1990 Topps Baseball Forum

Admin removed all of the Coke Caps except the 1981 football set.   I asked about it and never did get a reply.  Maybe he did not get my message who knows.   There are a lot of Var to that set.  All the other coke sodas.  (sprite, Tab and others)

Agreed.

I enjoy seeing the color and plate shift extremes that affect this card but there is no version without the "scab" only different ink levels. Some appear more brown due to heavier magenta + lower yellow, etc. 

Definitely not a variation but a fun print anomaly affecting a modern 'classic' card.

Much like the levels of black on the bat knob and the Marlboro sign an obvious cover up, ink levels for real?

When it's that widespread and to the extent of that much quantity ............

Yes, ink levels. The overall card is affected in the case of the 1990 Topps Griffey. So all of it will have low/high/excess colors as the result of poor printing, not just the "scab."

Whereas the Randy Marlboro is a very specifically targeted area on the card that went through more than a dozen changes intentionally. Each color-based edit to the sign does not affect the entire rest of the card. These are very different situations.

And the Bert Blyleven card is that "poor printing" also or is the crack more specific than the scab?

Where did you receive confirmation of "poor printing" ?

Is your issue with my choice of wording? Poor printing as in incorrect ink levels, which is very common on mass produced 4-color printed materials. Perhaps I should have said "misprinted" instead of "poor?" The point is that the ink issues causing different color "scabs" is directly related to the overall inking of the card, not something that was targeting the "scab."

1988 Topps Bert Blyleven was a targeted correction by Topps. This is very obvious. But before you ask: yes, these too can suffer from "misprintings" such as incorrect ink levels, off-registration issues, etc.

Can you provide an example of a Griffey without a scab? No scab whatsoever, totally clean arm.

How about this 1? - https://www.tcdb.com/ViewCard.cfm/sid/147/cid/61236/1990-Topps-336-Ken-Griffey,-Jr.?PageIndex=1

Seems fully covered , no visible signs of any blood, a classic airbrush job by Topps no? 

And unfortunately I wasn't there at Topps to ask back in 1989-1990 but to me it smells like a COR hence we have another VARiation that conceals the "redness".

So as you should be able to see when you have 2 versions significantly different that means there are 2 of this card , how is it that difficult?

2 is 2

The issue is you in denial of all the evidence. 

If it's good for you then so be it i'm done spelling out the obvious, and ultimately changes nothing in my diet whether it's accepted 1 way or another

The scab is very clearly visible in the example you linked to, it is just a more yellow color than red (or brown). 

I really dont know what else to say to you at this point, I have provided plenty of support as to why this is a print flaw and not what is typically considered a variation.

It is obviously a recurring print defect with all the different color scab options but not because Topps edited out the scab at any point, that much is very clear. A version without the "scab" does not exist.

Jacksoncoupage is exactly right on this. It could not possibly be more obvious.

If anything, jacksoncoupage has more than shown his knowledge in this arena, whether it's for or against something.