1966 Topps High # Print Variations

[4reals]

Without getting into the definition of a "variation" I noticed the popular #591 can be found with and without a red line in the border next to rookie stars on the front. Also, #558 can be found with and without a white area on the back that didn't cover with ink to the left of George Scott's name. Looks like a piece of confetti.

[Cardboard Junkie]

Interesting....that 591 Jackson is a tuff card.....if there is a recognized variation, well, that's something! Good eye. Like to hear Al weigh in?

[ALR-bishop]

I have come to believe if one had the inclination to search endlessly one might eventually find a print difference in every card.

There is a discussion of print lines or errant lines in the 1970s thread on here. I have examples of them in quite a few of my sets. Missing ink or too much ink are other defects that occur quite a bit, some are pretty dramatic.

I have been debating whether to keep accumulating recurring print differences that do not seem intentional, or maybe limit acquisitions to those that I think might gain hobby recognition at some point . But the 61 Fairly shows that to be a hap hazard guessing game at best.

Great detective work, Joe

[hangman62]

Another odd variation -

[4reals]

Nice!

[steve B]

I think the 591s shown are from the same place on the sheet. One shows the line because of the centering and the other one is properly centered so it doesn't show.

The clues are the frame break above the s of Jackson and the line from a plate scratch on shirleys shoulder.

The recurring flaws are interesting, but like Alr said if you look closely enough there are multiple versions of nearly every card.

I collect them, but hardly ever make much effort at finding a particular one. I just keep the different ones when I by a batch of cards.

There's a load of them that should be recognized, as they're obvious differences in production. But there are also some that are recognized that are more in the line of recurring defects.

The different cardboard stock - should be recognized.
Stuff like the 61 Fairly - probably not.


Steve B

[BillP]

As a collector or this year I would have to say that depending on the print sheet there can be variations. I have always felt that the checklist variations are the result of an A sheet v a B sheet. And that when it comes to the Traded v No-Trade lines on Uecker, Johnson, Groat, that only 1 sheet was not updated while the other was and subsequent use of the print sheets were also updated creating a 1 out of 4 situation for the variations.
Now in the 63 3rd and 4th series someone within the past few months highlighted about 11 variations based on the picture centering. I think this as well is a A sheet v B sheet difference that was adjusted in a 2nd print run.
Also same with card #139 in 62. How else can you explain 3 different cards/poses for one number.
So where does all this go. If your a collector of the ultimate set then I guess you want all of these. But print lines and lack of print color isn't a legitimate one in my book.

Again comments welcome BillP

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by BillP

As a collector or this year I would have to say that depending on the print sheet there can be variations. I have always felt that the checklist variations are the result of an A sheet v a B sheet. And that when it comes to the Traded v No-Trade lines on Uecker, Johnson, Groat, that only 1 sheet was not updated while the other was and subsequent use of the print sheets were also updated creating a 1 out of 4 situation for the variations.
Now in the 63 3rd and 4th series someone within the past few months highlighted about 11 variations based on the picture centering. I think this as well is a A sheet v B sheet difference that was adjusted in a 2nd print run.
Also same with card #139 in 62. How else can you explain 3 different cards/poses for one number.
So where does all this go. If your a collector of the ultimate set then I guess you want all of these. But print lines and lack of print color isn't a legitimate one in my book.

Again comments welcome BillP

Agreed. For me, I consider variations to be the result of deliberate changes to the piece being printed, such as the photo cropping differences in the 1963 cards (and 1962 green tints) you mentioned.

However, there does exist a gray area, too. For instance, these 1960 Ernie Banks cards:
60banksblue3.jpg
60banksblue4.jpg

I spelled out the number of differences in these cards in a thread way back (most dealing with the colored lines emanating from the bottom left, green corner). In the two cards above, one has (I presume) handwritten printer's notes visible in blue at the bottom, while the other does not. It's important to note that enough white space exists in the top card that these notations would/should be visible if they were present on all versions of the card. But they are not there. So, to me, this represents a legitimate, although somewhat sketchy, variation. Are printer's notes that appear on only a fraction of the cards a true variation? Tough call. I guess the bottom line is, if something is significant enough, then you want to add it to your 'master' set checklist. That's how I feel about this particular Banks.

(Forgive my momentary grumpiness, but this is usually the time when some idiot chimes in to say, "There is no official definition. A 'variation' is whatever you want it to be. You can collect whatever cards you want to." Yes, we know. We get it. Duh!!)

[ALR-bishop]

I have always been surprised the hobby has not made more of the Banks variants. He is a superstar and the differences are recurring and not rare



I do agree though with Darren's idiot

The blue square in the lower left upper right card is also recurring. A red square , I think in the upper left corner exists on the 60 Kaline card. I have a copy if anyone wants to see it

[JollyElm]

For those interested, here are links to the 1960 Banks and Kaline variation threads I started a while back:
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=177877
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=177915