Possible newly discovered T205 variation

[Matt]

Frank - Aside from it being incorrect (how could it be an uncorrected error if it was corrected on other backs?) that's an inconsistent response from them as it's no different then Wilhelm suffered. My guess is that they haven't indicated it yet since it has yet to be included in SCD, but it will be shortly and then I'm sure the grading companies will follow.

[Tcards-Please]

Originally Posted by Matt

Frank - Aside from it being incorrect (how could it be an uncorrected error if it was corrected on other backs?) that's an inconsistent response from them as it's no different then Wilhelm suffered. My guess is that they haven't indicated it yet since it has yet to be included in SCD, but it will be shortly and then I'm sure the grading companies will follow.

Matt,
I agree with you completely that it is no different than the Wilhelm and do hope that it is included in SGC's Master Registry in the future. Not sure why SCD has to mention this before the grading companies acknowledge it. They know it exists, so why not include?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by T's please

Matt,
I agree with you completely that it is no different than the Wilhelm and do hope that it is included in SGC's Master Registry in the future. Not sure why SCD has to mention this before the grading companies acknowledge it. They know it exists, so why not include?

Historically, SGC has been very reluctant to include variations unless they are widely acknowledged. I believe they still don't indicate the "Over 300 Subjects" back variation on M116 cards although I'm hoping that changes as well when SCD includes the information.

One more thought for the naysayers here:
Had the error been caught in the middle of the PB press run, or in the middle of a later run (say Hassan backs) you all would agree it counts as a variation, but because the error was caught after the PBs were printed and before the other backs were printed it doesn't count?