Are these 1973 cards errors or variations?

[Georj]

I'm not sure if these would be considered errors or variations. The Rollie Fingers has a smudge on the left top border and the Jose Cardinal has a couple of red smudges on his cap. Both have been corrected in later issues. I find 3 of the Cardinal error on ebay right now, so are they rare?

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Georj

I'm not sure if these would be considered errors or variations. The Rollie Fingers has a smudge on the left top border and the Jose Cardinal has a couple of red smudges on his cap. Both have been corrected in later issues. I find 3 of the Cardinal error on ebay right now, so are they rare?

I would qualify these as 'print defects'. However one man's print defect is another man's variation. Some being print defects are 'accepted' as variations within the hobby, at least to the extent of being more collectible/valuable, such as the 1967 Topps Spiezio, Moeller, and Bolin.

[ALR-bishop]

Recurring print defect and a miscut. There is no official hobby definition of a variation. Many recurring print defects, as opposed to a card intentionally changed by the manufacturer ( true variation ? have gained recognition and value in the hobby ( 58 Herrer and 57 Bakep for example), but given lack of a recognized authority on variations in the hobby today (RIP Mr Lemke), it would take PSA recognition to get hobby attention these days, and I do not see them recognizing these ( although there is that 61 Fairlly )

Some recurring print defects or differences, particularly those involving DPs are common, some are pretty scarce. Take a run through the never ending variations thread in this forum to get a feel for hobby views among posters here.

[Rich Klein]

The 61 Fairly is accepted by PSA because it is listed in the Beckett data base. I hear there are other cards in that set with similar green around the card number and would love to know which ones so I can add that to the COMC data base

Rich

[ALR-bishop]

I see Cliff started a new thread with a bunch of them. There is a prior thread in here on them too

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0PD...D054rfMk8NKVQ-

[glynparson]

Print defects. there is an almost limitless amount of things like this particularly in the 1973 topps set. interesting to some absolute garbage to others.

[ALR-bishop]

Agreed Glynn....but, so is the Herrer, Bakep and 59 Sullivans. While those were recognized years ago before the explosion of recurring print defects exposed on ebay and the internet, it was just a short while ago that PSA recognized the 61 Ron Fairly with a small errant green smudge in baseball on the back.

What is your definition of a true variation ? If it is a card intentionally changed by the manufacturer, that definition also is very difficult to apply in many cases. And what about DP differences ? Some are recognized ( SCD recognizes the 52 Mantle/Robinson/Thomas), some not

The only difference between these and the 61 Fairly is the Fairly was recognized by PSA....for some reason, or for some collector customer. Recognized "garbage" becomes not only "interesting" but must haves to many player and se tcollectors

[Cliff Bowman]

The only cards in the 1973 Topps set that should be considered variations are the manager/coaches cards, the Al Kaline band-aid card, and the blue team checklists that have * or ** on the back. Everything else is just a printing process flaw.