Posted By:
Brian McQueenJay and I have discussed this one at length as well. I'm pretty convinced that this is a printing screw up due to the second curved part of the "m" breaking off and sticking straight up. I think that scan of the Overall, which displays a normal "l" which is different in appearence from the one on Jay's card and the fact that on Jay's Hofman, the supposed "l" is larger than the "H" gives me a strong reason to believe that this is a printing error.
In my opinion, printing errors don't justify adding an extra card to the catalogued set. Where would it end if we started cataloguing the errors? Would the t206 Young that had the caption on the top from the 19th Century auction qualify as a new card? Would "ghost prints" count as new cards added to their respective sets? I feel that printing mishaps that are just that...mistakes....don't qualify as an extra card in the set but that's just me. They weren't intended for the set so theres no need to add them to the checklist.
A team variation or a different player pose qualifies are examples of things that should count as a "variation" - not something like this. I feel it would be way too difficult to start cataloguing every single error that pops up.
I guess I'd count as one of those set collector's who's not going to like this decision.