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

[ALR-bishop]

Congrats Larry.

It is interesting to me how some recurring print defects gained general hobby recognition as variations while the vast majority do not.

Who is in charge of this stuff anyway ?

[4reals]

so I took a page from Cliff's playbook and looked up the sheet that Lillis was on (sheet2). Lillis is at the top row and the cards to the left and right on the top row, Walt Moryn #91 (cardinals), Jim Woods #59 (phillies), Joe Amalfitano #87 (giants), and AL HR Leaders #44 (with Mantle/Maris) all have back print defects with stray ink if anyone is so inclined to add them. Not super attractive since it is the back of the card but cool nonetheless. The HR Leaders card is the least obvious. The bottom left corner of green is a sharp square on most of the cards but a select few have a soft rounded corner and wavy bottom. I also found a green in ball (variation) for the Dodgers Southpaws card #207 which is on a completely different sheet. Couldn't find a 61 topps sheet with the Fairly on it to see what other cards are around it.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by 4reals

so I took a page from Cliff's playbook and looked up the sheet that Lillis was on (sheet2). Lillis is at the top row and the cards to the left and right on the top row, Walt Moryn #91 (cardinals), Jim Woods #59 (phillies), Joe Amalfitano #87 (giants), and AL HR Leaders #44 (with Mantle/Maris) all have back print defects with stray ink if anyone is so inclined to add them. Not super attractive since it is the back of the card but cool nonetheless. The HR Leaders card is the least obvious. The bottom left corner of green is a sharp square on most of the cards but a select few have a soft rounded corner and wavy bottom. I also found a green in ball (variation) for the Dodgers Southpaws card #207 which is on a completely different sheet. Couldn't find a 61 topps sheet with the Fairly on it to see what other cards are around it.

Nice work! The card on the end of the top row can also be found with the print error of green in the ball, Russ Kemmerer. Personally, I'm not a fan at all of considering these 1961 cards with dashes of green in the ball as variations, even the Fairly that fills up three quarters of the ball. They are just interesting print anomalies. ETA: There are a few of the 61 Moryn on COMC.

[4reals]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

Nice work! The card on the end of the top row can also be found with the print error of green in the ball, Russ Kemmerer. Personally, I'm not a fan at all of considering these 1961 cards with dashes of green in the ball as variations, even the Fairly that fills up three quarters of the ball. They are just interesting print anomalies. ETA: There are a few of the 61 Moryn on COMC.

That's cool, Cliff! Apart from the dash of green in the baseball, the left edge of the stat box is also wavy instead of straight.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by 4reals

so I took a page from Cliff's playbook and looked up the sheet that Lillis was on (sheet2). Lillis is at the top row and the cards to the left and right on the top row, Walt Moryn #91 (cardinals), Jim Woods #59 (phillies), Joe Amalfitano #87 (giants), and AL HR Leaders #44 (with Mantle/Maris) all have back print defects with stray ink if anyone is so inclined to add them. Not super attractive since it is the back of the card but cool nonetheless. The HR Leaders card is the least obvious. The bottom left corner of green is a sharp square on most of the cards but a select few have a soft rounded corner and wavy bottom. I also found a green in ball (variation) for the Dodgers Southpaws card #207 which is on a completely different sheet. Couldn't find a 61 topps sheet with the Fairly on it to see what other cards are around it.

These are to me the weirdest things to be accepted as variations.
Most are overinking, and won't really be consistent.
The Amalfitano is a registration problem.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by steve B

These are to me the weirdest things to be accepted as variations.
Most are overinking, and won't really be consistent.

I couldn’t agree more, in my opinion the 61 Fairly green in ball is the worst vintage postwar variation that PSA recognized, with the 57 Bakep being the next. They recognized the 73 Earl Williams border gaps for a short time but then wisely stopped it. Hopefully they stopped recognizing the 73 Bahnsen and 73 Bell single border gaps as well.

