Another unknown weird Topps variation? (1979 Topps)

frankhardy

You may have seen my thread on the 1975 Topps Vida Blue "white team name" variation. There was a consensus that it was a fluke printing malfunction. I found the Vida Blue card last week. Well, just now, my 14 year old son was helping me sort some 1979 Topps, and he found this one. I have to give him credit for being alert enough to find it.

What do you guys make of this one?

In 1979 Topps #202 is a Ron Guidry record breaker, while #292 is Don Reynolds. My son discovered a #202 Don Reynolds. Check this out. What do you make of this?

Largentcollector

Wow that is sweet, wonder how how many of those are around?

frankhardy

<< <i>Wow that is sweet, wonder how how many of those are around? >>



All I know is that it is NOT in any of the price guides or catalogs that I can find.

mcolney1

Is 202 OPC?

yankeeno7

To me, it just looks like a printing defect in just the right place over the 9.

Stingray

<< <i>Is 202 OPC? >>



OPC used a different stock I am pretty sure.

Stone193

<< <i>Is 202 OPC? >>

If ya notice, the misprinted (202) card has "Pntd in USA" as opposed to Canada.

itzagoner

what Barry said.

tsalems1

1979 OPC has a green and white card stock unlike the gray Topps card stock

Stone193

Beside the stock and where printed - the card has Topps rather than OPC written - just to add to the conversation.

That's my understanding - I don't have any 79T OPC tho.

Stone193

I don't think this is an "error" card but rather just a screw up in the flow of the ink in that area making the 9 look like zero.

frankhardy

<< <i>I don't think this is an "error" card but rather just a screw up in the flow of the ink in that area making the 9 look like zero. >>




That is kind of what I thought too. Still, I thought it was weird and I thought it was neat that my 14 year old son caught it.

bishop

You are on a role Shane. It is a little like the middle of the 3 1959 Spahn DOB variations. In that case consensus seems to be that all 3 were intentional changes by Topps. In cases like this I don't think anyone can know for sure if it was an error that was corrected or a one time or recurring print defect. Trying to determine how "common" a back variant may be is complicated by the scarcity of back scans.

If PSA thinks the 61 Fairly with a minor errant green smudge in the baseball on the back is a "variation", why not this ?

grote15

<< <i>To me, it just looks like a printing defect in just the right place over the 9. >>



+1

otwcards

My guess is the center of the "9" was printed on a loose strand of stock and a little shift has caused it to appear as a "0." A gentle rub over the "9" will probably present a change in the "0."

bishop

Like them or not, there currently are a bunch of very expensive print defects in the hobby

grote15

<< <i>Like them or not, there currently are a bunch of very expensive print defects in the hobby >>



Anyone with an good eraser could create a "defect" like this one, though.

At some point, I think reason has to prevail as to what constitutes a true variation from the factory.

These may be cool conversation pieces, but I don't see any value above the norm.

Stone193

<< <i>Like them or not, there currently are a bunch of very expensive print defects in the hobby >>

I get your point Al.

I've always struggled to understand what constitutes a variations vs a print defect.

grote15

<< <i>

<< <i>Is 202 OPC? >>



OPC used a different stock I am pretty sure. >>



Yes, they also used different card #s, too. The 79 OPC set is much smaller than its Topps counterpart.

bishop

One could create a 58 Herrer, a 57 Bakep or a 52 Campos black or partial black star as well. Maybe someone has. Hope mine are good.

And do you know how many 61s have something like the Fairly defect ? It does not matter what you or I or a bunch of us think. All it takes is recognition by some recognized hobby source to send a card value soaring. The 80 yellow names and Pryor no name are other example..just print defects .

I do not sell them, I just collect them with my sets. Some people like to collect them, most don't. Collect what you like.

Neat find Shane

frankhardy

frankhardy

<< <i>

<< <i>Like them or not, there currently are a bunch of very expensive print defects in the hobby >>



Anyone with an good eraser could create a "defect" like this one, though.

At some point, I think reason has to prevail as to what constitutes a true variation from the factory.

These may be cool conversation pieces, but I don't see any value above the norm. >>




Well.........I think it is worth at least.......

grote15

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>Like them or not, there currently are a bunch of very expensive print defects in the hobby >>



Anyone with an good eraser could create a "defect" like this one, though.

At some point, I think reason has to prevail as to what constitutes a true variation from the factory.

These may be cool conversation pieces, but I don't see any value above the norm. >>




Well.........I think it is worth at least.......


>>



Hey, if people can list PSA graded cards with mechanical errors on the flip as rare variation error cards, you may be onto somerthing!

bishop

It is a mystery....or maybe a conspiracy. I think Mike ( Stone) is behind all of it

grote15

Speaking of factory variations and defects, who do I lobby to get the super rare Bill North as a Royal or Terry Forster as an Oriole recognized??

bishop

These are under consideration. We will get back to you soon

BLUEJAYWAY

<< <i>Speaking of factory variations and defects, who do I lobby to get the super rare Bill North as a Royal or Terry Forster as an Oriole recognized??

>>

Maybe the error coin guys over on the coin forum might be interested in seeing these "double struck",off-center gems. Would show them that us card guys have our "minting errors" as well.