|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
1967 minnie rojas variations
I think the two cards shown here are the blue gray variation. Can anyone confirm? Thanks.
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Minnie
Yes, and the blue uniform version always has a bluer light stand above and around his cap
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Not a Variation, Sorry
Sorry, but this is simply a result of shifting ink densities on press, not a true variation, or even a printing error.
Throughout the press run, ink flow must be calibrated to maintain consistent application to the sheet. Both examples show the extremes of not enough cyan ink (what you refer to as the gray variation) and too much cyan ink (resulting in the overall heavy blue tinting). Its very easy to see in the word ANGELS. Those letters are made up of a mix of yellow and cyan inks. See the difference in tin due to the excess blue ink? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Variation
Ok, now you have stepped in it Keith , you now have to give us your definition of a "true variation". Does it include the 58 Herrer and 57 Bakep, or the 52 Campos/House cards ?
I agree this is not a variation , which is what I call a card that was intentionally changed by the manufacturer for any reason ( this would, for me, include cropping or other differences in DP cards like the 52 Mantle or the 62 green tints, since they resulted from conscious decisions about how to set up the print runs). But some of us collect what I would call variants, which are just cards that are in some way , any way, different from their counterparts. Recurring print defects are one example, like the border irregularity that occurs in some of the 52 Snider cards or the Campos partially missing front border. And if someone takes the view that any difference in a card, for any reason, is a variation, what official hobby rule book says they are wrong Even if this card is not a variation, or a recurring print defect, it can still be a recurring variant. You can easily find both versions of this card...and there are differences Wanted to add that Keith makes some of the finest "cards that never were".... and I have a bunch of them. And, like Steve, a go to guy for me on questions about the printing processes involving baseball cards Last edited by ALR-bishop; 09-29-2014 at 09:24 AM. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Cards like this are a bit of a puzzle.
Pretty much all Topps cards have differences in color for a variety of reasons. Over/underinked on one or more colors is certainly one of the first things I think of. As is a slight misregistration. If magenta and cyan are supposed to overlap to make purple and are a tiny bit off, the purple looks more reddish purple. it can also look reddish purple if the Magenta is overinked. The plate can be overexposed or overdeveloped, making the dots larger (Very slightly, but it affects the perceived color) The ink can be mixed differently. This happens less the more they go with a strict CMYK. 70's cards can have different mixes, I don't think the current stuff can. Different shadings of the cardstock surface can affect color. As can the slight glosscoat if it darkens with age. Then there's a whole group of cards I haven't figured out yet. If there's a misfeed, the blanket can get two impressions. Differing pressure somewhere can make these be slightly off. Mimicking overinking. It can also happen during adjustment of the registration. Some dark blue cards show clear doubling of the dots like I'd expect when this happens. The problem is that doubling of that sort is not common. Misfeeds don't happen all that regularly, and adjustment is only a few sheets. Even going with a high speed web press adjustment cards would only be a tiny portion of production. But these darker doubled cards are actually really common, usually around a 50/50 mix or close to it. I think it's possible for the plate to get a bit of double exposure if it's moved slightly. Or maybe by something in the screening process? Or.........????????? So are they misprints? Print errors? Simple variants caused by the adjustments of whoever was running the press that day? And if a card is 50/50 dark and light, is it because they did multiple runs? If for instance they print a full run of cards for the preorders, then make new plates and do a run to cover later additional orders, and one was inked more heavily than the other for the entire run. How to classify that? A prime example from new stuff is the new GQ and A+G usually have two different cardstocks. One is white. The other slightly off white. Some cards maybe all Come both ways. And have for a few years. Once I started paying attention, I tried to find a pattern. Were either from a particular product? No, I found both in both hobby and retail, and in "wax" blaster boxes, and jumbo packs. So I started looking as I opened packs figuring it was early and late print runs. Nope! Both could be found in the same pack. My current idea is that it's related to shortprints and whether the unusual ones were printed alongside the shortprints. Which would make them shortprints as well. I suspect a bit of sorting will prove that wrong too. Whatever they're called if someone collects and studies them that's ok. I sort of do, but don't really put any premium on it. If I spot one in a boxful I'm buying from I might buy one of each, or just whichever one seems odd at the moment. I don't think they're an appropriate addition to a formal master set. If someone wants nothing to do with it I totally get that. Why have 2-3 or more complete sets with some slight common difference? That would take up a LOT of space. Steve B |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Big Question!
Al, you raise a real big question on this, and it's a good one.
