Posted By | Message |
NJDevils
Posts: 6,344
Joined: Sep 2010
|
Friday, January 1, 2016 3:19 PM | |
I hate opening a can of worms but I just noticed this on one of my PCGC (Philadelphia) 1966 football cards #16 Bobby Boyd. First, this is not an error, but is it a variation? If you look at the back of the card where it says "write his name on line below", you will see a distinct green bulls-eye over the word "name". The one on the data base, which I happened to enter, does not have that. So I have one with and one without the bullseye. Should I waste my time checking my other 1966s for this "variation"? I seem to remember a "bullseye" coming up in another set in the past, not sure which sport though. Thanks
|
|
|
|
Billy Kingsley
Posts: 7,512
Joined: Aug 2011
|
|
|
|
NJDevils
Posts: 6,344
Joined: Sep 2010
|
Friday, January 1, 2016 4:07 PM | |
I would agree, Billy. But I remember a red bullseye being discussed somewhere and was hoping someone would remember that and how it was treated. Nice website!
|
|
|
|
BOBSCARDZ
Posts: 4,973
Joined: Nov 2014
|
Friday, January 1, 2016 4:28 PM | |
1?
Maybe?
1989 Fleer Jeff Treadway - bullseye above hat
-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Lea DeFoote
Posts: 1,535
Joined: Jul 2012
|
Friday, January 1, 2016 8:07 PM | |
To me, the 'bullseye' on the Treadway card looks like a printing register mark. Maybe it was misplaced originally, an oversight that could have been corrected for subsequent print runs.
The mark on the card in the original post looks more like a fisheye to me, it would be caused by contamination on the card or transfer roller surface prior to the ink being applied, or maybe even contamination of the ink itself. There is a similar albeit less pronounced mark in the "G" of 'Guess Who Quiz". Unless more examples surface of this card with the same mark in the same spot, I would tend to believe that it is a random printing error.
-Tom
-------------------------------
Ted Musgrave card collection 98.9% Complete: Cards Known: 1013, Cards Owned: 1002 I prefer the company of people who disagree with me for the right reasons over the company of those who agree with me for the wrong reasons.
|
|
|
|
BOBSCARDZ
Posts: 4,973
Joined: Nov 2014
|
Saturday, January 2, 2016 7:00 PM | |
Well,
Unless things changed, the TREADWAY card has always been treated as a corrected error by Fleer. It may very well be a register mark in the wrong place, but as long as I have collected errors, it has been a highly sought after error.
~BOB~
-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Lea DeFoote
Posts: 1,535
Joined: Jul 2012
|
Saturday, January 2, 2016 8:43 PM | |
I wasn't refuting that, Bob. I was trying to illustrate why one 'bullseye' (on the Treadway card) is a collectible design variation and the other 'bullseye' is a random printing process error and not listable as a variation.
-Tom
BOBSCARDZ wrote:
Well,
Unless things changed, the TREADWAY card has always been treated as a corrected error by Fleer. It may very well be a register mark in the wrong place, but as long as I have collected errors, it has been a highly sought after error.
~BOB~
|
Edited on: Jan 2, 2016 - 10:15PM -------------------------------
Ted Musgrave card collection 98.9% Complete: Cards Known: 1013, Cards Owned: 1002 I prefer the company of people who disagree with me for the right reasons over the company of those who agree with me for the wrong reasons.
|
|
|
|
grim25
Posts: 563
Joined: Jan 2013
|
Saturday, January 2, 2016 9:03 PM | |
I agree with Billy, it looks like a flaw print job more than an error.
grim25
|
|
|
|
BOBSCARDZ
Posts: 4,973
Joined: Nov 2014
|
Sunday, January 3, 2016 10:21 AM | |
Tom,
Sorry about that, I get a bit "touchy" when discusing "Errors & Variations". A lot of collectors don't collect them...I specifically collect them, enjoy collecting them and find it very challenging.
~BOB~
-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
NJDevils
Posts: 6,344
Joined: Sep 2010
|
Sunday, January 3, 2016 10:28 AM | |
Hey Bobcardz. I dont know if you collect blank backs, but I under "mystery" I ask for some help on Rick Mirer. Unfortunately it was already pushed off the front page. If you could scroll down and take a look, I would appreciate it.
|
|
|
|