T. C. G. Printed in USA on the back right? Don't have a real answer for you. Doug >>



Hi Doug, Yes it has printed in USA on back. That was kind of my first thought as well. I was wondering if it was possibly an O-Pee-Chee card.

Dboneesq

Chris ... it's not listed in Bob Lemke's "BIBLE" nor is it listed in any of the other sources I looked at.

If it is from the original set, I say you hit the JACKPOT! HOWEVER, I am going to go with a "reprint". Let us know if you find out more. I am going to continue to try to find something on it for you.

Edited to add: ... All the OPC cards I have seen are also green.

vintagechris

<< <i>Chris ... it's not listed in Bob Lemke's "BIBLE" nor is it listed in any of the other sources I looked at.

If it is from the original set, I say you hit the JACKPOT! HOWEVER, I am going to go with a "reprint". Let us know if you find out more. I am going to continue to try to find something on it for you.

Edited to add: ... All the OPC cards I have seen are also green. >>



Thanks Doug. I really don't think it is a reprint. It feels just like all the other 1969 cards as far as the stock. I don't even know how long I have had the card. No telling how many times I have thumbed through them and not noticed. Somehow, I noticed the color difference this time.

vintagechris

BTW Doug, I sent a scan to Bob Lemke as well earlier this evening to see what he says. I'll post his reply if I get one.

Piggs

I'm wondering if if was distrubuted via a different manner other than by a pack or vending back in '69. Did these come in some sort of cereral box? A vending machine? That's the only thing I can think of.

Dboneesq

<< <i>I'm wondering if if was distrubuted via a different manner other than by a pack or vending back in '69. Did these come in some sort of cereral box? A vending machine? That's the only thing I can think of. >>


Doug, they did come in vending machines, as I can remember putting a nickle in the machine, pushing in the lever, and waiting for my 5 cards to come out of the bottom of the machine. I only remember one store having the machine in my town and it was on the other side of town, so I did not buy too many cards this way.

digicat

Can you get post a better scan?

It looks kinda like the yellow ink's missing or faded away on the upper half of the card.

handyman

cool thread. Send it in to be authenticated and see what they say. its worth the money.

JoeBanzai

Since blue combined with yellow makes green, it looks like the yellow has faded. The sky also looks a little greenish as well.

I am thinking this card could have been exposed to sunlight or gotten less than the proper amount of yellow ink from when it was printed.

Here's a link to an auction that has a couple of similar cards. Take a look at the sky and the green.

variation?

Joe

Bosox1976

<< <i>gotten less than the proper amount of yellow ink from when it was printed >>



The yellow in the team name looks fine, and the grass is green. Very interesting card.

fkw

the 1958 Hank Aaron can be found with a blue background too (instead of the normal green), similar, but the yellow is missing on that card.

the unusual thing is the yellow team name is still yellow on this, so I doubt fading...

vintagechris

Hey guys, I'll post a better scan later and also one of the back. I had wondered about the yellow too because I went through the process of yellow and blue makes green and with the name being white instead of yellow I was thinking maybe during the printing process they add yellow at the end and they forgot maybe, but then I kind of discounted that because of the yellow team name.

As far as fading possibility, I had wondered about that as well as it does seem to have a different contrast but looking at it very closely, I am almost positive the circle is blue and was never green and just faded to blue and that the name letters are pure white.

Now one interesting thing I just noticed, the card cut seems to have a slight tilt or wave to it, which can be seen better on the back. Maybe it was hand cut from something? Could it be some kind of proof? Thanks for the feedback guys. I'll post some better scans of front and back later and I'll include a regular Hannan card beside it for comparison.

Nascar360

Very cool find!

miwlvrn

BTW Doug, I sent a scan to Bob Lemke as well earlier this evening to see what he says. I'll post his reply if I get one.

He'll write back but his message will suggest you instead contact his replacement, Tom Bartsch, since he's out of the business now. Check out the thread under the Set Registry forum that is about adding variations to the guide books for more info.

cool thread. Send it in to be authenticated and see what they say. its worth the money.

