Quote:
Originally Posted by ALR-bishop
Agree that if it had not appeared in the Catalog briefly it would just be another recurring print defect. Disagree it was against “protocol” when it went in the Catalog. There was not then nor is there now a standard definition or “protocol” for what constitutes a variation.
With the Catalog getting huge ( before dropping post 80 listings in 2011) Bob stated in an SCD article he was narrowing his definition of a variation to an intentional change in a card by the manufacturer. He removed the King and some but not all border gaps and began restricting what new variation listings he would put in the Catalog. I would argue that given his position and standing in the hobby Bob was the “protocol” in that time period. The grading companies generally looked to him as to what to include in their master checklists
A whole different discussion or debate could be had about how it can be accurately determined in all cases if a recurring print defect was intentionally corrected or just ran it’s course.
No matter what limitation anyone personally adopts as a definition of a variation the hobby, or in some cases now PSA ( 61 Fairly ) decides, protocol or no.
And no doubt the 57 Bakep, the 58 Herrer and 52 Campos black star might not pass “protocol” today. The 52 House ?
In the end the hobby decides and value attaches based on the level of recognition. Although today with the demise of the catalogs, PSA and the registry master checklists may be the real arbiter
For myself, I generally agree a variation should be limited to cards intentionally changed by the manufacturer, realizing that is not always easy to determine. The King is an unintentional scarce print defect. I refer to recurring print defects and even non recurring defects as variants, cards that differ in some way from their common counterpart. Value I leave to the hobby.
End of rant  |
Al,
When I say protocal, I mean the fact that the catalog entry for this particular card was an anomaly for post 1980 sets. Even if this card were to qualify as an RPD (which I strongly doubt enough exist to warrant the label), you have to admit it is an odd inclusion when so many other recurring print defects were omitted. Bakep, Herrer and Campos had decades of devout collector interest to build that reputation and interest. As far and I understand it, just a copy or two of the King had been known to exist before its inclusion in the big book.
Virtually nobody outside of E&V circles had any clue what I was talking about whenever I mentioned that I was seeking this card and I asked A LOT of dealers for a very long time.