[ALR-bishop]

For a time, Lemke was listing border gap defects in the Standard Catalog. He stopped doing that and I think removed some or all when he tightened up his definition of a variation...intentional change in card by manufacturer ( an often hard to apply definition).

The expanded use of scans on ebay and elsewhere made it clear there were minor and even major recurring print defects everywhere, and recognizing them was a lost cause. But the Fairly recognition was surprising. Did it not first get recognized in Beckett ? Maybe it is Rich's fault

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

I couldn’t agree more, in my opinion the 61 Fairly green in ball is the worst vintage postwar variation that PSA recognized, with the 57 Bakep being the next. They recognized the 73 Earl Williams border gaps for a short time but then wisely stopped it. Hopefully they stopped recognizing the 73 Bahnsen and 73 Bell single border gaps as well.

I think some of them were recognized early on by the handful of people that were into variations. The Bakep and herrer were both in Ralph Nozakis book in 1975. And they're uncommon enough that I hadn't seen one until sometime after I joined here (Didn't look all that hard after a while)

When something is that uncommon, and it's listed during a time when there isn't ready access to images, I think most people take it on faith - Like I did, because hey, the guy wrote a book listing loads of variations, he must really be an expert!


The Fairly is just weird, because it got recognized at a time when images are readily available and sharable. I haven't yet seen a 61 with green in the ball that I'd think of as being anything but over inking or registration. (I do think they're possible, I've found a couple differences where the color under the back print is actually different. )

I'm more comfortable with the missing black cards, and the border gaps, as in most cases it's at least somewhat clear that the plate was either made differently or had a defect.
If the definition is intentionally changed, that works for me for variations, and maybe use varieties for plate differences that weren't intentional.
That's also a bit fuzzy, as an example, 88 Score has three different die cuts used to separate the sheet. And the changes were intentional as it was done in response to customer complaints. BUT they are also screened differently for one press run than another. Intentional? they probably happened when the errors were fixed, so to some extent intentional. But I don't think the person doing the new halftones was like "It will look better if I put the red at 30 degrees instead of 45" Likely the camera was set up that way that day, and they just didn't consider it to be important.
Lots of sets from that era have similar things going on.

[swarmee]

Speaking of recurring border gaps:

1959 Topps - [Base] #260.2 - Early Wynn (white back)
Courtesy of COMC.com

[ALR-bishop]

Good analysis Steve. The intentional change definition sounds simple but can be complicated in practice. It Topps adds a option or traded line that is easy, but it is often impossible to tell if a defect was discovered and intentionally changed or not

Another good example are DPs. In the last printed Standard Catalog Lemke listed variations for the 52 Mantle, Thompson and Robinson. PSA does not recognize them. The differences can be found on the front and back. The differences were likely not intended but did result from an intentional decision to DP those 3 cards

George Vrecheck has written articles on DP differences in the 63 and 55 (56?) sets. Green tint non pose differences from 62 are another example. Probably not intended but did result from an intentional change in the printing process. Variations ?

Bet a lot of 52 Master collectors are praying PSA does not adopt the 52 Mantle as a variation

It would be tough to come up with a hobby definition that all would buy into or that would cover all past and future official variations

[brightair]

Folks,
Things being as they are, with time on my hands, I have been listing on eBay lots of cards from my many boxes piled in my closet. Some are print errors, variations, blank backs, color shifts and other oddities that some of you may have interest in. I have titled all of these "Variation" somewhere in the listing titles, my eBay seller's name is brightair. If you do a search you can find these. Many more will be listed over the coming weeks and months as I get to various boxes and binders. Furthermore, my zeal for compiling lists of variations has waned and I haven't been keeping them up-to-date, as I'm sure some of you have noticed. Others have been taking over this labor of love and will continue it into the future with even more thoroughness and depth than I was able. I am grateful to them for what they are doing and will accomplish, and look forward to their achievements. Meantime, may everyone be safe and well until we meet again in the flesh.
All the best!
Richard Dingman

