A New 1962 Variation for the Hardcore E & V Collectors

[brightair]

On some cards without the vertical stripe it almost looks like there was an attempt (appearing blurry) to airbrush or somehow clean away the stripe.

[ALR-bishop]

No telling how many Halls you have to have now in order to have a "master" 1962 set

It may surpass he 55 Frank Sullivan

[steve B]

This isn't something I'd class as a variation.

It's most likely a drag mark from a part of the press.

Steve B

[ALR-bishop]

I personally agree with you Steve, but the 58 Herrer, the 57 Bakep and 61 Fairly are all print defects too. And the 55 Sullivan too. What the hobby ultimately recognizes as a "variation" is beyond me

[JollyElm]

This is precisely why I entitled the thread "…for the Hardcore E & V Collectors." It's obviously not everyone's idea of what an 'official' variation is.

[ALR-bishop]

While I may define "variations"more narrowly like Steve, I collect variants and print defects of any kind that I find interesting. If the hobby later classifies some of them as variations it may sometimes amuse me, like the Fairly, but that is what makes this part of the hobby interesting to me. I personally am glad you and others keep finding and posting them.

[JollyElm]

Hey Al.
My views on 'official' variations are well known to everyone around here. I've posted countless times on the subject and I get PM's on the subject all the time. To me, these cards must really feature a demonstrable or deliberate change to the image (front or back) between print runs to count. There are other cards, like the '61 Fairly you mentioned, that I make an exception for and include in my comprehensive list.

But, because I know other people chase after all sorts of non-recognized variants--print anomalies and so forth--I start threads here and there about cards that these folks might find interesting. So when someone pointlessly chimes in to say, "That's not a variant to me," I say, "Who cares??!! Move on then."