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

+- Beckett Message Boards (https://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! - poptest - 02-20-2008 08:53 PM

jacksoncoupage Wrote:
poptest Wrote:Hello, this is a great and informative thread. Anyone ever seen this error/variation before? This is from the 1997 Donruss Signature Baseball Platinum Press Proof Set. Heres the normal version:


[Image: 1998df.jpg]
Front


[Image: 1998db.jpg]
Back


Now for the error/variation:


[Image: 98alouvarfr.jpg]
Front


[Image: 98alouvar.jpg]
Back

The error being that the Alou doesn't have the Press Proof markings/stamping on the front. Looks just like a normal base till you look on the back and see the 1 of 150 print. I remember there being an article in Beckett mentioning this error/variation but I dont recall which edition. Hopefully someone here can shed some light on this.

So at first I thought this was just a "missed step in the foil process" type of thing but it looks as though the front did receive it's foil treatment-but it got the base card foil logo. Very interesting.

This is the first of this variation I have seen. I'd like to hear of any other examples of it. This would definitely affect many of the board members' PCs.

No its definately a legit variation and not a "missed step in the foil process". Like I mentioned there was a small article in Beckett about it. Maybe if a fellow member has some Beckett magazines from 1997 to maybe early 1998 they can look it up to confirm this.

As far as tracking these down I'm sure there are out there mixed in with other commons due to the lack of markings/knowledge of their existence.


The official BMB Error & Variation discussion and reference thread! - darthtampon - 02-20-2008 09:14 PM

011873 Wrote:Can anyone confirm that all 1999 Nolan Ryan Topps cards (base issue) have a flipped back?

i have 16 of these and all of the backs are the same


The official BMB Error & Variation discussion and reference thread! - jacksoncoupage - 02-20-2008 10:13 PM

TNP777 Wrote:jackson - do you have a scan of any of the '90 Bowman airbrushed cards you're talking about? You mentioned that the Giants were one of the teams that had more examples, and I'd like to get a look at what I should be looking for. I've got a decent stack of dupe Butlers and I don't see anything different about them.

I sure do. I checked my Butlers and he doesn't seem to be affected by the change. Matt Williams does though.

[Image: cuyler-90-b.jpg]

I will scan more later on. I have over 50 different variations like this one.


The official BMB Error & Variation discussion and reference thread! - KillerBeeFan - 02-20-2008 10:17 PM

Awesome thread ! Biggio is right in the middle of this and now I have an excuse to search through all those doubles I have.

Thanks for starting this thread; let's keep it going.

Phil

P.S.

I have a printing ink variation of Bidge -1999 Upper Deck (see below)

[Image: rawscan7.jpg]


The official BMB Error & Variation discussion and reference thread! - KillerBeeFan - 02-20-2008 10:48 PM

jacksoncoupage Wrote:
TNP777 Wrote:jackson - do you have a scan of any of the '90 Bowman airbrushed cards you're talking about? You mentioned that the Giants were one of the teams that had more examples, and I'd like to get a look at what I should be looking for. I've got a decent stack of dupe Butlers and I don't see anything different about them.

I sure do. I checked my Butlers and he doesn't seem to be affected by the change. Matt Williams does though.


Any thoughts on Biggio with this variation. I have a dozen or so cards in front of me and I do see some big differences in color intensity but I'm not sure this is anything more than print quality variation.

Thanks again for the thread.

Phil


The official BMB Error & Variation discussion and reference thread! - radarblip - 02-21-2008 04:36 AM

This effort has some potential but there needs to be some definitions added.


The official BMB Error & Variation discussion and reference thread! - radarblip - 02-21-2008 06:44 AM

The ERROR situation within Baseball cards, or any printed cards for that matter, has never really been addressed seriously. This causes some problems with people knowing what exactly is an Error and its circumstances for being.

Lets take the INC/INC. situation. To my way of thinking, these are separate plates and were used for separate/additional print runs for whatever reason. If an entire run is of either variation, then it would be a "Minor error" and if printed in large quantities. then it would be a "Common error". Lol, I'm not really sure which is the proper way to address the initials anyway, so, which is the error? If both are accepted forms of the abbreviation, then neither is an error.

