1969 Perranowski Question

gemint

I received an email with a question from a fellow board member who's having trouble logging in to these forums. He asked what the difference is between the three Perranowski's listed in the population report. One just has the name, one has "emblem invisible" and one has "emblem visible" after his name. I have my theory but wanted to confirm with some of the '69 Topps experts out there.

Mitochondria

Gemint,

I once bought a 1969 PSA 9 Ron Perranoski with no identifiers. The seller identified the card as a "cap emblem visible through brush" variety, but PSA did not corroborate that. When I finally received the card it was in fact a "cap emblem visible" variation. I sent it in to PSA and appealed the description. They eventually agreed and changed the description and created it in the population report. I don't know if they ever subtracted it from the 1969 PSA 9 Ron Perranoski pop report. Incidentally, the same thing happened with my Clay Dalyrymple variation (Phillies catcher pose). Originally, the card was described as "#151 Clay Dalyrymple". I ended up having to send that card back in as well to be recharacterized as a "Phillies" variation. However, PSA did eliminate the previous population number and replaced it with the "Phillies" variation.

I am only aware of two recognized variations of #77 Ron Perranoski. The first has the cap emblem brushed out and is known as the "emblem invisible" variation according to PSA. The rarer variation has the "LA" insigna visible through the brush. Thus, this variation is known as the "emblem visible" variation by PSA.

A few years ago, Dan Markel made the keen observation that the "emblem invisible" variation of Ron Perranoski seemed to exist in 2 forms. One form appeared to have Ron Perranoski staring straight ahead. The other form demonstrated Ron Perranoski looking up to the sky. Dr. Beckett was consulted in regards to this particular difference. After analyzing the two, Dr. Beckett concluded that the "staring" variation was the result of differences in image focus/clarity and not a true variation. I would encourage others to share their experience with this card.

Ron

waitilltheytrytosell

The three different types in the POP are simply due to different ways PSA labeled the cards. You will find this with many of the variations. A card like this was initially graded with no mention of a variation. Later on, they started identifying the variation. Some cards were also identified differently, so on some cards with only 2 variations you might have 3 or 4 listed.

Perranoski - Any time you print something you will have varying degrees of ink. The Perranoski was purposely printed to be either visible, or to be blocked. This is a legitimate variation. Anything causing it to be "in between" because of a light printing is just a printing anomaly. If you collect printing anomalies, you have an infinite number of cards to choose from.

69topps8

Thanks for the replies and I'm sure the requester will thank you if he can resolve the login problems. I also assumed it was likely due to labeling variations of the same card. But I didn't consider the possibility of varying degrees of print that could appear to make different variations. So it sounds like there are only two versions of this card as we had thought.

Ron - I also had problems getting the variation listed on several Clendenon "Expos' versions. PSA's always good about reholding these properly though. In the future I'm going to try highlighting variations with several asterisks in the variety column on my order forms to see if that helps point out the fact that they need special labels.

waitilltheytrytosell

69topps - Writing on the holder - "Variation, and which one it is", in Sharpie will also help the variation get noticed by somebody too. Even doing what you suggested and this, they will still miss them once in a while. But, even if you list nothing regarding a variation, sometimes they will get it right too. It would be nice perhaps if when they put your card in the system, a red flag would pop up to warn the data entry person that a variation exists for the card, and to make sure that the right one is going in. I think the way they do it now, they just pick the first one that pops up just like all the other non-variation cards they are used to doing. It is very frustrating, and a waste of time and money to have to correct a card when you get it back. They also need to go through and "clean-up" the pops with all the extra wordings they list for the same variation.

gaspipe26

According to the variation book I have there are 3 Perranoski variations. The is the blackout , the visible 6mm and the visible 7mm. I'll post the book name when I get home tonight.

waitilltheytrytosell

The attached scan show the three types mentioned by Gaspipe. My guess as to the cause of the two sizes would be that the card appeared twice on a particular sheet. Somebody said "Hey, black out the logo." So they manually did one, and then manually did the other. The shapes they made blacking them out were a little different. The one in the middle was slightly wider and taller, going closer to the bill. I've never been asked for a blacked out one in a specific size, but it is obvious from the scan that there is a slight difference in shape that wouldn't have been caused simply by lack of ink. Somebody mentioned a while back about having one of the sheets from the first series. Anything on there to help out on this card?

RayBShotz

Amazing! After 33 years of collecting this set, I learned something today after seeing those scans of the two Perranoski Blackouts!
Thanks for teaching the old dog something new today.
Thats why I love this hobby.
RayB69Topps

69topps8

I recall tha Bob has a 1st series uncut sheet.

Bob - If you get some spare time, perhaps you can confirm if the two Perranowski's are airbrushed differently. That is, of course, if you don't have the emblem version sheet.

gaspipe26

I stand corrected on the 3 variations. I got them backwards. The blackout are indeed the 2 variations and the visible is the 1. My 69 sheet does not have the Perranoski on it. It must be on sheet A. My sheet is the B sheet.Each series had 2 sheets.

Mitochondria

Bob and Waittilltheytrytosell,

Beautiful work!!! When you get the chance Bob, can you please send the citation for that book.

Sincerely,

Ron