Beckett Message Boards
The official BMB Error Variation discussion and reference thread! - Printable Version

+- Beckett Message Boards (http://www.beckett.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Hobby Talk (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Baseball (/forum-2.html)
+--- Thread: The official BMB Error Variation discussion and reference thread! (/thread-179699.html)



The official BMB Error & Variation discussion and reference thread! - The BGS & PSA9 Collector, ThoseBackPages - 02-19-2008 12:07 PM

Dale Murphy Collector Wrote:This thread is GREAT! Nice job guys!



The official BMB Error & Variation discussion and reference thread! - bornagaincollector - 02-19-2008 12:16 PM

I found these 2 from 91 donruss without the period after INC.And the backs are a darker green then the other i have.

Edited:I also found
Sid Bream #644,Andy Van Syke #552 without the period in INC

Jay Buhner #509
Brent Knackert #662

[Image: Picture055.jpg]


The official BMB Error & Variation discussion and reference thread! - onionring9 - 02-19-2008 12:18 PM

KLARNOLD Wrote:onionring9, PM me your name and address for the 1990 Fleer Canadian McGwire

Ah you are the man!!!


The official BMB Error & Variation discussion and reference thread! - luker2324 - 02-19-2008 12:19 PM

Great job. I would love to see it as a sticky.


The official BMB Error & Variation discussion and reference thread! - jacksoncoupage - 02-19-2008 12:24 PM

bornagaincollector Wrote:I found these 91 upper deck.The one on the left has the copyright info,the one on the right doesn't have it.

Edited-Meant to say that they are printed in 2 differant locations.Wonder if thats because series 1 and 2?

All the additions have been added with the exception of 1992 and 1993 Upper Deck Golds, only because they are widely recognized parallels to the base set. This is quickly becoming a pretty comprehensive list!

In regards to the 1991 Upper Deck hologram variations:

Low series have different holograms that hi series and final edition. This is why your Butlers varied.

However, Upper Deck used a specific hologram for it's 1990 cards that has a blurry cluster of baseballs. Flip over any 1990 UD card to notice this. Upper Deck printed some of it's 1991s with this old hologram type. (Affects low #s only AFAIK)

Upper Deck Hockey 1990-91 Hi series had a specific type of hologram as well. In it you can clearly see the "90" ( and sometimes hockey sticks) floating around in the hologram image. For whatever reason, Upper Deck printed some of it's 1991 baseball with this holo type. (Affects low #s only AFAIK)

1991 Upper Deck baseball is commonly found with it's intended 1991 type. In this hologram you can see the year "91" (in small type) repeated.

1991 Upper Deck low and hi cards can be found with the Hologram type used in it's Hi# basketball and Football cards. This hologram has an Upper Deck logo/diamond pattern to it.

This is a variation I have been aware of for years but only started to recognize once I was sorting a large quantity of 1991s. When you see these examples together, they seems a little less trivial and instead tell an interesting story of the running changes to their product which can essentially date a specific version of your player's card. A card using the 1990 hologram would likely be an earlier printing than say the card with the 1991-92 NBA holo. Once you have seen each type, you will be immediately aware of their differences.

Oh and the copyrights are placed on two different locations based on low and hi series. Along back photo for hi and under MLB logos for low.


The official BMB Error & Variation discussion and reference thread! - jacksoncoupage - 02-19-2008 12:47 PM

luker2324 Wrote:Great job. I would love to see it as a sticky.

I would love that. It would make it easier to find for sure. Anyone know how to make it happen?


The official BMB Error & Variation discussion and reference thread! - onionring9 - 02-19-2008 12:56 PM

You should add a note on the '91 Donruss INC/INC. that the backs really are darker for the INC. I posted a picture of it on the last thread with the 6 variations. Its night and day in person when you look at a huge group of the cards. I didn't even have to look at the INC/INC. to figure out which was which!


The official BMB Error & Variation discussion and reference thread! - onionring9 - 02-19-2008 12:57 PM

jacksoncoupage Wrote:
luker2324 Wrote:Great job. I would love to see it as a sticky.

I would love that. It would make it easier to find for sure. Anyone know how to make it happen?

its up to the discretion of an admin. I'm going to link to this in my sig with my FAQ and Player collector lists


The official BMB Error & Variation discussion and reference thread! - onionring9 - 02-19-2008 12:58 PM

On another note, how far should we take this? Do you think we should post individual errors such as the '91 McGwire All Star that says "Recent Major League Performance" instead of "All Star Performance" that exists with all the *denotes/INC varations, etc or just keep it to mass produced generic errors/variations that span a decent amount of a set?


The official BMB Error & Variation discussion and reference thread! - jacksoncoupage - 02-19-2008 01:13 PM

onionring9 Wrote:On another note, how far should we take this? Do you think we should post individual errors such as the '91 McGwire All Star that says "Recent Major League Performance" instead of "All Star Performance" that exists with all the *denotes/INC varations, etc or just keep it to mass produced generic errors/variations that span a decent amount of a set?

I was thinking we should steer clear of widely recognized errors and variations. Obviously if someone posts a "is this an error" or "my ____ card has someone else's card on the back" type of question, this would be the place for them to go to get an answer from one of us. As far as listing individual discoveries (or seeking confirmations on variations) this would be one of it's primary functions. Just last month, I discovered that a 1990 Bowman card listed as a UER actually comes in a corrected version and I wanted to share this but there wasn't any place it would fit. Hopefully this thread will serve that purpose. I guess if this thread gets bombarded with generic wrongback/blankfront/missing foil questions, we'll create some kind of FAQ for this thread.