1992 Bowman Error/Variation

LarkinCollector · December 2, 2014 7:00AM

Well, I finally had a chance to go through my 92 Bowman set to identify all the cards impacted by a couple different variations.

1. All the E sheet cards come with either 'E' or 'E*' sheet code designations on the back of the card, lower-left. Card numbers impacted are:

8,15,16,21,31,34,44,51,65,79,85,91,94,98,102,112,116(Sosa),120,124,130,134,
138,142,148(Maddux),150,154,158,162,166(R Henderson),170,174,178,182,186,190,194,198,202,206,210,214,218,
222(Nolan Ryan),226,230,234,238,242,246,250,254,258,262,266,270,274,278,282,286,290,294,298,302(Rivera),
306,310,314,318,322,326,330,334,338,342,346,350,354,358,360,362,366,370,374,378,382,
386,390,394,398,402,406,410,414,417,418,422,426,430,434,438,442,446,450,454,458,462,
466,470,474,478,482,486,490,494,498,502,506,509,512,515,518,521,524,527,530,533,536,
545,701,702,703,704,705

The most significant card is obviously the Mariano Rivera RC.

My 'needs' list is down to:

E: 130,166,282,350,360,366,382,422

E*: 8,15,16,34,51,65,79,85,124,134,148,154,162,174,182,194,202,222,238,258,262,286,294,306,318,322,330,338,342,346,358,374,398,
406,414,417,426,438,454,458,462,470,478,494,498,506,521,524,533(numbered 553),536,701,702,703

2. The gold foil non-SP cards come in two different croppings. JunkWaxGems has a nice writeup here, but I think I've narrowed down the card numbers to:

557,559,560,563,566,569,572,575,578,579,581,584,587,590,599,603,605,608,611,614,617,620,623,670,673,676,682

Some of these are very slight differences while others are quite obvious. Will Clark, Bonds, Manny, and quite a few other popular players are among those impacted.

I have all of these identified except #614 Scott Cepicky if you need a scan showing the cropping difference of any of the others. I'll include here as I come across them.

3. There are also some bio-data variations also mentioned on the JWG posting:
#579 Matt Williams (partial T in RIGHT after THROWS and full T - only seen on cropping shifted right, have not seen that cropping with a full T),
#581 Howard House (partial T in LEFT after THROWS and full T – only seen on cropping shifted right, have not seen that cropping with a full T), and
#614 Scott Cepicky (LEFLT after BATS and corrected to LEFT). The first two appear to be recurring print defects on one copy of the double print. while the third is clearly an error with a correction.

ETA: additional detail on item #3 and additional cropping identifications in item #2.

DanBessette · December 2, 2014 8:39AM

<< The gold foil non-SP cards come in two different croppings. JunkWaxGems has a nice writeup here, but I think I've narrowed down the card numbers to:

557,559,560,563,566,569,572,575,578,579,581,584,587,590,599,603,605,608,611,614,617,620,623,670,673,676,682

Some of these are very slight differences while others are quite obvious. Will Clark, Bonds, Manny, and quite a few other popular players are among those impacted >>

I love your variation threads and find this stuff fascinating. With that said, I don't believe some of these slight cropping differences are really variations at all. I'm referring to the Will Clark, for example.

In my "Dan's Yaz pickups" thread I show 2 variations of his 68 Topps CL, with very clear text differences on the back. Those are commonly known. Some variation chasers claim there are VERY SLIGHT cropping differences in Yaz's headshot on the front, some showing more of the B on his cap and some showing less of the B. This would make for 4 total variations, as each front variation can feature either back variation, and vice versa. But I don't buy it. I only consider there to be 2 different versions of the card.

