Yanks2151
Active member
- Nov 9, 2013
- 3,232
- 9
I didn't think of this until I saw the card. I wonder what variations were used in the 2004 Topps Original buy backs:
Welcome to our community
Be apart of something great, join today!
[Featured Thread] 1991 Topps: The $100 Card, Glowing Backs & More
- Thread starter mouschi
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
I didn't think of this until I saw the card. I wonder what variations were used in the 2004 Topps Original buy backs:
Oh uh
RStadlerASU22
Active member
- Jan 2, 2013
- 8,883
- 16
Is that the Glow Back variation of "uh oh" ?
Ryan
I don't even think I have that Dawson card much less have to worry about the variation, but it's going on the list lol
RStadlerASU22
Active member
- Jan 2, 2013
- 8,883
- 16
You didn't get my attempt to be funny ;( But I'm sure your Dawson List has about the most comprehensive list of items that could possibly exist.
Ryan
Hendersonfan
New member
So any correlation between glow backs, non glow with factory set vs wax?
chris19978
Active member
- Aug 30, 2011
- 976
- 25
Not sure but I found a Mattingly Glow back.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Freedom Card Board mobile app
Sent from my SM-N920V using Freedom Card Board mobile app
- Thread starter
- #89
mouschi
Featured Contributor, Bridging the Gap, Senior Mem
- May 18, 2012
- 3,119
- 197
Holy cow over 300 glow back listings!
Hendersonfan
New member
So fake or not, all DS glow?
So far all of mine do, the reals and the fakes. I would have to guess there are fakes out there that don't glow though.
I was at a card show last weekend where a dealer randomly had a 1991 box, which I instabought. I've only opened 8 packs so far, and can't find my black light bulb, might have to get another. My LCS recently dredged up a box as well, so I'll snag that as well. So far I've resisted the temptation to try the gum, but I know that resolve won't last.
MatthewN
Active member
I usually don't pay too much attention to minor printing defects, only counting major printing defects like blank backs/wrong backs, or the more deliberate minor variations like the Donruss **/*/INC/INC. variations, but one thing I noticed is that 10 of my 35 copies of 1991 Topps #300 Kirby Puckett have a black mark on his face. The spot is the same on all of them. They are all no-glow. Guess I need a glow version of it now. If any Puckett collectors want one of these, let me know. They're worth less than the postage stamp to mail it!
Mark Circled
NoMark
Mark Circled
NoMark
- Thread starter
- #94
mouschi
Featured Contributor, Bridging the Gap, Senior Mem
- May 18, 2012
- 3,119
- 197
Someone on the BO forums just mentioned something about how they don't think glowbacks are true variations. While I respect his opinion, I did write a response which I thought would do well here as well ....
I see where you are coming from, and there are people in all areas of the collecting spectrum. Some say that it is only a true variation if it was a change that needed to be made from the printing plate. Others only count variations that are accounted for in Beckett.
On the other end of the spectrum, if a card is shown as miscut on the back, it is a variation. If a mistaken print splotch on a card was made, it is a variation, etc.
To me, my personal measuring stick is this: Did (whatever occurred) happen over a good # of cards? If so, it is for me. The 1988 Topps Canseco card is a good example. A fairly common issue with the card is that there are several out there that have a pink dot in the white upper left border. Rarer than this, is the "green streak" error. I've only found a few of these ... this is where the bottom left corner inside the photo actually shows smudging.
Another is the 1989 Topps Canseco. On the right hand side of his hat, you can see a distinct blue line outlining the right side of his cap. There is a variation out there where that is gone and it is running on the left side of the cap. Maybe the allure to me is that many of these little variations were hidden right under my nose for 25+ years. I think wow - how could I have missed these? I'd love to know the story on them as well.
I found a print mistake on a 2011 Goodwin mini black border Canseco as well. I looked in my collection and noticed a white splotch on the black border. I didn't like it at all, so I ordered another. It had the exact same splotch. I looked online for one and found another. I finally was able to find one that didn't have it, but because I know that there are several (potentially most?) that have the splotch, it is a variation that belongs in my collection. If it only happened once, then it is not for me.
