Variants
If they were intentionally corrected it would be a "true variation". Examples would be the 1959 Spahn DOBs or traded/optioned cards....no doubts.
But agree with Cliff the 67s could well be unintentional print defects that simply occurred in some runs but we're not detected. There are thousands of such defects, including in my mind the 58 Herrer and 57 Bakep. There is no way to tell if such cards were early run errors that were intentionally corrected, or just a temporary undetected defect in the printing process. I think the no name Thomas may also have been a temporary unintentional recurring print defect. On most such cards, you simply can not tell if a recurring print defect was intentionally corrected. The hobby recognizes some but not others.
For myself, a true variation is a card that the manufacturer clearly changed intentionally, or a card that differs from it's counterparts because an intentional change was made in the printing process itself....the 62 greenies and double print differences such as occurred in the 52 Mantle, Robinson and Thompson are examples of the latter. But that's just me and many may disagree.
If you read this entire thread you can see this debate played over and over. There is not recognized hobby standard, so to each their own. Many in here , myself included, collect variants ( cards that differ from their common counterpart) whether they are "true variations"or not.
Look forward to you contributions to the thread
|