Taking this a little farther, if both print runs were the same (say 10k just for giggles), then there would be no premium for either card. However, if the difference was something like 1Million compared to 10k, now there exists a disparity of significance causing a premium card.

For years the Hobby has seen errors this way, If it hasn't been corrected, then it isn't an error. Kind of silly when you think about it. Of course a card with the wrong picture on it is an error even when all the cards printed are/were the same. But that does not mean there will be a premium set for this card. If we use dollar value to determine the existence of an error, then that is a little short sighted.

Lets look at the most common misuse of the ERROR application, that being "Printer's Waste". These are offered as: missing back/front, color omissions. Unless they are marked in some way "test", "proof" ect., then they are simple printer's waste and were meant to be destroyed or at least not issued. A lot of this material is supplied by dumpster divers or employees just back-dooring the waste. If this material ends up in the final issued product, them it has to be looked at differently. In recent times this is being done purposely by companies to spur sales but does that make them any less of an error?

My first thought is that to be a legitimate error it has to be issued to the general collection public in the form of packs/boxes.

Post on!


The official BMB Error & Variation discussion and reference thread! - poptest - 02-21-2008 10:33 AM

poptest Wrote:Hello, this is a great and informative thread. Anyone ever seen this error/variation before? This is from the 1997 Donruss Signature Baseball Platinum Press Proof Set. Heres the normal version:


[Image: 1998df.jpg]
Front


[Image: 1998db.jpg]
Back


Now for the error/variation:


[Image: 98alouvarfr.jpg]
Front


[Image: 98alouvar.jpg]
Back

The error being that the Alou doesn't have the Press Proof markings/stamping on the front. Looks just like a normal base till you look on the back and see the 1 of 150 print. I remember there being an article in Beckett mentioning this error/variation but I dont recall which edition. Hopefully someone here can shed some light on this.

I looked through a couple of my old becketts last night hoping to find the one mentioning this error/variation but had no luck. I did find an old discussion mentioning this particular error/variation on Google Groups. Heres the link to the thread. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.collecting.cards.discuss/browse_thread/thread/53814330b867bc/603f1bdc6172d033?hl=en&lnk=st&q=donruss+signature+proof+error#603f1bdc6172d033


The official BMB Error & Variation discussion and reference thread! - Thrill 22 - 02-21-2008 11:18 AM

Radarblip,

Despite this thread's title, I believe it is primarily focused on variations, and not errors. I agree, the "INC." and "INC" variations were intentional, and probably done to denote different printing presses or press runs. We're not saying that one version was done in error and the other was done to correct that error. We're not even saying one is more valuable or rare than the other. Instead, we are player collectors with a goal of obtaining every unique card for our players. Sure, the INC. vs. INC and * vs. ** cards are very different than the famous Craig Nettles or Bob Apodaca error cards, but that doesn't mean they're any less collectible. Well, to us, anyway.

In a way, these are similar to the parallel cards that are so common today. They are nearly identical cards produced in two (or more) parallel versions.

I personally would like to see this thread stay away from listing individual errors and corrected versions. Those cards deserve their own thread, and combining the two will simply confuse and clutter the issue for both. Several posts in this thread already discuss individual errors and corrections, but I'd hope that we can keep this to *variations* and not errors.

Perhaps the original poster can change the thread title and remove the reference to errors.

Just my opinion...

Drew


The official BMB Error & Variation discussion and reference thread! - pacebentley - 02-21-2008 11:49 AM

Not sure if its already been brought up, but one the beckett recognizes is the 1997 Donruss Limited - Limited Exposure variations. Beckett calls them Limited Exposure "Non-Glossy" for some strange reason. The Limited Exposures were basically refractor-like parallels that had an "R" under the card number to differentiate them from the regular card. However there were many produced with the "R" under the number, but that didn't have the refractor-like finish. They were basically the regular card with an "R" added. I'm sure I have some around, but not handy enough to provide scans.