The bottom line is that everyone has their own definition of what a variation is. Some folks think wrongbacks are variations, or even slight print defects due to dust on the press. And that's fine. There can be as much latitude as the hobby wants as long as there is an appetite to pay a premium for it. My "personal" belief is that a variation truly must be a "variant" meaning there are intentional varieties created by human hands in the production process. A few legitimate variation examples: 1. A design error that is caught on press and requires the job to have new film and/or plates created to correct the error. Examples: 1979 Topps Bump Wills, 1989 Upper Deck Dale Murphy, 1969 Topps Twins Rookies, 1982 Fleer Littlefield, 1969 Topps white letters, 1958 Topps yellow letters. Most variants likely fall into this category. 2. A printing error that is caught on press and fixed by the pressman, but does not require new film and/or plates. Usually this means removing something from the plates by "stoning it off" or masking it out. Possible examples: 1952 Topps Campos, 1989 Fleer Bill Ripken, 1989 Fleer Randy Johnson, 1957 Topps Mantle with ghost, 1982 Topps George Foster All Star with auto. 3. A printing error likely resulting from using "make ready" sheets (test sheets) that have something incomplete or missing, yet make their way into the final press run along with the variant corrected by the pressman on press. Examples: 1990 Topps Frank Thomas NNOF, 1982 Topps Blackless, 1988 Topps one-color backs. Then, there are what I call "anomalies". Anomalies are things that happen during a press run and likely correct themselves in the process of running a hundred thousand sheets over the course of a day or two. Offset printing is a very fluid process requiring lots of QC checks along the way to maintain ink density, plate endurance, ink registration, blanket endurance, and general cleanliness. As sheets move through the press all these things have to be monitored, but there are always anomalies occurring along the way and this accounts for many of the cards we consider variations today. There are multiple versions, but no one intentionally created them or even realized they occurred. Some examples of anomalies: 1. When one ink runs low (or out), you can get massive color shifts that correct as the press is re-inked. Usually there is a range of color loss that can be seen on many cards. Possible examples: 1980 Topps letter color variations 2. When debris gets on the blanket, it can obscure content that should be printed until the debris is cleaned off or works its own way off and then the image is no longer obstructed. Usually there will be dozens of nuances in the anomaly as the debris works its way around and then off the roller. Possible examples: 1958 Topps Herrer, 1957 Topps Bakep, assorted border breaks, ghost marks, white blotches, and missing letters. 3. When the blanket breaks down and leaves areas unprinted or printing poorly. This requires the blanket (and possibly press plate) to be changed out to correct the problem, but usually many many sheets have run through the press before its detected. This could cause some of the same anomalies as debris, but it's usually a larger defect. Possible examples: 1986 Topps Clemens, Seaver, 1982 Topps Pascual Perez no auto (could be a true variation though), 1952 Topps House (a crushed blanket may have obscured the application of red ink evenly) Then there are those variations that defy definition or known origin. It's hard to know how they occurred or were corrected. They are clearly not anomalies, but didn''t seem to merit entirely new film for a plate change. Among this group of oddballs I'd include 1962 Topps Green Tints, 1956 Topps Ted Williams, and possibly the 1952 Topps Frank House. Sorry to ramble, but hopefully this is a good framework for how I'd classify errors, variations and anomalies according to how they occurred, the intnetion in creating the variant, and the manner in which offset printing works and just creates variants on its own. Quote:
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Variants
Great input as usual Keith. Thanks for all the good info and insights
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Thanks, AndyH
__________________
I'm always looking for t206's with purple numbers stamped on the back like the one in my avatar. The Great T206 Back Stamp Project: Click Here My Online Trading Site: Click Here Member of OBC (Old Baseball Cards), the longest running on-line collecting club www.oldbaseball.com My Humble Blog: Click Here |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
1963 Topps Cookie Rojas #221 PSA 8 FS/FT | autocentral | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 3 | 05-22-2014 03:33 PM |
Chicago White Sox Minnie Minoso Autographed Flyer | kmac32 | Autographs & Game Used B/S/T | 0 | 02-21-2013 07:31 PM |
Minnie Minoso....documenting time and place | kmac32 | Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports | 4 | 02-02-2013 09:32 PM |
WTB: 1953 Bowman Color Minnie Minoso, PSA 7 | ChiSoxCardboard | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 07-01-2012 03:42 PM |
value of Minnie Rojas single signed baseball | ecRich | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 1 | 01-12-2010 06:28 PM |