[steve B]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Good analysis Steve. The intentional change definition sounds simple but can be complicated in practice. It Topps adds a option or traded line that is easy, but it is often impossible to tell if a defect was discovered and intentionally changed or not

Another good example are DPs. In the last printed Standard Catalog Lemke listed variations for the 52 Mantle, Thompson and Robinson. PSA does not recognize them. The differences can be found on the front and back. The differences were likely not intended but did result from an intentional decision to DP those 3 cards

George Vrecheck has written articles on DP differences in the 63 and 55 (56?) sets. Green tint non pose differences from 62 are another example. Probably not intended but did result from an intentional change in the printing process. Variations ?

Bet a lot of 52 Master collectors are praying PSA does not adopt the 52 Mantle as a variation

It would be tough to come up with a hobby definition that all would buy into or that would cover all past and future official variations

PSA really should recognize those. If I remember it correctly, Nozaki listed the Mantle, Thompson and Robinson in his book. I've known about the different ones since maybe 78, and would have learned it there.

The dealer I hung out at had a copy they'd let me read on slow days. One time I borrowed it, photocopied the whole thing and thought I brought it back. I went through some old stuff of mine and found it like 30+years later.
Either that, or I bought it on one of their auctions and forgot I did.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Congrats Larry.

It is interesting to me how some recurring print defects gained general hobby recognition as variations while the vast majority do not.

Who is in charge of this stuff anyway ?

Thank you Joe and AL....yes AL, in my haste to post about one of the more elusive cards now in my collection, I should have not used the word "variation", but indeed called the card what it is, a recurring print defect.

[ALR-bishop]

My point was that it has in fact achieved hobby recognition as a variation, just like the 58 Herrer or 57 Bakep, and now the 61 Fairly. The thing of interest to me is why a few print defects get hobby recognition as variations while most do not

[4reals]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

My point was that it has in fact achieved hobby recognition as a variation, just like the 58 Herrer or 57 Bakep, and now the 61 Fairly. The thing of interest to me is why a few print defects get hobby recognition as variations while most do not

Exactly. That lack of continuity is head scratching. It's almost as if there needs to be an organization started, maybe the Card Collecting Coalition (CCC) that has a panel who decides what is approved and recognized in different categories. Maybe the categories would include Standard/Variation/Reoccuring print defect (RPDs). Hobbyists could submit applications requesting card approval. Then that trickles down to the hobby publications which trickles to the grading companies. Master set collectors could decide which level of set they are going to collect. I know, crazy talk...don't rock the boat, Joe. Sit down.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

My point was that it has in fact achieved hobby recognition as a variation, just like the 58 Herrer or 57 Bakep, and now the 61 Fairly. The thing of interest to me is why a few print defects get hobby recognition as variations while most do not

There are recurring cards with the same exact print flaw as the 1990 Topps partially blackless from 1958 (back), 1961, 1963, 1967 (front and back), 1974, 1980, 1985, 1986, and 1988 Topps with some of them that are just as rare or rarer than the 1990 Topps cards but are not worth anywhere near or have the demand of what the 1990 cards do. The 1967 Ed Spiezio is the only one that I can think of that has gained hobby acceptance. I know it is because one of the 1990 cards is the Frank Thomas rookie card and the epic thread on the Collectors Universe forum that gradually unveiled all of the cards affected.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

The thing of interest to me is why a few print defects get hobby recognition as variations while most do not

IMO, the manner in which some print defects have been promoted by select folks in the hobby (dealers, bloggers, etc) has helped these more well known defects to gain recognition over other print defects.

Also IMO, the greater the scarcity is for a recurring print defect, the more demand there seems to come with it. Obvious exceptions include 57 Bakep and 61 Farily.