PSA will tell you they have a strict policy that variations have to be confirmed in publication before they will note the variation on the flip, regardless of whether they agree with you that your find is a variation or not. They will return your card to you ungraded unless you get confirmation from Bartsch first. Read the thread about gong through this process, and then please tell us how your venture goes. Good luck with your exciting find!

vintagechris

Here you go guys, better scans with a regular Hannan next to it.

bishop

Interesting card. I would view it as a print defect , with a missing color, or maybe as someone has said, just light fading. Both of those normally affect the entire card, but not always. In recent times I have tended to narrow my personal view of a "variation" to a card intentionally changed by the producer, rather than an error in production. But I collect both. Here are the aforementioned Aaron and a Mays with a similar issue. I have viewed both as print defects, although the Mays also has a different back which could mean a light issue:

miklia

given the first 's' in senators and general appearance, i would say with 99% certainty that this is sun damage.

vintagechris

After seeing the 1966 Willie Mays card I am pretty sure it is not sun damage. When I put the card under magnification, there is no hint at all of there ever being any yellow in the name, the letters are very white and the color blue in the circle looks like it has always been blue. Under magnification you don't see any hint of green at all in the blue circle and it looks more like a rich blue.

If anything, I lean towards the yellow ink was left off, but then it seems odd that there is yellow ink in the team name. Bishop, do you have any examples of a card where the yellow ink is left off of part of the card but has been added to other parts of the card?

gemint

I second Bishop's assessment of it being a print defect (missing color) rather than a variation. I think in order for it to be considered a variation there would have to be multiple examples of it and some distribution pattern such as WL variations that were found in rack packs or other variations that appeared only in early shipments of the product.

itzagoner

there are '69 Topps print defects out there which at least will give us a reason to wonder.

i purchased a Oliver/Hebner rookie some time ago which looks fine on the front, but the back color is a strange looking bright pink, not the typical salmon. i've yet to see another one like it.

my first impression was fading due to sunlight.

Southsider

There are two things that make me think that it is sun fading:

(1) the lack of yellow all along the same side of the card, as seen in the light yellow appearance of "S" and "E" of SENATORS.
(2) the fading along the edge on the reverse matches up with the fading seen along that side on the front.

But, you never know.

hammered

Looks like it was maybe sitting underneath another card in a store display with only the left side exposed to sun. This would help explain the lighter appearance of the first "S" in Senators and the grass on the left side, which looks faded and blue.

stown

Interested to hear Bob's (and/or his replacement's) insight but it does appear to be a result from sunlight fading.

Nascar360

I disagree. How does sun fading turn the circle from green to blue and the black in the name does not show any signs of fading.

bishop

Hammered and others all offer possible explanations, but it is still a neat card. Print defects sometimes get recognized as variations. The recent 1961 Ron Fairly with errant green ink on the baseball on the back is an example. The 1982 check listed Topps Blackless set are all just print defects where the black ink ran out. Both were distributed in packs. And print defects can be recurring. The 58 Herrer, the 57 Bakep and 52 Campos black star are all recurring print defects. If the defect turns out to be only one time, it may be more likely it was a post production issue...like sun fading or the card was exposed to water damage

Vintage --there is a thread on this form about the 1990 Tops no name Thomas and related cards in that set that are missing black ink on only a portion of the card, and included is a good theory about how that can happen.

I have the 52 Campos card with a black star, a partial black star, and with a portion of the black front border missing...all print defects affecting only a portion of the card.


But, here are some examples of print defects that, if recurring, did not recur often:

mlbfan2

The sun would turn it from green to blue? Color me skeptical! I would think the sun would just turn it from green to a lighter green, no?

Maybe if someone has a worthless 1969 card with a green circle, they could put it out in the sun and see what happens.

stown

<< <i>I disagree. How does sun fading turn the circle from green to blue and the black in the name does not show any signs of fading. >>



My memory of color wheel science might be fading (heh) but I seem to recall ultraviolet light having different effects on combined colors (ie yellow + blue = green) vs black (void of any 'real' color and will absorb rather than reflect). Though I could be totally mistaken.

vintagechris

<< <i>There are two things that make me think that it is sun fading:

(1) the lack of yellow all along the same side of the card, as seen in the light yellow appearance of "S" and "E" of SENATORS.
(2) the fading along the edge on the reverse matches up with the fading seen along that side on the front.

But, you never know. >>



the fading on the back is actually on the opposite side of the "Se" in Senators. I think Bishop is correct. For some reason the yellow ink was left off of part of the card. You can't tell from the scan, but if you look at the card in person under a lighted magnification, you can tell the white letters in his name and the blue circle are original colors and not because of fading. There is actually a thread on Net54 right now about missing ink on T206 cards and some of those cards have a similar look.

In the card on the right, in person you can see shades of yellow in the grass, but on the card on the left, there is no shade of yellow. The 1966 Mays card Bishop posted is a perfect example as it has a similar shade to it and it appears to be missing the yellow ink.

