NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you give an opinion of a person or company your full name needs to be in your post. Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
Shop Ebay Promotions
Vintage Memorabilia
Pre WWII-(Pre 1942) Baseball
Post WWII (1942-1980) Baseball
Modern (1980-present) Baseball

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Postwar Sportscard Forums > Modern Baseball Cards Forum (1980-Present)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 01-08-2019, 12:53 AM
jacksoncoupage jacksoncoupage is offline
Dylan
member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos01 View Post
Hi guys! My name is Kevin, and I am the owner of the clear sign PSA 9 Johnson Marlboro.

I purchased this card on eBay about 10 years ago, as I've never seen a Marlboro this clear. I have been collecting cards for 30 years now, and have opened tons and tons of '89 Fleer. I am a huge Bill Ripken collector and other errors as well.

It is unfortunate that all of you believe my card is a fake. I know I sent Dylan a small pic years ago of the Marlboro sign on my card, and the pic posted by Hatorade is of my card.

I would be happy to show you the card in person at the 2019 National convention. I have no reason at all to photoshop this card.

As for the questions regarding clarity, the pic was a close-up of Randy, and he was nowhere near the OF bleachers. Additionally, it does not appear to be an extremely bright and sunny day, so the sign itself may have shadows from the sun on the red part at top and the cowboy as well.
Hi Kevin,


I had forgotten the handle/email of who I’d been emailing with at the time and hadn’t heard anything in them in some time or seen another copy or even anyone with info or a pic that wasn’t your copy so figured that it wasn’t a legitimate item. Having looked at the new pic posted, I’m absolutely in the camp that it is a legitimate card and happy to know that it’s (they’re?) out there.

Hoping to see more discussion on this card and ultimately another example or two to look over. Certainly there should exist more than one. At this point, it’s lookihg to be a scarce as the Checklist w/ positions (and perhaps changed at the same time?).
__________________
My COMC.COM Account, featuring oddball, promos and variations:http://www.comc.com/Users/JunkWaxGems,sr
My eBay Account, featuring oddball, variations and promos:
http://www.ebay.com/sch/junkwaxgems/...1&_from=&_ipg=
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-08-2019, 11:48 AM
JoeDfan JoeDfan is offline
Sean Sullivan
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Maine
Posts: 604
Default Well darn it

Just when I thought I was out...you guys pull me back in!!!!!!!!!!

Now I have to find this version too. Or my collection cannot be complete.

I gotta stop reading these posts!

Lol.

Sean
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-08-2019, 03:45 PM
Hatorade Hatorade is offline
member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bnorth View Post
The very slight differences will drive you crazy with these cards. I have started to catalog them several times and never get it done. It was many years ago so my # might be off a little, At one time I had around 18-20 different versions cataloged.

Considering the extremely short period of time they printed them compared to the Ripken. They had to be making changes to it every few days with some done daily.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yastrzemski Sports View Post
With the Johnson and Ripken there are several distinct variations made where the original plate was altered. That is clear.
It is important to keep in mind that cards are printed on a printing press - and it is an imperfect process. Sometimes there is too much of one color ink and too little of another. Sometimes there is ink spray. Sometimes a plate moves and the colors are out of register. There may also be human error involved. There may be bleeding, smudging, etc, etc. If you look at 100 examples of the any one card, you can find lighter, darker, blurry, crisp, yellow tint, red tint, and so on.
Johnson had a few different versions - but those are limited to the actual alterations on the plate. The others have to be classified as print defects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage View Post
I have personally seen far more variations in these cards than I had at the point of publishing that article. If you take a decent size sampling of any one of the major “types” I.E. “red box” “green tint” etc etc, you’ll find that there are several variations within each. Real variations where alterations were made to the plate as efforts to obscure the sign. Shape of the bar over the word, box size, and saturation and density of coloring/masking over sign area and on and on. These are NOT the same as color tone differences due to different ink levels and plate alignment. After 16 years of studying thousands of copies of these cards, I am very confident that there exists at least a couple dozen unique versions of this card.
The atypical manner in which Fleer edited the Marlboro sign makes tracking/cataloging these cards a challenge. As Dylan mentioned, the differences in the cards are multi-faceted. Whereas, most errors are straight forward and appear in either of two forms, the error or the corrected version. This is not the case with the Johnson Marlboros. As Adam mentioned, the process used to print these cards will lead to print defects, printing discrepancies and other human errors. After acquiring several cards we discovered several specific items that occur with the cards. We created a database to track not only the differences in the sign area, but also these print features that are common denominators . The print features are not what make the specific cards different, but they are a way to go about highlighting the changes/differences that occurred in the variations.

