|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Variations - Just Curious
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?
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Variations
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 |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
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.
__________________
All the cool kids love my YouTube Channel:
Elm's Adventures in Cardboard Land https://www.youtube.com/@TheJollyElm Looking to trade? Here's my bucket: https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706 “I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.” Casey Stengel Spelling "Yastrzemski" correctly without needing to look it up since the 1980s. Overpaying yesterday is simply underpaying tomorrow. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
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.
__________________
-Richard- Building 63 sets (1948-88) - 83.64% complete so far 14 sets/subsets complete (10/2/14). My website for 1963 Topps football color variations - |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Variations
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. Last edited by ALR-bishop; 09-14-2014 at 04:14 PM. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
All the cool kids love my YouTube Channel:
Elm's Adventures in Cardboard Land https://www.youtube.com/@TheJollyElm Looking to trade? Here's my bucket: https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706 “I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.” Casey Stengel Spelling "Yastrzemski" correctly without needing to look it up since the 1980s. Overpaying yesterday is simply underpaying tomorrow. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
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.
__________________
-Richard- Building 63 sets (1948-88) - 83.64% complete so far 14 sets/subsets complete (10/2/14). My website for 1963 Topps football color variations - |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
OT: Just Curious... A Little Help? | irishdenny | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 4 | 06-20-2014 09:01 AM |
Just curious.......... | bcbgcbrcb | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 14 | 12-11-2012 11:05 AM |
T206 - Cubs w/ all back variations. 559 variations!!?? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 8 | 01-26-2009 08:28 AM |
This is Curious | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 3 | 09-25-2003 09:33 AM |
MW- I am curious | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 7 | 06-12-2002 06:31 AM |