This Lemke blog is a good example of how print defects can be promoted and gain added recognition(demand)....also, notice in this blog the proposal of how scarce this print defect may indeed be:

http://boblemke.blogspot.com/2010/10...-error-or.html



FWIW, how many here have a copy of the 61 293 Golden?

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

FWIW, how many here have a copy of the 61 293 Golden?

I do not have that one, but it is low priority for me. It is extremely rare, no doubt. There was one that was clearly stated as such on eBay a few years ago that went for less than $50, if I remember correctly. ETA: It was January 2018 according to WorthPoint. It was just a perfectly placed piece of debris on the printing plate that made the 8 appear to be a 3. I do have a 1967 Spiezio, though .

[Sliphorn]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

I do not have that one, but it is low priority for me. It is extremely rare, no doubt. There was one that was clearly stated as such on eBay a few years ago that went for less than $50, if I remember correctly. ETA: It was January 2018 according to WorthPoint. It was just a perfectly placed piece of debris on the printing plate that made the 8 appear to be a 3. I do have a 1967 Spiezio, though .

I have one-Tom Billing

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by Sliphorn

I have one-Tom Billing

Showoff .

[e6phillips]

Here's a variation of the 1956 Haddix - red line in the upper right corner.

I've seen a lot of posts about 1956 variations but have not seen this one mentioned.


IMG_1353.jpg

IMG_1354 (1).jpg

IMG_1355.jpg

[ALR-bishop]

Thanks for posting it Eric

[Sliphorn]

Originally Posted by e6phillips

Here's a variation of the 1956 Haddix - red line in the upper right corner.

I've seen a lot of posts about 1956 variations but have not seen this one mentioned.


Attachment 396721

Attachment 396722

Attachment 396723

It APPEARS to me, after researching this card, that this only occurs on gray back versions. I have not seen it on the white ones. I have a gray one and it has the line. I think I did see a gray back on eBay that did not have the line, but I am not sure. Thanks for posting this!

[timber09]

Pretty happy I found this thread - well sort of, now it looks like I have about a weeks worth of digging through boxes ahead of me.

I stumbled upon these blank backs - I imagine they are pretty standard issue but I haven't been able to find any information on them or similar cards. Any help is appreciated.

Keep up the great work - love the content here!

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by timber09

Pretty happy I found this thread - well sort of, now it looks like I have about a weeks worth of digging through boxes ahead of me.

I stumbled upon these blank backs - I imagine they are pretty standard issue but I haven't been able to find any information on them or similar cards. Any help is appreciated.

Keep up the great work - love the content here!

Nice finds Joe....not sure how common these 1960s blanked backed cards are, however, in many years of going through cards I have come across just this one blank backed Sullivan card. Recently I came across this Harris card with the Essegian back upside down.

[sflayank]

What the...is going on here...yesterday on ebay
1967 Topps Punch-Outs Chico Salmon PSA 6 - none Higher! Mickey Mantle Test RARE

[swarmee]

1973 Topps - [Base] #220 - Nolan Ryan
Courtesy of COMC.com

Probably already know about this, but saw two of these on COMC. So it's a recurring print defect. Bought them both so if someone needs it for their collection, let me know.

[ALR-bishop]

Good one on a major star, John

[swarmee]

Looks like a straight color bleed, so it's possible people would think it was water damage if they were looking through a collection and found it. But finding two with the exact same blue smear pattern shows it's a "real" variation a.k.a. recurring print defect. I didn't really browse anywhere else to see if it's already known.
Figured since it was so noticeable and being Nolan Ryan, that it was already cataloged somewhere.

[swarmee]

1975 Topps - [Base] #5 - '74 Highlights - Nolan Ryan
Courtesy of COMC.com

Recurring fisheye print defect under the 300.

[Elberson]

Just started working on my 1969 topps set and found 600 Tony oliva with and without red “cut line” on bottom

[ALR-bishop]

Greg posted a 70 Boccabella 19 back above. Here is a front variant, one of many pinkish 70 variants