Variations - Just Curious

[Gr8Beldini]

In all likelihood there is no answer to this question but I'll try to get a response anyway. Why are some cards recognized as variations and some cards that exhibit the exact same inconsistencies are not recognized? 1971 Jim Nash w/ Smudge = variation. 1966 Lou Brock w/ pink smudge on top border = not recognized. 1957 Gene Bakep = valuable variation but little more than a print smudge on reverse but 1957 Luis Arroyo with black smudge on cheek (about 10% of the Arroyo's have this exact smudge in the same place) = not variation. I could go on and on but you get the idea. Any thoughts?

[ALR-bishop]

Hobby recognition of a variation for a long time has seemed to follow recognition in some catalog like SCD or Beckett. Now the PSA Registry is another source of "official recognition". People like Dick Gilkeson and others have put out lists they developed with many print oddities not recognized in the Catalogs. Sometimes they get recognized later , sometimes not. Some of them reach hobby recognition status anyway, like the 52 House Yellow Tiger

Print defects like the 58 Herrer and 57 Bakep got recognized in the years before ebay and all the internet scans of cards now available. Since that time print variants and defects have exploded . I tend to think that if you look hard enough and long enough you could find at least some minor print difference for almost every card , but certainly for many in each set

There is no one hobby recognized definition of a variation versus a recurring print defect that I know of. Some people, me included, think a variation is a card changed intentionally in the printing process by the manufacture. But even then there can be gray areas, for example cropping differences in DP cards. The 52 Mantle, Thompson and Robinson cards are examples. Probably not intended, but resulting from an intentional difference in the printing process for the card.

The 52 House is an interesting example. It could be viewed as a recurring print defect, but many think it is a true variation resulting from a change to the card in the printing process. So far it has not found catalog or Registry recognition, but I think most of us collectors of the 52 set believe it should be ( more than one variation actually...gray back/ different tongue)

There are a lot of variant collectors on here and I am sure they will chime in. I do not think there is a right or wrong answer for an individual collector in terms of his/her own collection. But what causes a card's value to take off is hobby recognition via a catalog or the Registry, because then master set collectors have to have it, whether it is a "true variation" or a recurring print defect. The House variant currently sells at a pretty good premium, but if it does make the Registry or Beckett or SCD, it's value will likely soar.. The 61 Fairly is a good example of how that can happen

I know people who have successfully lobbied Bartsch at SCD to list certain cards as variation. Persistence and hobby recognition in some form apparently helps. Beckett may have a similar process. I think the Registry seems to follow what the catalogs do eventually.

I collect both variations and recurring print differences to put with my sets. If some of the print defects later get recognized as variations, the value would go up and I would not be chasing that card, like I had to do with the Fairly card after it has started to rise in value. But even if never recognized in the hobby, and most will not because of the proliferation of them in recent years, I still enjoy having them with my sets.

Short answer is I think it is impossible to make total sense out of what is and is not recognized as variation in the hobby today. But there are a bunch of us here who like chasing and sharing them anyway

[JollyElm]

As Al said, the key to me is that the printer made actual changes to what was being printed in between runs. (Wow, that sounds like some weak grammar there!). Personally, I hate all the hawkers on ebay touting their variations, which all seem to be anomalies in the printing of colors and not purposeful changes made while creating the card's layout. Ugh!!

And, of course, there is huuuuuuuuge gray area, too. Al mentioned some of them above, and there are many others, such as 1967 Spiezio with the effed up name and Schaal with the green bat. The 1966 'purple tree' Heffner is another one that comes to mind. I actually love all of those things, including the 1971 'blob' cards. Something about them intrigues me, although almost all of them would not be counted as true variations to me.

To remark on your main point, though, it is absolutely ridiculous that there is no legitimate and/or official reasoning when it comes to labeling cards as variations by the TPG's or industry publications. It's silly.

[Footballdude]

Personally, I believe there is a certain number of collectors in the hobby that do not want variations known because of the possibility that prices might take off and will cause them to have to pay higher prices for them. I have heard this from more than 1 person.

About 15 years ago I started collecting the purple sky variations of the 1963 Topps football set. I even made a website showing each one, which can be found in my signature below. I tried like heck to get the catalogs to recognize them, since they are kind of similar to the 1962 Topps "green tint" cards, but was met with skepticism wherever I went. I eventually gave up and got out of collecting for a while. When I recently got back into the hobby, I noticed there were a few people that list them on ebay, correctly, and there are a couple people on the PSA registry who recognize them, but have no idea if they are currently recognized in hobby publications. I haven't bought one of the BIG catalogs in at least 10 years.

[ALR-bishop]

I can understand if you are a master player or set collector you might not want a variation recognized if you do not have it. A good example might be the two variations to the Mantle, Thompson or Robinson cards in the 52 set. Or the above discussed House, or the Campos with a partially missing front border, or the Snider broken front border, or the Campanella messed up "major" on the back, all of which were included in the 52 Super set auctioned by H&G not long back. Who would want to incur the extra expense of adding them to your master set.

By the way I think the Mantle, Thompson and Robinson have now been mostly recognized, but not the House. Many of the others I mentioned above in my view are just recurring print defects. But, then so are the 58 Herrer, the 57 Bakep, the 61 Fairly, and maybe the 52 Black Star Campos. (Some feel it is a true variation, and it has long been recognized, but the seeming existence of partial black stars, if genuine, make me think it may be a print defect )

On the other hand, if you finally get or have such cards, it would be the opposite, you would push to have them recognized to increase their value.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Footballdude

Personally, I believe there is a certain number of collectors in the hobby that do not want variations known because of the possibility that prices might take off and will cause them to have to pay higher prices for them. I have heard this from more than 1 person.

