Any help with possible 1973 Topps Baseball variation.
pab1969
Posts: 1,303 ✭✭✭✭✭
I was working on some 1973 cards today and came across this card. I noticed the yellow in the ball. I could not find any such known variations on eBay or general search on the internet. I know that in the 1961 Topps baseball set, card #492 is a known "green in ball" variation acknowledged and graded as such by PSA. Does anyone have any info on this or similar 1973 yellow in ball cards. Thank you in advance.
1
Comments
I would be very surprised if this one in the OP here earns similar distinction as "1961 Topps bottom of baseball is green," but I suppose I've seen more improbable examples than this one of print errors being designated as officially recognized variations, so time will tell.
Wonder if there are more of these around. Something to keep an eye out for and check for it going forward. Nice catch.
Thanks. I just checked my other #593 cards and none have this error. Should I contact PSA to see if they would grade this error as they already do for the 1961 #492 card?
Unless there are others that are exactly the same, it's not an error is a mere print defect. Keep searching.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Not even a minute do I buy the whole buh buh buh I'm a man-child japery - Me (2025)
I looked thru 14 that I have and none show what your pic does. Interesting though
Looks more like this kind of error. In fact, this Sutton ink error does occur on a significant percentage of the cards, but it’s obviously a print error and I can’t believe anyone would grade it as a variation.
I understand your point, but I have yet to find another 1973 card with this error. Also, PSA has already designated a similar error as a variation with the 1961 #492 green in baseball.
A while back, PSA would only recognize an error/variation if it was first published in SCD. I went through the process to get that distinction officially documented for the two 1971 OPC Red Letters vs. Yellow Letters cards myself and it took longer than you might expect, though it did work out in the end. That was several years ago though. I'm not really sure how it works at PSA anymore, but I'd still doubt they would label your example as a variant until it has more documentation history than just your requesting it of them in a sub order to start with. Good luck!
Simple print defect
for it to be an error , it needs to be some type of consistent variation. The bandaid, the gaps , etc can all be found in multiples. if something is found once or only a handful of cards it is usually just considered a print error and not a variation
sorry wrong thread.