Quote:
Originally Posted by JollyElm
The problem with the 'evidence' in this thread, even mine, is that it is all anecdotal, not actually factual. So like in political arguments, it gets laughably frustrating watching as the 'proof' moves in different directions to fit certain narratives. It's not a sleight against anybody, but here are quite a few angled Billy Martin IA cards (coupled with the well known multitude of angled Cleon Jones IA cards) that sorta 'disproves' certain points...
|
The proof has not moved. All of the examples you have provided, and for that matter all of the 1972 Topps cards I have ever seen, were cut square. If you can find a bunch of examples of cards that are cut out of square, then that would be evidence of an alternate scenario. Absent that evidence, I contend the problem was not in the cutting process.
All of your examples are easily explained by Steve's initial observation, that some cards could easily be slightly tilted when printed on the sheets. Just as variations are created, and errors are corrected, the sheets can easily be altered at any time throughout the print run. For that matter, considering the volume of cards being printed, and the fact that in 1972 Topps was still printing cards a series at a time (meaning, a large number of cards from a single sheet needed to be manufactured in a tight time frame,) it is very possible there was more than one printing plate being used.
Any conversation, even political ones, can result in agreement when all participants fundamentally rely on logic and evidence. If a large percentage of Killebrew cards have the tilt you have observed, while a miniscule percentage of 1972 Topps cards are not cut square, then, again, it is not a problem created by the cutting process.
That leaves only one explanation: some cards were not aligned straight on the sheets, on some printing plates, during at least part of their print runs.