1990 Topps Baseball Forum

I agree that 624 should be included, but not with the exclusion of 644 based on the information contained in the aforementioned links.

I've read all the links/seen all the images.  There is no mention of the Assenmacher card being included with the issue.  The placement of the Assenmacher card on the uncut sheet would not make sense for it to be impacted by the ink blockage.

It's referenced in the first article link right under the image of Biggio's card.

"According to Brian Gerrans, a collector from Grand Haven, Michigan, who owns all 13 blackless cards, a 14th card — Paul Assenmacher (No. 644) — may qualify as an additional variation."

I think the operative word is "may". We try to avoid "mays" in here. It should be determined if it is a ture Blackless or not.

Ok, so we'll wait until PSA (or a similar company) adds that particular card to their POP report. I'm fine with that.

Why and how could the Assenmacher be affected?

The bottom of the Biggio is fine (Assenmacher is below Biggio), the left side of Morris is okay (Assenemacher is to the left of Morris), and the lower left corner of Thomas is fine, Assenmacher is off to that corner of Thomas). Additionally, there are zero pictures showing that "affected card" in either of your linked articles. Proof before adding.

As nopted in the message immediately preceeding your response, I am fine withdrawing my objection to 644's ommission at this time pending something more definitive (e.g. a company such as PSA adding the card to their registry).

I think Dan knows that, and he was rather asking something I'm wondering too. How is the Assenmacher possibly a blackless variation? If you look at the layout of everything, it seems like there's really no way it could be affected.

I know the one article had a quote from a collector who said "it may be an additional variation", but I don't see how that's even possible. Check this out: https://www.blowoutforums.com/showpost.php?p=16264798&postcount=7

It was linked in that same article and shows a nice layout of the sheet. I don't think anyone at this point is arguing that we shouldn't list it if it's determined to be fully, 100% a true part of this VAR. More of wondering how it possibly could be based on the evidence and information we have. And since you're the one who did the legwork to ask Admin and gather evidence, congratulations, you're now the "TCDB Expert" on 1990 Topps Blackless, so you get the questions.  

REst assured that I understood the questino completyely.  No additional explanation was necessary. And the answer is "I don't have the answer."  Thus the withdrawl of my objection. You are both arguing a point that has already been agreed upon.

Just because I found some information and received approval doesn't make me an "expert" by any means, nor have I claimed to be.

I see a previous post saying Admin approved this and a checklist was submitted. Were they ever added to the site? I am unable to find them. 

Thanks!