Variations versus print defects
Everyone has their own definition of a variation as opposed to a print defect, and in my view no one is wrong or right. I tend to view variations as changes intentionally made to a card, for example the 59 Spahn DOBs or the 59 Trade/Option cards. But I would also include the 52 Mantle, Thompson and Robinson, because while the differences may not have been specifically planned, they were intentionally double printed and that was where the differences originated.
I have the 58 Herrer, the 57 Bakep and the 52 Campos card "variations" but view them all really as recurring print defects. They got early hobby recognition, but even more dramatic recurring print defects exist in virtually every Topps set.
I think the Schieb and Woodling border breaks are just recurring unintentional print defects. Border breaks are abundant in every Topps set.
The House is less clear to me. I currently think of them ( say 3 different) as a transitional print defect, but it is a gray area for me. They are definitely different, but every recurring print defect is as well.
PSA recently recognized a 1961 Ron Fairly with an errant green smudge in the bottom of the baseball on the back as a variation and added it to the PSA master 1961 checklist. I was amazed. I have it, but think it is a minor, uninteresting defect, yet the prices for it have shy rocketed.
The prices for the House, Scheib and Woodling have all gone up since the SCD articles, while some of the other variants in the 52 set mentioned here have as yet no hobby recognition or additional value.
With Bob Lemke retired I guess the PSA registry list becomes the surest way to garner hobby interest, although SCD articles still have some impact.
The value is not what drives me. It is only a hobby for me. I like the pursuit of new finds that folks in places like this point out. And I now have some new variants to search out
|