1980 Topps BB White Pennant variations

Statman

I asked about this over on the registry board, but I thought I might have more people looking at this over here.

I picked up a 1980 Topps Junior Kennedy card that has a print variation on the top of the position pennant. It is white instead of colored. I saw another like this one Ebay. Are there other cards like this in the 1980 set besides Kennedy (#377) and is thought of as a variation?

Any info appreciated....thanks, Andrew

[URL=http://s143.photobucket.com/user/amcards/media/kennedywhite_zps01a5cc73.jpg.html][/URL]

BLUEJAYWAY

One good thing is PSA did not deduct any points for the lack of some of the color in the pennant. Makes one wonder if this is normal for this card or if they just missed it. Can't help you at all on if it is a variant or not.

ElvisP

A PSA 10 with a print defect. Makes you wonder. Just sayin'

CocoaBeachDodgers

according to other ebayers, it is a variation & also carries a premium. That would explain the PSA 10, but if it is a variation, wouldn't PSA designate that on the holder?

WinPitcher

If I recall, and of course I could be wrong, but I thought that the entire pennant was white
and there were 4 players. Someone like Bishop, David H and Griffens would know for sure.

Gemyanks10

I could also be wrong, but I thought I read where the Minnesota Twins Bob Randall card could also be found with the same defect as the card pictured by the OP. I have never pulled either one of these unfortunately.
It seems that the only variances that PSA distinguishes on their flips right now are the "name in yellow" cards. If the Junior Kennedy and Bob Randall are both found with or without this "partial white" position pennant, then I would be all for PSA distinguishing this on the flip. After all, in my eyes, the "name in yellow" cards are just a glorified print defect as well. I have seen "name in yellow" cards that are distinguished as such on the flip, without even the entire name being in yellow...just half or a quarter of the name was in yellow.
We might have something here and if it's a true variation I would love for it to be added to the Master Set Composition.



Jimmy

bishop

Minor print defects like this one are common in this set and you can usually find quite a few being offered on eBay at any given time. Some are subtle like this one, but some are very prominent. I think most consider them print defects rather than variations. I have accumulated a bunch of them with my set .

Some,like the Pryor and some, but not all, of the yellow name variants have been recognized as variations my SCD and PSA

WinPitcher

Ahhh that's it, it was the name in yellow that had 4 cards, if I also
recall one was a Yankee too. Stanley Maybe?

Hi AL!

PS. Great memory Jimmy!

bishop

I was too slow Steve

Gemyanks10

Let me ask this if I could...why would PSA only acknowledge 4 of the "name in yellow" variations if there are undoubtedly more? Also why not acknowledge the "partial discoloring" of the team pennants if they can and are found with normal coloring? I understand that with this year in particular, quality control was very bad, but you would think it would be in PSA's best interests to distinguish these on the flip in order to drive the registry as well as to keep master set registry competition strong. After all it says under the master set registry "as new varieties are graded, they may be added to the set."
I totally understand that other variations from other years can be considered print defects. The 1990 Topps Frank Thomas NNOF comes to mind.
You would think that if more than one copy of a certain card with a certain variance can be found, and it wasn't a "one-time glitch", that they would consider adding it the master set.
The Greg Pryor missing name card is one I'm suprised isn't on there. I understand it to be extremely rare, but undoubtedly, there has to be more than one. Image if a PSA 10 ever popped of that? I could see that fetching some serious money.


Jimmy

yankeeno7

Im quite shocked that any of these are considered variations. These printing defects are not consistent from card to card, for example, the NNOF Frank Thomas or the 82 Topps Blackless. There are different severities and thats why Im surprised that it is accepted in the hobby as true variations. I have seen tons of cards through the years that have different inconsistent print defects and they are never considered variations, only basic print defects.

grote15

<< <i>Im quite shocked that any of these are considered variations. These printing defects are not consistent from card to card, for example, the NNOF Frank Thomas or the 82 Topps Blackless. There are different severities and thats why Im surprised that it is accepted in the hobby as true variations. I have seen tons of cards through the years that have different inconsistent print defects and they are never considered variations, only basic print defects. >>



This is my feeling, as well~just because the ink was short on some cards should not classify it as a variation, imo. I would think less of a card like that, personally. Also, many of these have "partial yellow" names, so it's not even cut and dried as to what threshold the "variation" label applies

bishop

I have a set of the 82 blackless, and yes you can find tweeners with gray versus black ink. SCD does not list them as variations to the 82 set but rather lists them as a separate subset.

Why some print defects like the 58 Herrer and 57 Bakep, or the Thomas and it numerous counterparts in that set, get hobby recognition as variations and others do not is apparently at the whim of those who maintain the catalogs or registries, or due to persistence by some collectors. The 61 Fairly with an errant green smudge on the back in the baseball is another example

The Stanley yellow name got early recognition in the hobby and went for serious money. Then others started showing up . SCD has included 4 or 5 and the Pryor, but several more have since shown up .

Hobby recognition can give them value, but with the proliferation of recurring print defects someone has to draw the lines somewhere. I just like collecting them anyway

Gemyanks10

<< <i><< Im quite shocked that any of these are considered variations. These printing defects are not consistent from card to card, for example, the NNOF Frank Thomas or the 82 Topps Blackless. There are different severities and thats why Im surprised that it is accepted in the hobby as true variations. I have seen tons of cards through the years that have different inconsistent print defects and they are never considered variations, only basic print defects. >>



This is my feeling, as well~just because the ink was short on some cards should not classify it as a variation, imo. I would think less of a card like that, personally. Also, many of these have "partial yellow" names, so it's not even cut and dried as to what threshold the "variation" label applies >>




Ah ok I understand a little better now. I honestly didn't know so that's why I figured I'd bring it up. I also understand what you mean by "partial yellow". I have seen some with the name completely yellowed out, half yellowed out, and in some cases like a Fred Stanley that I've seen, the name was just extremely faded and was still given the "name in yellow" designation.
I wondered myself for a long time if a 'name in yellow" card could even receive a PSA 10 given that I wasn't sure if the yellowing would detract from the overall grade. That question has since been answered.

I'm sure there's hundreds of cards in this particular set with ink shortage, ink botches etc and it would be almost impossible to record them all. I understand now that for a card to receive credit as a variation, the defect or printing error should be consistent. Thanks guys.

ETA that since the "name in yellow's" aren't at all consistent, then I wonder why they are even considered variations as Yankeeno7 mentioned. This is starting to give me a migraine LOL

bishop

Some in the hobby, myself included, would say a card should only be deemed a true variation if the manufacturer intentionally changed the card in some way. Under that definition, even recurring print defects, of which there are many in each set, would not make the cut.

Although it may seem inconsistent i would also include DP cards where the change may not have been intended specifically, but did occur because of a decision made in the printing process....like the 3 52 DPs of Mantle, Robinson and Thompson

But there is no one standard hobby definition of a variation , so to each their own, and enjoy what you collect