I guess everyone has their own rules as to what to collect, but no matter which area of the spectrum you fall on, there is no denying that a lot of these have value, based upon who and how many are being picked up on eBay. From 1982 topps blackless to the 1990 topps nnof thomas to the 1991 topps glow backs (since I wrote this article, it looks like 50 have been sold on ebay....crazy!)
I see where you are coming from, and there are people in all areas of the collecting spectrum. Some say that it is only a true variation if it was a change that needed to be made from the printing plate. Others only count variations that are accounted for in Beckett.
On the other end of the spectrum, if a card is shown as miscut on the back, it is a variation. If a mistaken print splotch on a card was made, it is a variation, etc.
To me, my personal measuring stick is this: Did (whatever occurred) happen over a good # of cards? If so, it is for me. The 1988 Topps Canseco card is a good example. A fairly common issue with the card is that there are several out there that have a pink dot in the white upper left border. Rarer than this, is the "green streak" error. I've only found a few of these ... this is where the bottom left corner inside the photo actually shows smudging.
Another is the 1989 Topps Canseco. On the right hand side of his hat, you can see a distinct blue line outlining the right side of his cap. There is a variation out there where that is gone and it is running on the left side of the cap. Maybe the allure to me is that many of these little variations were hidden right under my nose for 25+ years. I think wow - how could I have missed these? I'd love to know the story on them as well.
I found a print mistake on a 2011 Goodwin mini black border Canseco as well. I looked in my collection and noticed a white splotch on the black border. I didn't like it at all, so I ordered another. It had the exact same splotch. I looked online for one and found another. I finally was able to find one that didn't have it, but because I know that there are several (potentially most?) that have the splotch, it is a variation that belongs in my collection. If it only happened once, then it is not for me.
I guess everyone has their own rules as to what to collect, but no matter which area of the spectrum you fall on, there is no denying that a lot of these have value, based upon who and how many are being picked up on eBay. From 1982 topps blackless to the 1990 topps nnof thomas to the 1991 topps glow backs (since I wrote this article, it looks like 50 have been sold on ebay....crazy!)
MatthewN
Active member
Mouschi, good thoughts! I concur. I think the same debates/discussions can occur not only with variations, but also with, "What actually constitutes a card?" I recently went through Beckett's Puckett list in an yet another attempt to create a master Puckett Need List for myself, and there's a lot of stuff in there I would argue is not really a baseball card at all. Does a card collection count stickers? Does a collection count coins? Do you only count some coins that are numbered like cards and distributed in packages like cards and that come from a company that is known for producing cards (deliberate run-on sentence)? Magnets shaped like cards that are numbered and distributed like cards in packs, but not magnets from the same company and the same year that don't look like cards? And on, and on, and on... Everybody has their own take on this stuff, and that's part of the fun/intrigue for me.
I have started pulling things like coins off my card checklist and have added them to my checklist at the end under different categories like Buttons, Coins, and Pins and I put my starting lineups under Statues, and I have pulled the post cards off and put them under 8x10s, Magazines, and Post Cards
- Thread starter
- #97
mouschi
Featured Contributor, Bridging the Gap, Senior Mem
- May 18, 2012
- 3,119
- 197
I have always struggled with checklisted statistics. Without taking untold hours to separate checklisted items from non-checklisted items, I simply won't know how far along I am. Some people will say they have 67% of checklisted items or x number out of 3,500, etc. I simply can't do that and my checklist won't allow it. With all the proofs, variations, etc. my collection goes way beyond what the standard checklist does, as I'm sure does yours and many other player collectors on here do.
That is a good idea. I have a number of bigger sized things in my normal checklist, and while I don't actively collect all the plates, cups, starting lineups, I do have some that are not checklisted anywhere.
I also have a Cups, Mugs, Plates category lol
- Thread starter
- #99
mouschi
Featured Contributor, Bridging the Gap, Senior Mem
- May 18, 2012
- 3,119
- 197
As I was typing about the print defects, I was thinking about you and your collection - you are the line marker to me at the other end of the variation / print defect collection spectrum compared to those who don't even look at print defects!
As I was typing about the print defects, I was thinking about you and your collection - you are the line marker to me at the other end of the variation / print defect collection spectrum compared to those who don't even look at print defects!
I was recently made aware of the 1990 Donruss Wedge variation and now I have to go through my 2444 1990 Donruss Andre Dawson cards to check for it and of course I want it in the INC and INC. variations
