Show...me...your print variations!

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

That's cool Ben, but just how many Fisk errors are out there?

I just pick up weird print errors of some players. I picked up a Fisk rookie with a print offset a few years ago. Now I add his print error cards when I see them cheap. The very strange part is most of the players I do that with I don't even like. As an example I have an insane Randy Johnson collection and I hated him as a player.

[Sliphorn]

In the style of Bequer from the same set, Bressoud's bat appears to be more into the margin at left.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by Sliphorn

In the style of Bequer from the same set, Bressoud's bat appears to be more into the margin at left.

To me, this variance appears to be caused by a print shift

[Sliphorn]

Here is a scan showing three versions, one of which IS a color shift.

[ALR-bishop]

If a card differs from it's counterparts in some way for any reason is that enough for some here to collect it ? Does it matter if it is recuring or not ? Does the cause of the difference matter ? Cropping differences ? Registration error ? Does it matter how much the defect stands out ? How many collect miscuts ? Blank fronts/backs ? Wrong front/backs ?

Does anyone have a set of parameters they use ? All years or just some years ? How many end up picking up the ones that show up here if they were unaware of them previously ?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

How many collect miscuts ? Blank fronts/backs ? Wrong front/backs ?

Does anyone have a set of parameters they use ? All years or just some years ? How many end up picking up the ones that show up here if they were unaware of them previously ?

I collect just about anything that makes a card not normal. No overall parameters because it varies by player, set, and even era what type of errors I collect. My collection is a very unfocused mess.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

If a card differs from it's counterparts in some way for any reason is that enough for some here to collect it ? Does it matter if it is recuring or not ? Does the cause of the difference matter ? Cropping differences ? Registration error ? Does it matter how much the defect stands out ? How many collect miscuts ? Blank fronts/backs ? Wrong front/backs ?

Does anyone have a set of parameters they use ? All years or just some years ? How many end up picking up the ones that show up here if they were unaware of them previously ?

Too many questions for this early in the morning.....I enjoy collecting all of the options that you noted above, including print shifts.

I also like to understand what the cause of the difference is on each card like this that I come across....some are caused by print shifts, some are true variations, some are random ink marks, some are missing colors, etc .

To me, the cause of the difference does not make a card any more or less desirable, if the difference appeals to me, I'll collect it.

[steve B]

I collect nearly all of it.

And I do have parameters on some stuff, but they're hard to explain.

Anything that is from some difference on a plate I save with a set, The same for other stuff that's recurring.
A few examples
93 Upper deck has for a portion of the set, either
gloss only over the picture on the back.
Overall gloss on back
gloss over he picture but then covered by all over gloss.

88 Score the cards were "cut" from the sheets by 3 different die cuts
AND
have screening differences both front and back.

Most of the Gypsy queen sets are on two different types of cardstock, it's a very subtle difference.

different inks like 91 Topps

Any thing that's a printing error, I usually keep in a different box. Blank backs blank fronts, wrong backs, bad registration, creased before printing, die cut at the wrong end, missing foil stamps, wrong foil stamps....

Some of those are always really obvious. Some I don't actively go after anymore.
Others, like registration errors have to be pretty severe for the issue for them to be interesting to me. Like the cards above, the one on the right with red printed low would probably get saved, the one on the left and previous with a for the 50's trivial shift wouldn't. That same shift on a 2018 card would get saved, registration is so much better today that it would be interesting.

[steve B]

BTW, none of that says that someone who likes different stuff in either direction shouldn't collect it anyway they like.

[Exhibitman]

A true variation, not a print anomaly:



The common version of this card says "WIN $10"; I had been searching for one of the $5 versions for a long time. Someone posted three at the same time on eBay. I'd have bought them all except that I don't know anyone else who cares...

[savedfrommyspokes]

This 59 Rip Repulski card has a recurring white print spot on the upper left portion of the player's image circle. There is also a small recurring white print spot along the lower right edge. Found one on my end and just one other copy on COMC.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

This 59 Rip Repulski card has a recurring white print spot on the upper left portion of the player's image circle. There is also a small recurring white print spot along the lower right edge. Found one on my end and just one other copy on COMC.

I believe that would be one of those smooshed bug variations that were discussed earlier in this thread .

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

I believe that would be one of those smooshed bug variations that were discussed earlier in this thread .

Yes, but the lack of an eye-pleasing splatter pattern on this card make those previously mentioned bug squash variations far more desirable.

[ALR-bishop]

Bob is my go to guy on squashed bug variants