General Forum

One of the cards in the Topps 100 Years of Wrigley insert set has an error, but I'm not sure if it's classified as a card error per se.  Card WRIG-14 shows when the famous marquee was relatively new, but they've colorized it as red.  The marquee wasn't painted red until long after the photo was taken (the photo says "National League Champions" so the latest it could be is 1945) so is that an error?  The back of the card even mentions how it started out green, was painted blue in the 60's, and then finally painted red, so I'd think Topps would have made an effort to get the picture on the front correct.

I've seen items like that in the databse with the "UER" note and an explanation in the user comments for the card.  It should only get the "ERR" designation for error if there is a corresponding "COR" corrected version, as far as I understand.

-Tom

Tom is 100% correct - if the sign was supposed to be any color other than red, then you have a case for listing it as an UER. (Unless they issue another version, which is unlikely.)

Hello Guys,

This is the way I collect ERROR cards:

?True error cards have a corrected version issued. Most of these error cards are listed somewhere as ERR/COR. Now there some ERRORS that haven't caught the eye of so-called listing sources, I still consider them errors as long I can satisfy that their is more than just 1 and there is a subsequent "correct" version. A perfect example here might be the 1990 Pro Set FB. Issued ERR/COR or not issued but clearly an ERR with I guess you would say obvious an variation.

?Now VARIATION cards are a different case:

?In some cases, collectors refer to variations as errors....tight line in a collectors mind. I classify my variations by the errant line, blurp, blob etc. and only if I can satisfy myself that there are plenty of "with blurp" and "without blurp" produced. There are alot of sources  that "kinda" set their own boundaries on this topic. Ex. in the '85 Topps set, there were DP cards and on the back was a big number "1", [remember '85 had light green backs], well I found a source that identified them as errors because the #1 was completely not there on some cards but clearly there on others. Error or variation. What are reverse negatives? I say ERR.  Look how they treat the "blackless" Topps '82 set....big money on these....ERRORS, VARIATIONS or PRINTING FLAWS [that's another discussion] What are printing flaws? and how do they get categorized.

?What about color variations? You can find obvious ones in most sets, particularly older sets. I had an ebayer many years ago wanted every error and variation possible for a given set....THE SET  turned into a 5000ct box! with all the possible differences.

?In closing, the really borderline errors or variations I collect based on my own individual preferences. Heck, I collect UERs if I think it is unique...Why wouldn't I put a card that clearly says "St. Luis" ... unreal!...in my collection.

?Thanks for listening,  ~BOB~

"When is an Error not an Error?"  When it's intentional.

Personally, I don't consider it an error. It wasn't unintentional, it's the color choice Topps went with. It may have been historically incorrect for the photo they used, but whoever said they were all geniuses at Topps.  I'd probably just add a Trivia comment for this card.

@BOB; it was pretty cool discovering an error, especially one so blatantly obvious as "St. Luis".

BOBSCARDZ wrote: Hello Guys, This is the way I collect ERROR cards: ?True error cards have a corrected version issued. Most of these error cards are listed somewhere as ERR/COR. Now there some ERRORS that haven't caught the eye of so-called listing sources, I still consider them errors as long I can satisfy that their is more than just 1 and there is a subsequent "correct" version. A perfect example here might be the 1990 Pro Set FB. Issued ERR/COR or not issued but clearly an ERR with I guess you would say obvious an variation. ?Now VARIATION cards are a different case: ?In some cases, collectors refer to variations as errors....tight line in a collectors mind. I classify my variations by the errant line, blurp, blob etc. and only if I can satisfy myself that there are plenty of "with blurp" and "without blurp" produced. There are alot of sources  that "kinda" set their own boundaries on this topic. Ex. in the '85 Topps set, there were DP cards and on the back was a big number "1", [remember '85 had light green backs], well I found a source that identified them as errors because the #1 was completely not there on some cards but clearly there on others. Error or variation. What are reverse negatives? I say ERR.  Look how they treat the "blackless" Topps '82 set....big money on these....ERRORS, VARIATIONS or PRINTING FLAWS [that's another discussion] What are printing flaws? and how do they get categorized. ?What about color variations? You can find obvious ones in most sets, particularly older sets. I had an ebayer many years ago wanted every error and variation possible for a given set....THE SET  turned into a 5000ct box! with all the possible differences. ?In closing, the really borderline errors or variations I collect based on my own individual preferences. Heck, I collect UERs if I think it is unique...Why wouldn't I put a card that clearly says "St. Luis" ... unreal!...in my collection. ?Thanks for listening,  ~BOB~

BOBSCARDZ - There are instances of error cards that haven't been corrected.  When Topps put a photo of the deceased Ken Hubbs on the 1966 Dick Ellsworth card they never corrected it.  It's considered a UER.  

I'd have to agree with Dan and Tom that this would probably be considered a UER as well.

If nobody says anything then some kid might grow up thinking the sign was always red.

It just mystifies me though.  It's one thing to get it wrong, but the back of the card even tells what color it should be. 

Kirk, I agree, but since Topps didn't catch or correct the Ellsworth card it has to be UER. As I have said in my post, the UER Ellsworth card is worth having in my collection because it would be unique to me. And I would add the "red sign" card as well although considered UER...Why? ...just because you brought it up and a discussion ensued. lol. ~BOB~

I guess it all comes down to intent.  If they knew the sign was supposed to be green yet colored it red on purpose then it's not truly an error.  I guess it would be called "artistic expression".  I don't know why someone would colorize it wrong on purpose, but I guess it's still a possibility.  If it was truly a blunder and they wanted it to be the proper color for the time period it's representing, then it's a UER.