Is this a legitimate Fred Stanley Yellow Name?

NickM · October 9, 2009 2:09PM

1980 Fred Stanley Yellow Name PSA 9

Nick

richtree · October 9, 2009 2:14PM

looks legit .....

just not a full yellow....

psa doesn't distinguish all the 1980 topps yellow names.....there are 5 possible 6 .....because they are in the big book....

also, I have never seen the greg pryor no name on front ., or know anyone that has seen it .....

The Stanley comes in 4 versions --

1 - red
2 - yellow
3 - partial yellow (like one pictured)
4 - yellow outlined

thats all I got for now., lol l!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

fkw · October 9, 2009 3:11PM

Why would PSA do something dumb and stick that on the flip?
And now that I looked it up...why would it be named as a variation in the guides??

Its a print error and for a modern Topps card should be worth less than the normal card..... Its obviously not a MAN-MADE variation like the 1958 and 1969 name color variations.

Some variations listed in the guides are completely crazy.

hammered · October 9, 2009 3:39PM

I agree with the above statement. I am by no means an expert on E/V's, but that should be considered a print flaw IMO
Also seems to me there should be a difference between a variation (something intentionally changed at the plant ie a spelling change) and what is simply a consistent print problem with a particular card.
Good example is the '77 Munson. About half have what looks like a pube on the bottom border. Just a print flaw that hit about half of them. But there's no pube variation.
The different variations listed by richtree on the Stanley card probably should be viewed as different degrees of a printing error, and as FKW said, should drop the grade of the card.

NickM · October 10, 2009 9:10AM

Completely yellow could be a manmade variation (somebody sees the first print run, decides yellow looks bad, and changes it to red). Part yellow and part red is a print flaw IMO.

Nick

mmsportscards · October 10, 2009 9:23AM

Imo no its not the real deal if so I have 4 or 5 maybe more...Ive never seen a yellow outlined....Rich if you could post a scan.....

I agree hammered with the munson, its a flaw if you want to get into variations 1981 topps I could give a million that are more obscure than the half yellow of the stan....Even with the 73 topps they state alot of the managers are var but think it even more of a flaw...

jacksoncoupage · October 10, 2009 9:52AM

<< <i>looks legit .....

just not a full yellow....

psa doesn't distinguish all the 1980 topps yellow names.....there are 5 possible 6 .....because they are in the big book....

also, I have never seen the greg pryor no name on front ., or know anyone that has seen it .....

The Stanley comes in 4 versions --

1 - red
2 - yellow
3 - partial yellow (like one pictured)
4 - yellow outlined

thats all I got for now., lol l!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >>

I saw a no name Pryor sell on ebay a year or so ago. I think went for just under $200. It definitely exists.

As for the topic, this should've been noted as "partial yellow name" rather than what it got. It's still an extremely rare card, regardless if it should be cataloged as a "print flaw" or a "error".

I don't understand when people say that outrageous print flaws such as this should be worth less - their worth should be based on their rarity and collector interest. The whole "print flaws reduce the value of a card" mentality is very outdated, especially when the "flaw" is on a famous card, rookie card, or in the case of this, a variety of a known variation. If most of us (because of the guides) accept the 1990 Topps Frank Thomas as an "error" rather than a printing flaw, why should this card be any different?

mmsportscards · October 10, 2009 10:01AM

<< <i>Text don't understand when people say that outrageous print flaws such as this should be worth less - their worth should be based on their rarity and collector interest. The whole "print flaws reduce the value of a card" mentality is very outdated, especially when the "flaw" is on a famous card, rookie card, or in the case of this, a variety of a known variation. If most of us (because of the guides) accept the 1990 Topps Frank Thomas as an "error" rather than a printing flaw, why should this card be any different? >>

Agree we just need a better judge lol pretty sure if I started conversing with becket you'd see some 81 var top border line missing and doug rau somethiing up with that card off the topp of my head name or team in yellow but all the other dodgers are in white??? Hows that happen???

NickM · October 10, 2009 10:14AM

mm - the coach backgrounds on some of the '73 manager/coaches cards are very definitely an intentional change. Those happen to be about as easy to find in either version in my experience, so no significant premium attaches.

To me, giving a serious premium to a print flaw on vintage cards is problematic. By that standard, a modern card where some gold foil was never applied that should have been would also command a premium.

Nick

mmsportscards · October 10, 2009 10:21AM

Nick probably agree with the 73's but to me its more of a not enough ink for the cartridge...I sold a 73 simmons raw for dunno couple bux 2.00 or somethin guy sent me a check with a 10 dollar tip sayin it was a variation he'd been lookin for years somethin about the left border.........If you could enlightin me on that dunno dont think its listed in the book....

Bkritz · October 10, 2009 10:50AM

Huh! PSA would not grade my partial yellow Stanleys as YL Variations. I guess 4 sharp rates higher than I do!

I have a few partial yellow Stanleys and Wathans here, if anyone is interested!

B

hammered · October 10, 2009 11:40AM

<< <i>I don't understand when people say that outrageous print flaws such as this should be worth less - their worth should be based on their rarity and collector interest. The whole "print flaws reduce the value of a card" mentality is very outdated, especially when the "flaw" is on a famous card, rookie card, or in the case of this, a variety of a known variation. If most of us (because of the guides) accept the 1990 Topps Frank Thomas as an "error" rather than a printing flaw, why should this card be any different? >>

You make a good point on the Thomas, as it was not an intentional change. But on that card, the print flaw (which it is) presents such a unique error it draws additional interest like a rare, intentional variation would. The big problem (as MM eluded to) is that some years like '81 have so many print flaws why should any even be listed as variations?
Not only that, but print flaws do drop the grade as stated in the grading guidelines of all three TPG's. Whether it's a fisheye, roller marks, or incomplete inking of the player's name.

NickM · October 10, 2009 12:04PM

mm - I have no idea about the Simmons.

Nick

RookieWax · November 4, 2009 10:16AM

I have a 1977 Topps Steve Carlton with the letters ST in STEVE in blue rather than green like the rest of the letters. Do you know if this is a common thing, or if such variations with 1977 Topps are acknowledged??

jacksoncoupage · November 4, 2009 12:53PM

<< <i>I have a 1977 Topps Steve Carlton with the letters ST in STEVE in blue rather than green like the rest of the letters. Do you know if this is a common thing, or if such variations with 1977 Topps are acknowledged?? >>

Your card missed the yellow step in that section. 1977 Topps is prone to various inking flaws - some of which look very cool. There was a George Brett that just ended with a similar problem (missing magenta I think) from the '77 set.

Nathaniel1960 · November 5, 2009 5:03AM

PSA should then recognize the 56 Williams color print variations.

bishop · November 5, 2009 6:14AM

I agree the 1980 Yellows are print defects. I have 5 of them...Stanley, Wathan, Braun,, Poquette and McEnaney ( the last not listed in SCD as far as I remember). I also have one of the Pryor no names. Another print defect. They are worth what collectors, mostly variation/error collectors ,are willing to pay. I remember Oberlmann paid around $ 2000 for a Stanley on ebay several years back when it first came out in the catalogs . Although they are print defects and not true variations, so are some of the most expensive Topps "variations" out there: for example the 52 Campos ( two on ebay now), the 57 Bakep and the 58 Herrer. I admit I am one of the fools who paid a premium for these print defects too. If they show up in the catalogs or the registry, those of us aspiring for master sets are stuck with them.

Is this a legitimate Fred Stanley Yellow Name?

Comments