Here is something else to consider against the fading opinion, if "Hannan letters were originally yellow and faded to pure white, wouldn't the "Se" in Senators be more faded? I am almost 100% sure it is just missing the yellow ink. There is no question looking at it under magnification that the Hannan name never was yellow as it is snow white and exhibits a deep color white which you wouldn't see with fading. It would be a dull white.

bishop

I have seen thread with pictures where this" test' was performed, but have not done it myself. I do think sun light can turn green to blue, but it could also be due to a poor distribution of ink in the print process. For most sets you can find pre production cards with some colors missing, but that usually impacts the entire card

miklia

back of card also has sun damage, and yes, it would turn white/blue.

vintagechris

<< <i>back of card also has sun damage, and yes, it would turn white/blue. >>



The back does not necessarily have sun damage. If you sort through some other '69's you will see a very wide range of shades of pink on the back, including different shades on the same card. There was something in the ink or dye that made them seem to fade a different way. I have a Mike Epstein card that has similar fading as the Hannan on the back. Part is a really light pink and the rest of the card is a different shade of pink. That fading pink color on the back of 1969's is actually pretty common.

bishop

Both 68 and 69 backs do vary considerably

mlbfan2

<< <i>back of card also has sun damage, and yes, it would turn white/blue. >>



I'll believe it when I see it.

So, who has a 1969 card that they will sacrifice to the sun?

vintagechris

<< <i>

<< <i>back of card also has sun damage, and yes, it would turn white/blue. >>



I'll believe it when I see it.

So, who has a 1969 card that they will sacrifice to the sun? >>



lol, I actually have another Jim Hannan that has a chunk missing out of the bottom, I just need the sun to come out.

vintagechris

So Bishop, if this is indeed a print defect and is missing the yellow ink as I suspect, does that mean I'm not going to be able to buy a new card with it?

saucywombat

Maybe its a partial yellowless error, ala the 1990 Topps Frank Thomas blank ink errors where the black ink only applied to portions of the card.

If Topps was laying in yellow on blue to make a green circle it would explain why the circle is only blue and why the letters are white. Also the slight yellow diferences in the SE could be explained by that being the edge of a progressive yellow plate defect.

yankeeno7

I dont think there is any way that is sun or any type of light fading. The blue is just too bright. Im going with the yellow color missing.

Taking another look, I would place a good bet that it cant be fading. None of the black lines are faded on the border or around the circle.

miklia

while the NNOF-style partial ink was the first thing i thought of too, the back of the card sealed the deal for me. the left AND right edges both have the sun fade that you would see on the bottom of a piece of paper. the stats obscure the left side a bit, but it's there. re: the black, you can see the fading of the black better on the back too, esp in the 'NN' of his name.

note also that most of the time when there's a CMYK color missing on a card, it's either there or totally gone - not 'half there' like the first 'S' on the front of the card.

kwtoz

<< <i>there are '69 Topps print defects out there which at least will give us a reason to wonder.

i purchased a Oliver/Hebner rookie some time ago which looks fine on the front, but the back color is a strange looking bright pink, not the typical salmon. i've yet to see another one like it.

my first impression was fading due to sunlight. >>



I have about 20 cards with the "hot pink" backs. All came out of packs that I opened in 1969. Most, but not all were 1st series. See a comparison below.

">null

kwtoz

Still trying to do this image.

">"Hot Pink" backs.

kwtoz

Sorry, one last try. Editing was working earlier, now it just gives me an "oops" error screen.

">"Hot Pink" backs

kwtoz

vintagechris

<< <i>I dont think there is any way that is sun or any type of light fading. The blue is just too bright. Im going with the yellow color missing.

Taking another look, I would place a good bet that it cant be fading. None of the black lines are faded on the border or around the circle. >>



You are correct, it isn't fading because as you said, the blue is just too bright. It can especially be seen when you are holding the card in your hand and even better under lighted magnification. The same can be said with the white letters. You can tell they were never yellow. After all the feedback and examining the card under magnification, I am convinced the yellow is missing.

itzagoner

had to bring this thread back again to share another variation for what it's worth, here's a pair of '69 Aparicio cards, normal image on the left but on the right Luis is bleeding profusely.

CNote

I wonder if something was wrong with the film they ripped (prior to making printing plates) when these variations were printed. Of course, I'm assuming ripping was part of the process back then.

yankeeno7

Aparicio was a Venezuelan freedom fighter? Looks like he was in a bloody battle! LOL

itzagoner

nah. i think he got bit by an overaggressive mosquito at Spring Training.