LarkinCollector · December 2, 2014 11:01PM

<< I love your variation threads and find this stuff fascinating. With that said, I don't believe some of these slight cropping differences are really variations at all. I'm referring to the Will Clark, for example. >>

For the gold foil sheets, some of the cards were only printed once per sheet (listed as SPs in Beckett/Standard Catalog) and the others were printed twice per sheet (these should be labeled DPs rather than the others being SPs, but that's a debate for another day). The one's printed twice per sheet definitely had different croppings between the two copies. Since they're printed in equal quantities, most become pretty obvious after looking at enough of them. I'll get some scans up in a bit for some extras I have handy, others will have to wait until my next shipment from COMC arrives.

LarkinCollector · December 2, 2014 11:23PM

Here's a few of the obvious ones...

DanBessette · December 3, 2014 1:06AM

OK now those are obvious!

saucywombat · December 3, 2014 4:19AM

Interesting. Usually cropping differences are rather minuscule. Those are great.

LarkinCollector · January 23, 2015 12:52AM

One more of the cropping variations #599, both from the same box of my latest rip and not quite as obvious as some:

sportscardtheory · January 23, 2015 2:11AM

Is there any noticeable print-run difference between the E and E* variations, or is it pretty much even?

LarkinCollector · January 23, 2015 2:20AM

<< Is there any noticeable print-run difference between the E and E* variations, or is it pretty much even? >>

I don't have enough quantity to make an educated guess at this point, perhaps junkwaxgems can comment. The box I'm currently ripping seems to have only the 'E' variation.

Based on a 1 set sample size, 73/132 were E and 49/132 were E*.

Edit: flipped E/E* quantities

sportscardtheory · January 24, 2015 1:32AM

<< 

<< Is there any noticeable print-run difference between the E and E* variations, or is it pretty much even? >>

I don't have enough quantity to make an educated guess at this point, perhaps junkwaxgems can comment. The box I'm currently ripping seems to have only the 'E' variation.

Based on a 1 set sample size, 73/132 were E and 49/132 were E*.

Edit: flipped E/E* quantities >>

I looked on COMC and there were 14 Riveras. Exactly half were E and half were E*, so I would guess that there is no premium on either variation.

LarkinCollector · January 24, 2015 2:00AM

<< 

<< 

<< Is there any noticeable print-run difference between the E and E* variations, or is it pretty much even? >>

I don't have enough quantity to make an educated guess at this point, perhaps junkwaxgems can comment. The box I'm currently ripping seems to have only the 'E' variation.

Based on a 1 set sample size, 73/132 were E and 49/132 were E*.

Edit: flipped E/E* quantities >>

I looked on COMC and there were 14 Riveras. Exactly half were E and half were E*, so I would guess that there is no premium on either variation. >>

It's quite possible, I've checked other cards there and there were 90+% one or the other so it may depend on the specific card.

LarkinCollector · January 25, 2015 11:44PM

<< One more of the cropping variations #599, both from the same box of my latest rip and not quite as obvious as some: >>

And another, Bonds #590:

LarkinCollector · January 26, 2015 5:00AM

<< 

<< One more of the cropping variations #599, both from the same box of my latest rip and not quite as obvious as some: >>

And another, Bonds #590: >>

And a few more, Tucker is very slight....

LarkinCollector · January 26, 2015 10:52PM

I don't think I've seen this error properly documented anywhere. Beckett has:

1992 Bowman #614 Scott Cepicky COR
1992 Bowman #614A Scott Cepicky FOIL UER/Bats left

I'm not sure how you can have an UER with a COR version and both should be listed as FOIL, but regardless, here are the actual variations:

BATS: LEFLT is by far the more scarce variation and first copy I've personally seen to confirm it.

junkwaxgems · January 27, 2015 12:31AM

<< I don't think I've seen this error properly documented anywhere. >>

Though not listed in the big guides (surprise!), this has been well-known since at least 2004-2005. Myself and many other sellers sold a number of these on ebay back then. It is also in heavily-circulated in many collector-created E&V checklists floating around.

EDIT:

See Howard House's card (another issue with the word Left on back).Matt Williams' Foil card (similar issue with the word Right on back).

