Ah, the classic grudge match is back, variation vs. glorified print dot!
It's fun to read about this topic every time it gets brought up. Nobody will ever completely agree on the exact definition but the debate over the semantics is never tiring in my eyes and is what I believe helps make the collecting community vigorous and healthy.
As for my personal opinion, I use three categories.
- Errors
- Variations
- Anomalies
Of course, the line is blurry between each so it really comes down to personal interpretation.
An error in my eyes, regardless of what SCD or Beckett says, is a correction made by the manufacturer to present what was actually intended. I limit this to the
design elements and their composition and do not include execution during the printing process. Examples would be misspelling, reversed negatives, airbrushings, etc.
A variation as I see it, is a MAJOR deviation from the manufacturers intention occurring DURING the printing process, having nothing to do with the design layout. These major types of deviations are supposed to be pulled out of the delivery tray by the pressman once the inconsistency is realized to ensure quality control, however, some fall through the cracks and not all of them are caught, finding their way into distribution. Your '82 blackless cards or '73 partial border cards would fall under this category. As would the '80 redless banners that have frequented saved searches recently. Cards depicting different levels of ghosting (poor registration) would. Personally, I would consider the famous Herrera error and 1990 Frank Thomas NNOF rookie error as variations. Variations that may not have necessarily been printing mistakes but rather a way for the manufacturer to save money on materials are cards with different types of card stock (white back/gray back) or '52 Topps red/black ink backs.
With this in mind, an error card can have multiple variations and a correct card can have multiple variations. Cards possessing recognized variations on both the error and correct I call "compound" cards. An example of this would be the '91 Topps Fernando Valenzuela #80. Both the error and correct (with/without diamond) can be found with a bold and faint topps watermark logo on back.
An anomaly in my eyes is a card possessing a MINOR print flaw that occurred during the printing process or cutting process which gives very few examples a distinction but was not considered drastic enough to be removed by the pressman from the delivery tray during quality control prior to distribution. Examples would be hickeys/fisheyes/donuts, dust specks, low ink, miscuts, solution spills, ink blob/drool, etc. I would consider the '61 Greens anomalies.
There will always be exceptions to these rules but they are the guidelines I've found work best for me.
Others have voiced their displeasure with sellers on ebay using improper terminology but I would say since there is no clear cut definition it only makes sense for sellers to fit as many of the buzz words in their title as possible to reach as many different potential buyers as possible. I, for one, appreciate the key words being there even if it's not how I would describe it, at least then I'm given the opportunity to decide one way or the other.
06-06-2013, 12:52 PM
Variations
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode