What the heck - 1957 Topps Cal Neeman variation?

judgebuck · May 17, 2015 10:46AM

I was just looking through my 1957 Topps set with what I thought was a near master set except for the Baker error. Then, I noticed something at the top right on #353 Cal Neeman. Why isn't that considered a variation that is necessary for the master set?

TNP777 · May 17, 2015 10:54AM

<< <i>I was just looking through my 1957 Topps set with what I thought was a near master set except for the Baker error. Then, I noticed something at the top right on #353 Cal Neeman. Why isn't that considered a variation that is necessary for the master set? >>

I need brains bigger. Can you elaborate on what this variation might be?

bishop · May 17, 2015 11:25AM

Just a recurring print defect. But then so is the Bakep

judgebuck · May 19, 2015 10:13AM

In the upper right hand corner of a few of these cards, there is what appears to be a small "design" or whatever. I've provided a link for an example. My question is: Because this variation of the card exists, why is it not deemed to be a variation for purposes of the master set?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1957-Topps-353-Cal-Neeman-NO-CREASES-VG-EX-/350542463533?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item519df5822d&nma=true&si=E4j51cOe%2FcObEH6bZTZ5Jm0Tsy0%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

What the heck - 1957 Topps Cal Neeman variation?

Comments