LarkinCollector · January 27, 2015 12:52AM

<< 

<< I don't think I've seen this error properly documented anywhere. >>

Though not listed in the big guides (surprise!), this has been well-known since at least 2004-2005. Myself and many other sellers sold a number of these on ebay back then. It is also in heavily-circulated in many collector-created E&V checklists floating around.

EDIT:

See Howard House's card (another issue with the word Left on back).Matt Williams' Foil card (similar issue with the word Right on back). >>

I was aware of the House/Williams from your site, though those seem more like recurring print defects, and had been keeping an eye out for what the issue was on the Cepicky from the mention there as well. Do you recall what they were selling for back then?

LarkinCollector · January 27, 2015 6:52AM

<< 

<< I don't think I've seen this error properly documented anywhere. >>

Though not listed in the big guides (surprise!), this has been well-known since at least 2004-2005. Myself and many other sellers sold a number of these on ebay back then. It is also in heavily-circulated in many collector-created E&V checklists floating around.

EDIT:

See Howard House's card (another issue with the word Left on back).Matt Williams' Foil card (similar issue with the word Right on back). >>

Do you know if the House/Williams issues were present on both croppings? I'll go through the rest of my doubles to see what I can find.

lahmejoon · January 27, 2015 7:08AM

That Derek Bell is unbelievable!

junkwaxgems · January 27, 2015 12:32PM

<< 

<< 

<< I don't think I've seen this error properly documented anywhere. >>

Though not listed in the big guides (surprise!), this has been well-known since at least 2004-2005. Myself and many other sellers sold a number of these on ebay back then. It is also in heavily-circulated in many collector-created E&V checklists floating around.

EDIT:

Do you recall what they were selling for back then? >>

Like most new discoveries, the first listed sold the highest, I want to say somewhere between $5-8 a piece? Give or take. Then the next several sold in the $1.99-3.99 range.

Unfortunately, Bowman sets aren't as ravenously collected among e&v collectors and master set collectors. That's why new discoveries in 1991 Topps will always get a lot more attention. Had any of these variations hit a base Topps set, they'd have sold for much more, especially back then when bidders were much more active.

LarkinCollector · January 27, 2015 9:49PM

<< That Derek Bell is unbelievable! >>

That one is definitely the most drastic of the cropping differences, but after that you start heading down the dark path of figuring out how much of Jim Abbott's sock is showing

JWG - Thanks for the info! I guess I'm one of the few chasing all the Bowman master sets.

junkwaxgems · January 28, 2015 2:52AM

<< 

<< That Derek Bell is unbelievable! >>

That one is definitely the most drastic of the cropping differences, but after that you start heading down the dark path of figuring out how much of Jim Abbott's sock is showing

JWG - Thanks for the info! I guess I'm one of the few chasing all the Bowman master sets. >>

I just picked up an 800 ct box of 1992 commons/semis, feel free to PM a list of needs and I'll see what I can send you.

LarkinCollector · January 28, 2015 3:09AM

<< I just picked up an 800 ct box of 1992 commons/semis, feel free to PM a list of needs and I'll see what I can send you. >>

Thanks! PM sent.

LarkinCollector · January 30, 2015 5:58AM

Some of the most difficult cropping differences for me to identify:

Butler - blue stripe in shirt touching gold foil/less forearm showing/light colored tips of leaves missing on the first one

McDowell - toe aligned before/after 'E'

Nagy - maroon stripe points outside the 'Y' and inside

Theoretically, #614 Cepicky should have a cropping difference as well (not listed as a SP in SCD), but I have not been able to identify one in my 10 or so copies including the one with the back error.

I've also updated the initial post with additional info on the House/Williams errors mentioned. For my copies at least, they align perfectly with the cropping difference on the front of the card so I don't believe there is any scarcity beyond that. The Cepicky error is by far the toughest pull from this set.

1992 Bowman Error/Variation

Comments