Quote:
Originally Posted by ALR-bishop
Someone should be appointed or elected to officially define a variation.
And should we be upset that Net 54 is not a legitimate source of reliable
published information ? What can we do to turn this around ?
I personally think the 61 Ron Fairly with a green smudge in the baseball on the back of the card recognized as a variant by PSA should be the hobby standard. If we could just define it. |
The only way around the "not viewing N54" as a legit source of information which PSA recognizes - is for someone to publish an article based upon our collective findings. As Ted has suggested previously, if enough people contact PSA about a variation, we have a better chance of it being included (in the old days) - maybe not now.
A print error variation, imho, should be a subest of the overall Variation category. A Variation "should" include variations in printing or design, intentional or not, that occurs more than a set # of times. A variation that we can find 10 copies of seems to be a reasonable dividing line between a common variation and the ridiculous occurences Al-R was referring to earlier where only 1 copy exists. Thoughts?
Consider this a proposal we can chime in and vote on......if other alternatives exist, please propose.