I'd call those variations. And to me they're closer to what most people would call variations than a lot of what I keep as variations.

For the Y/Ws it's pretty clear that the yellow layer was set up wrong, and corrected. I suppose some could stretch that to say that setting the plate up wrong is a print error, but I think that runs afoul of stuff that's even more clear like the 79 Bump Wills.

My definition of a variation is really a loose one. I count anything that appears to be caused by a difference on the plate, or a clear difference in the cardstock or ink. Most of those differences are probably unintentional, I can't imagine the UV reactive backs on late 80's early 90's Topps were intentional.
Considering the range of stuff I'll set aside as "different" trying to determine intent is a rabbit hole I just don't choose to go down.

I do also save stuff that's obviously related to some production issue, either in printing, cutting packing, or even in the manufacture of the cardstock. I've got a card that has what I'd call a massive inclusion, something manufactured into the cardstock that's about half as big as a watermelon seed.

So
Registration problems
fisheyes
Inking problems
cardboard flaws
Die cut on the wrong end, or with the wrong pattern
All those go in the printing mistakes box

Cutting guidelines
Different screening
Die cuts that shouldn't have been obvious(88 score)
Different holograms
Marks from scratches on the plate
Consistent stray marks (not caused by ink spatter)
Printed on a different sort of cardstock (mostly 69 and 70 Topps)
All those go in the main set as variations.

A few can be hard to decide, like if one color foil should have been used but a different color was. Technically an error, so I'd file it there. Which may seem to contradict the placing different holograms as variations, but the different holograms were often a difference between series. (Like one hockey year where the main set has one hologram, but the update set was packed with low # cards and all of them had the next years hologram)

And yes, it's about as confusing as it can be. That's one of the reasons I don't get worked up about the variation/not a variation question.

Thanks as always for your input Steve. My definition is more narrow but as you know I collect recurring print oddities whatever they are, and agree the 69s and 58s could involve intentional changes in the printing process either way.

Not sure if we did this one. The one on the bottom left is pretty tough. The slight differences on this one remind me of those on the font of the 55 Sullivan (106) and 56 Pepper ( 103), and the back of the 56 Schmidt (322)

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...g?t=1511027364

Here is another example of a variant, that has slight differences, that could be considered a progressive variant like Al's 55 Elliot card. With the 1972 Topps 534 Hickman card, the known variation is the example with no green on the team name. In looking, I found a few examples that have just a very light green instead of only the yellow.

What I find interesting is that no other cards (at least none that are known) from this series have a similar color variation to them. Not sure what caused this progressive variation to occur(on this card only), but my guess is Steve would be able to help explain the cause.

Some people call the #607 Frank Duffy card a variation due to the coloring differences in the shadowy areas of the team name, relatively similar to the Hickman you illustrated above. What I found was on the print sheet there were multiple Duffy cards represented, and one of them had the much lighter shadowing on it--although all the other coloring and all of the other cards looked perfectly fine. So it seems to have been an 'error' in the actual layout of the cards and not some freakish anomaly in the printing process. I'm wondering if the Hickman variation was created in the same manner.

Acouple of defects similar to the one Patrick posted of Lee Maye

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...ps5645d48f.jpg

This print variation, caused by a color shift, is the Yankee logo on the cap appearing green instead of white. I could only find this copy.

That's an interesting one; the red and black passes are registered, but the blue and yellow (make green!) passes are both mis-registered to the right the same amount.

Actually gives it a pretty cool 3-D affect to the face.

More fun with colors.

Thomas-- now you need one showing him as right hander

The 1969 Gaylord Perry train keeps a rollin'...I think. At least it's possible it does.

In looking at some more Perry cards (not mine), I noticed some have a thin bolt of electricity emanating from his hat into the sky. You can see it pretty clearly to the right of the SF logo on the card to the left. So I started looking to see if all of the back number variations we were talking about come with and without this anomaly on front.

Attachment 297507

The card on the right doesn't have this bolt, but...it may in fact actually be there, only not as electrified, and perhaps just a dull bluish line that blends into the sky?? I'm not sure. So I say check your Perry cards again and see if it appears. (The versions posted earlier in this thread seem to have something there.) If there's clearly no lightning bolt there, please post a scan/pic of it.