Topps 1952 Campos..new variation

[flkersn]

I actually think there are two variations of the Campos frame break. I have one where there is a partial black star visible to the naked eye--in the same place the black line is in the "regular" partial black star. I have a second frame break card that has two red stars, although under magnification I could be talked into seeing the faintest of black lines.

Looking for confirming or negating evidence from others.

Bill

[ALR-bishop]

[flkersn]

Is this a frame break card, or a "regular" card?

[ALR-bishop]

"Regular"

[flkersn]

Thanks! Do your frame breaks have this feature, or are they without the black line?

Bill

[ALR-bishop]

All red

[MW1]

Originally Posted by flkersn

I actually think there are two variations of the Campos frame break. I have one where there is a partial black star visible to the naked eye--in the same place the black line is in the "regular" partial black star. I have a second frame break card that has two red stars, although under magnification I could be talked into seeing the faintest of black lines.

Looking for confirming or negating evidence from others.

Bill

Bill,

I would compare the "black star" phenomenon on the 1952 Topps Frank Campos to the printing errors on the 1958 Topps Pancho Herrera. Just like the Herrera where there are various amounts of his name missing (I think I've seen five different varieties), there are also varying degrees to which the black star is printed on some 1952 Campos cards. It does not surprise me that a "partial top border" variant exists where there is some/slight evidence of the black printing since I have seen this same partial "black star" on a number of the "regular" Campos cards.

[ALR-bishop]

I tend to think of the black stars and the border irregularities as print defects like the 58 Herrer and 57 Bakep. Such defects can be found in virtually every Topps set, more so in these days of internet access to more scans of more cards. I tend to distinguish them from variations that were intentionally created by a manufacturer to correct or update a card ( such as the 59 Spahn DOBs or trade/option card variations).

I have corresponded with some who think the black star is a variation rather than a print defect based on their knowledge of the printing processes used. I guess I will never know for sure, but for whatever reason the hobby recognizes some print defects as variations. The Herrer and Bakep have long historical roots in the hobby that precede grading, but the 61 Fairly shows print defects can still be elevated to variation status today.

[MW1]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

I tend to think of the black stars and the border irregularities as print defects like the 58 Herrer and 57 Bakep. Such defects can be found in virtually every Topps set, more so in these days of internet access to more scans of more cards. I tend to distinguish them from variations that were intentionally created by a manufacturer to correct or update a card ( such as the 59 Spahn DOBs or trade/option card variations).

I have corresponded with some who think the black star is a variation rather than a print defect based on their knowledge of the printing processes used. I guess I will never know for sure, but for whatever reason the hobby recognizes some print defects as variations. The Herrer and Bakep have long historical roots in the hobby that precede grading, but the 61 Fairly shows print defects can still be elevated to variation status today.

Al,

Some good points. In my mind, I separate variations from other types of printing anomalies using the following standards of evaluation:

Stray print lines and print spots do not constitute a legitimate variation. A little extra green or red here or there was a normal part of the printing process in the 1950s and 1960s and should not be noted separately in price guides or online databases of sports cards. One example of this would be the 1957 Gene Bakep "error." To me, this card is no different from any of the 1952 Topps cards that possess a degree of excess red ink on their reverse side, partially or completely obscuring some of the text.

A noticeable change in the structural elements of a card (e.g., the border of a card, the player's name, a color change that affects one of the major print or design elements on front or back, etc.) DO constitute a legitimate variation. Examples would be the T206 Magie, the 1952 Campos (both types), the DPs in the 1952 Topps series, the 1958 Herrera, the 1957 Sherman (in football), and the 1990 Frank Thomas, to name a few. Within this category would be both major and minor variations.

[ALR-bishop]

Michael--I know other collectors who would agree with your broader view. The many 63 and 56 cropping differences are similar to the 52 DP differences you mention.

From my standpoint no view is wrong. In every set there are variants where one card differs from another in some respect, whether intentional, a result of printing set up, or just defects in the process. I find them all interesting, and I am strictly a collector and not a seller, so the value associated with hobby recognition does not concern me much.

But it is interesting to me seeing the hobby grab onto some variants over time that the small group of people who avidly collect them have been aware of for some time.

Here are some more border line examples:

Most know of the 3 Sullivan copyright back differences, but note the box in the lower left front border of most but not all Sullivan cards:









[IMG]http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539

[ALR-bishop]

A few more

[flkersn]

Still interested in whether anyone else has a Campos with both top left border break AND partial black star (or complete black star).