About 15 years ago I started collecting the purple sky variations of the 1963 Topps football set. I even made a website showing each one, which can be found in my signature below. I tried like heck to get the catalogs to recognize them, since they are kind of similar to the 1962 Topps "green tint" cards, but was met with skepticism wherever I went. I eventually gave up and got out of collecting for a while. When I recently got back into the hobby, I noticed there were a few people that list them on ebay, correctly, and there are a couple people on the PSA registry who recognize them, but have no idea if they are currently recognized in hobby publications. I haven't bought one of the BIG catalogs in at least 10 years.

Do those purple sky cards have cropping differences the way the '62 green tints do?

[Footballdude]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Do those purple sky cards have cropping differences the way the '62 green tints do?

No, no cropping differences, just the deliberate masking and subtraction of magenta (red) ink in specific portions of cards, which creates the effect of bright green grass/trees and/or blue sky.

[steve B]

Some stuff has been accepted for a really long time. The Herrer and Bakep were listed in Ralph Nozakis variation guide in 1975.

Once something is recognized it's difficult to get it unrecognized. Now that I've seen a few examples of each of those I'm with those who consider them printing errors.

I have a more broad definition of variation, and aside from major ones prefer the term varieties. Many of the ones I've found are very minor but are differences similar to the Mantle etc where a card is doubleprinted and there's a small difference between them.

In other hobbies those minor differences are left to specialized catalogs. So there's the catalog that might for instance list all the Topps cards, except that "all" means all the ones from the main Topps set for each year no variations except for really major stuff like the two 79 Bump Wills cards. no inserts, no test or stand alone issues. Then there's catalogs like the standard catalog that list as many of the additional issues as they can and usually more varieties. Then there's stuff available if for instance you wanted to REALLY get into 52 Topps. That one would essentially include every bit of info known to the authors. Like what cards are doubleprints, how to tell the doubleprints apart, every minor variety they can find and what it might be caused by. Like is that frame break a consistent thing from one particular plate, or just a missing bit of border when something got in the way. The first would be listed, the second wouldn't.

Baseball cards has very few pieces written of that last type. A few articles here and there, stuff like footballdudes website, The so far partly private 62 green tint guide, that sort of thing.

I think that's gradually changing as collectors realize that collecting a basic set in mid grade is fairly easy for most sets. Trying to find all the varieties as well adds a bit of challenge and since we're collectively just beginning, the thrill of discovery on occasion.

Steve B

[glynparson]

Campos are absolutely genuine. At least some are.

[ALR-bishop]

Glyn-- I have what I think is a pattial black star, as well as a black star and one of the missing front borders. The partial black stars are what make me think of the black stars more like print defects than variations. I do believe that maybe some of the black stars and partials could be fakes due to the notoriety and value of the cards. Hope mine are not :-)

Steve-- I view DPs with differences, even cropping differences, as variations. While the manufacturers may not have intended the differences, they did intentionally double the card in the printing process, and that led to the differences... like the 63 cards Vrechek wrote about. But, that's just the way I look at it. To each their own.

[jacksoncoupage]

I will rep the unpopular camp that likes the liberal use of the term "variation."

I was raised on the old collecting definitions of what is and isn't a "true variation" and while I do like the idea (in theory) of a strict definition, the powers that be (SCD, Beckett, etc) do not adhere to their own parameters. The 1990 Topps Frank Thomas is the hobby's most famous print flaw, or RPD, but there is no catalog entry for the countless mass-produced common player Topps cards that were printed without portions of an ink color. Iconic players, set and specific cards seem to exempt from the rules.

And like Al mentioned, I understand the negative response to the liberal use of the terms if you are a master set or registry collector. But for me, someone who entered the hobby at the peak of the "error craze," I love the hunt and my favorite part of the hobby is discovering new variations. Combine that with being a player collector and a new variety for me to chase is always welcome.

[ALR-bishop]

And you are darn good at it Jackson, keep after it. I am a fan of yours

[steve B]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Glyn-- I have what I think is a pattial black star, as well as a black star and one of the missing front borders. The partial black stars are what make me think of the black stars more like print defects than variations. I do believe that maybe some of the black stars and partials could be fakes due to the notoriety and value of the cards. Hope mine are not :-)

Steve-- I view DPs with differences, even cropping differences, as variations. While the manufacturers may not have intended the differences, they did intentionally double the card in the printing process, and that led to the differences... like the 63 cards Vrechek wrote about. But, that's just the way I look at it. To each their own.

I agree the DP differences are variations.

I just have to recognize that many collectors don't - Either because they don't want to bother with small differences to have a "complete set" Or because recognition would make the master set huge, or to avoid having to spend still more on an already expensive registry set.

I collect them all in an ambivalent way. If get them I keep them. But I hardly ever deliberately try to find them. And I keep the printing problems and the ones I think are variations in different places.

Steve B

[bnorth]

Like every one else my definition of variation is different. I have a huge collection of wrong backs, blank front/back cards, missing color, miss cut, and 1989 Fleer Randy Johnson cards with print spots, yes print spots and I do not even like Randy Johnson but for some reason I collect his 89 Fleer cards with even the slightest printing error.