“The Pube” - This tiny black hair like feature is on every error card I own and I’ve never seen it on any of the final corrected versions. PSA has mislabeled the error and common cards quite frequently and by just noting if this item is in the card they can prevent this from happening.

“The Rectangle” - I’ve discussed this some, but this feature shows up on Green tints, Box with Bubble and Box versions.

“The Squiggle” - This interesting feature looks like an upside down questions mark. Card #639 Davis/Puckett has a variation with three marks that look very similar to this.

“The Grey Stain” - This feature shows up on Green tints and Box with Bubble cards.

“Recurring Print Dots” - There are tons of these recurring print dots.

There are several others, but I’ll dig into all of these more as we go. Being a completist and collecting these cards isn’t a great combination.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-08-2019, 04:52 PM
jp1216's Avatar
jp1216 jp1216 is offline
J0N PEDEℜSѺN
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,118
Default

"The Pube" is one of the more interesting aspects. Clearly dating the non-corrected or fully corrected version(s). I still think what makes this card so neat is that nobody knew about it for years! It was a VERY early correction by Fleer.
That upper rectangle - is that simply a print offset of the blue border below? Still, very nice find! Here is another close up of the 'Clear' Marlboro.
__________________
| 1989 Fleer Billy Ripken FF Error |
-- Looking for a T206 Easterly Carolina Brights --

Last edited by jp1216; 01-08-2019 at 05:15 PM. Reason: added pic
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-08-2019, 08:22 PM
Athos01 Athos01 is offline
member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 6
Default

I have all those checklists with positions from 1989 Fleer too. They are impossible to find. There are 7 checklists in the set, and each checklist only has player positions listed on the front of the card, and not the back.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-08-2019, 08:23 PM
Athos01 Athos01 is offline
member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 6
Default

Thanks for posting that bigger pic Jon!
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-08-2019, 08:33 PM
Athos01 Athos01 is offline
member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 6
Default

The Johnson Marlboro versions were fixed extremely early in Fleer's print run, certainly way before the FF was caught and the crazy corrections took hold.

I've seen 1989 Fleer with print codes dating back to mid-November 1988. My guess is the clear Johnson was corrected at least partially within a day of the first official print run. I too am curious as to why another "clear" version has not shown up yet. This card is far scarcer than the 1990 Topps Thomas NNOF, and that card is always in the news.

The Treadway target was not an early error contrary to popular opinion. This card along with the checklists with positions were random short-run "errors" and were not early errors that Fleer corrected.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-08-2019, 09:57 PM
Hatorade Hatorade is offline
member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 27
Default

Thanks for sharing the image of the clear version Kevin. That is a truly special card. Would you mind sharing how many of the Johnson errors you own? Have you come across any of the blue versions? They seem to be the 2nd rarest of the error variations. I’ve attached an image of Ben’s blue card he shared earlier.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 0125F66F-EF9C-4A6B-9EBB-BD48946CFF57.jpg (19.8 KB, 82 views)
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-08-2019, 10:50 PM
Hatorade Hatorade is offline
member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1216 View Post
"The Pube" is one of the more interesting aspects. Clearly dating the non-corrected or fully corrected version(s). I still think what makes this card so neat is that nobody knew about it for years! It was a VERY early correction by Fleer.
That upper rectangle - is that simply a print offset of the blue border below? Still, very nice find! Here is another close up of the 'Clear' Marlboro.
I really appreciate your feedback Jon. The blue line does appear to be at the same exact angle and width as the rectangle. I’m not very familiar with many of the intricacies of the printing process. Would just the portion that Andy circled show up with the offset and not the entire blue line? It looks like there is almost an area of white over spray surrounding the rectangle.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-09-2019, 06:11 PM
bnorth's Avatar
bnorth bnorth is offline
Ben North
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 4,627
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatorade View Post
Thanks for sharing the image of the clear version Kevin. That is a truly special card. Would you mind sharing how many of the Johnson errors you own? Have you come across any of the blue versions? They seem to be the 2nd rarest of the error variations. I’ve attached an image of Ben’s blue card he shared earlier.
I got that blue card from COMC and am sure it was altered to be blue instead of green. It also has a very heavy layer of gloss on it compared to a normal 89 Fleer card.
__________________
T210 Series 3 Ft Worth, looking for low end examples and especially ones with a Y shaped hole punch. I also have some extra T210's for trade.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
1980's, 1989 fleer, error cards, randy johnson, variations



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
1989 fleer Randy Johnson hoebob69 Modern Baseball Cards Forum (1980-Present) 63 02-24-2018 02:07 PM
New 89 Fleer Randy Johnson Marlboro error version? bnorth Modern Baseball Cards Forum (1980-Present) 4 03-04-2016 08:21 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:25 PM.


ebay GSB