For a time, Lemke was listing border gap defects in the Standard Catalog. He stopped doing that and I think removed some or all when he tightened up his definition of a variation...intentional change in card by manufacturer ( an often hard to apply definition).
The expanded use of scans on ebay and elsewhere made it clear there were minor and even major recurring print defects everywhere, and recognizing them was a lost cause. But the Fairly recognition was surprising. Did it not first get recognized in Beckett ? Maybe it is Rich's fault :) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
1955 #144 Amalfitano
2 Attachment(s)
Notice the vertical blue line at the left. One of the three does NOT have the blue line and I believe most do NOT. They are out there if that is your cup of tea.
|
Quote:
When something is that uncommon, and it's listed during a time when there isn't ready access to images, I think most people take it on faith - Like I did, because hey, the guy wrote a book listing loads of variations, he must really be an expert! The Fairly is just weird, because it got recognized at a time when images are readily available and sharable. I haven't yet seen a 61 with green in the ball that I'd think of as being anything but over inking or registration. (I do think they're possible, I've found a couple differences where the color under the back print is actually different. ) I'm more comfortable with the missing black cards, and the border gaps, as in most cases it's at least somewhat clear that the plate was either made differently or had a defect. If the definition is intentionally changed, that works for me for variations, and maybe use varieties for plate differences that weren't intentional. That's also a bit fuzzy, as an example, 88 Score has three different die cuts used to separate the sheet. And the changes were intentional as it was done in response to customer complaints. BUT they are also screened differently for one press run than another. Intentional? they probably happened when the errors were fixed, so to some extent intentional. But I don't think the person doing the new halftones was like "It will look better if I put the red at 30 degrees instead of 45" Likely the camera was set up that way that day, and they just didn't consider it to be important. Lots of sets from that era have similar things going on. |
Speaking of recurring border gaps:
https://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/1959...inal&side=back 1959 Topps - [Base] #260.2 - Early Wynn (white back) Courtesy of COMC.com |
Good analysis Steve. The intentional change definition sounds simple but can be complicated in practice. It Topps adds a option or traded line that is easy, but it is often impossible to tell if a defect was discovered and intentionally changed or not
Another good example are DPs. In the last printed Standard Catalog Lemke listed variations for the 52 Mantle, Thompson and Robinson. PSA does not recognize them. The differences can be found on the front and back. The differences were likely not intended but did result from an intentional decision to DP those 3 cards George Vrecheck has written articles on DP differences in the 63 and 55 (56?) sets. Green tint non pose differences from 62 are another example. Probably not intended but did result from an intentional change in the printing process. Variations ? Bet a lot of 52 Master collectors are praying PSA does not adopt the 52 Mantle as a variation ;) It would be tough to come up with a hobby definition that all would buy into or that would cover all past and future official variations |
Variations on eBay
Folks,
Things being as they are, with time on my hands, I have been listing on eBay lots of cards from my many boxes piled in my closet. Some are print errors, variations, blank backs, color shifts and other oddities that some of you may have interest in. I have titled all of these "Variation" somewhere in the listing titles, my eBay seller's name is brightair. If you do a search you can find these. Many more will be listed over the coming weeks and months as I get to various boxes and binders. Furthermore, my zeal for compiling lists of variations has waned and I haven't been keeping them up-to-date, as I'm sure some of you have noticed. Others have been taking over this labor of love and will continue it into the future with even more thoroughness and depth than I was able. I am grateful to them for what they are doing and will accomplish, and look forward to their achievements. Meantime, may everyone be safe and well until we meet again in the flesh. All the best! Richard Dingman |
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
donut :D. |
Greatly appreciate all your work Richard
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:10 AM. |