General Forum

Oh and once again, there is possible evidence for inclusion.

1.) This type of inking extremity really only affects the Phillies cards. No other team in the 1985 Topps set has an extra shade of black inking over the team/name box/logo area. So Inking over the whole 1985 set is not evident, but just the Phillies Team.

2.) It was fixed at some point by Topps. Suggesting the possibility that it was even a design change to more accurately reflect the Phillies’ actual colors Corrected cards are usually an indication of an ERROR or VARIATION throughout.

3.) Holding the two examples in person provides a look at just how striking of a difference the “black box” versions (as they’ve come to be called in auction titles over the years) really are. These cards are much more distinctive of an error or variation than most variations listed here. ex. Jefferson.

My goodness.....thanks Billy, external link, maybe just maybe? Billy, you do it 1st !

Of course, somebody will rain on the parade, hmmmmmm ?

I stumbled upon a site on the web that would wholly welcome these and other potential variations without judgement.  You should check it out Here.

Thank you, but it's not a matter of welcoming ERR/VARs on a different site. It's that our ERR/VAR collectors on TCDB have the right to know about these cards not allowed to be listed here. Although, I like the idea of listing them, other powers to be do not. And non-ERR/VAR collectors get so upset and irate about the near mention of them. I'm just trying to provide [from my many years of collecting], an avenue for any members to view these special cards. Nothing more, Nothing less. ~BOB~

Just my opinion, but I would lean towards NOT a variation.  There would be a more compelling argument if the team name box was the only coloring change, but the entire card is more washed out - that leads me to believe it's more a case of poor quality control.  Additionally, the one comment to the blog post claims there are other teams (namely Cubs and Mets) that have coloring differences - again, QC issue.  Either way, I don't think a 9 year old blog post is enough evidence to support listing these.

I believe your post in the set forum serves the purpose of educating those that come after as to the existence of these cards. The two pages of lobbying for them to be included in the database does little to further that agenda.

I'm not lobbying, just explaining. Yeah, forum posts are just an introduction to ideas but they get lost very quickly, so not quite my intent or the best way. I intend on taking every advantage on TCDB to at least show the existence of "cards" produced by whatever means. If they cannot be listed, at least shown and discussed. I have dabbled for a few years now, experimenting etc., taking suggestions from members to L8s. User lists, My Website and External Links + a few more ideas are my potential avenues for circumventing the TCDB "no list" policy.  I'm on a mission, I'm not going to break TCDB Policy, Rule or Regulation however. Should be fun. ~BOB~

Not sure how TOPPS did printing back then but these might of come from being printed for team sets,  Factory sets, Retail sets  ect.  

TOPPS says cards are randomly inserted into packs  so how do they make those retail team packs.  I don't think they had people sorting the cards by hand.  Would need input from someone who worked there or has knowledge of process.