1961 Topps Stu Miller New variation? Opinions?

[Creech79]

Just purchased a lot of vintage 1961 Topps and found this Stu Miller card which I believe could be a one of a kind. Look at the top left corner. Appears that the wording SECT II was etched into printing plate. This is not handwritten but printed. Appears that it was etched with a very fine point wire or knife. Any ideas?

[Cliff Bowman]

Good catch, I looked all through eBay and COMC and only found three with evidence of the same thing. I saw several 1961 Miller cards that are off center to the left but didn't have any of the writing. The 1960 Topps Ernie Banks can be found with similar markings. The card was obviously on the outer edge of the original printing sheet. Edited to add, on the one that I bought on eBay the seller described the card as having writing on the front of it :-).

[Creech79]

Pretty cool!!!! Thanks!!!! Do you know if I send it to psa willit be considered a variation?

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by Creech79

Pretty cool!!!! Thanks!!!! Do you know if I send it to psa willit be considered a variation?

No, there is no way any of the grading companies would recognize this card as a variation.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

No, there is no way any of the grading companies would recognize this card as a variation.

But they should, because it is.

[Cliff Bowman]

Here is a 1960 Topps #10 Ernie Banks with a very similar "SECT II" printed on the edge.

[SMPEP]

No it's not.

It's a miscut cards that shows the border.

Every Stu Miller card in that location on the original sheet had the "Sect I" in the border. Some sheets were miscut and showed "sect II" on the card. Most sheets were cut properly and did not show this. (Just like the Banks shown above). Now there are other Stu Miller cards in a different location on the sheet that would not have the "Sect II" in the border - but this has to do with where the card was located on the sheet and how badly the sheet was miscut.

Still a fun card.

Just not a variation.

Cheers,
Patrick

[ALR-bishop]

Again, it all depends on your definition of a variation. There is no official hobby definition, and variations listed by SCD, Beckett and The Registry in total defy any limited definition. So what is your's, Patrick ?

Are these both print defects, or is one a variation ?

[JTysver]

Out of register is a print defect, not a variation. A variation would be a change in the original card.

[bnorth]

I am no help with the definition of variation Al, I would pick the card on the left everyday to add to my collection. I really don't care for the one on the right especially at the price it brings for a printing error.

[sbfinley]

Edit: miss read a post.

[ALR-bishop]

Originally Posted by JTysver

Out of register is a print defect, not a variation. A variation would be a change in the original card.

In your definition does the change have to be intended, or can it be unintended ? Which is the 58 Herrer ? The 57 Bakep ? The 52 Yellow House ? The 52 Campos ? What about the two versions of the 52 Mantle ? The no name Thomas and it's relatives ? What about the 68 Milton Bradley set ? The 62 greenies with no pose differences) ? What about the 61 Fairly recently recognized by PSA.

I tend to view variations as cards intentionally changed by the manufacturer, but no one made me the chief authority. If someone wants to define a variation as any card that differs on a recurring basis from their common counterparts, who is to officially say they are wrong ?

The hobby has defined several unintended print defects as variations, whether I like it of not. Value in the end depends on hobby recognition, not on what either you or I think

[SMPEP]

The card in question - Stu Miller - is a miscut card. Nothing more. Nothing less. Every card on the sheet in that same location had the same "sect II' by it. If the sheet was cut poorly enough - it shows. If it was cut as it was supposed to be - it does not.

Now the Yellow tiger - to me - that is a variation. They misprinted it originally (because the other colors in the card are correct), and then they noticed this and fixed it. Same with the Campos black star - clearly corrected.

The Bakep/Herrer cards are the line between variation and print error. Hard to know for certain whether that was just a poor printing job - or whether it was an error that was caught later. I tend to lean toward print error. But I'm not the authority there.

I agree with the poster above - the poor registry Herrera is a more interesting card than the Herrer. But poor registry does not make that an error either. Just a bad printing job on a sheet.

Cheers,
Patrick

[ALR-bishop]

?

[SMPEP]

Variation - a card that was originally designed to look one way; but the designer of the card changed something and then reprinted it. For example the text on the back of the Page/Sain cards - clearly, intentionally changed by the designer.


Print Errors - registry color shifts, miscut cards, missing colors, extra colors, etc. The thread about the opening of the 1955 Cello pack on the main board shows a print error. The Clemente has a black printing line on the lower right portion of the card. That was not intended by the designed of the card. It resulted from poor printing techniques. It is possible it has been replicated (on this card or another one), but this was not the intent of the manufacturer for the card to look this way. The pack also shows tons of miscut cards.

This leads to the Bakep/Herrer cards. These could go either way depending on when the correction was made. For example, it could be the case that the very first card from the very first print run was missing the r/a, and the manufacturer noticed this and corrected it. Or it could be that there was a goof in the printing process somewhere along the lines and this is nothing more than a recurring print error. I tend to think it is the latter - because you have so many gradual variations. But short of knowing when the card came off the line, I'm not sure you can say conclusively.

On the flip side, I think one can draw definitive conclusions about the yellow tiger. Even though there are some variations in the amount of orange, you do see that the only color that changes relates to the logo - suggesting a goof that has been corrected. And when you add this to the fact that the grey backs also have the same variation (yellow and orange exist - there is no proof that any in between exist) it is suggestive that there was a conscious change of some sort. (This also suggests that the grey back paper was mixed in a stack with the white back paper, and that the greys were not just printed once by accident - but rather resulted from someone mixing a stack of different paper into the same print run. To my mind, this totally debunks the silly notion that the 52 grey backs are Canadian issues. That only gained credence because some uneducated dealer noticed the similarity with the 54 Canadians and thought they were the same thing. The fact that you have the same error and correction on the card shows that this was all printed at the same place, at the same time).

Cheers,
Patrick

[Republicaninmass]

On the flip side, I think one can draw definitive conclusions about the yellow tiger. Even though there are some variations in the amount of orange, you do see that the only color that changes relates to the logo - suggesting a goof that has been corrected. And when you add this to the fact that the grey backs also have the same variation (yellow and orange exist - there is no proof that any in between exist) it is suggestive that there was a conscious change of some sort

COME ON PATRICK

You can clearly see from a mile away there is red missing on House's throat, making a green streak! Upon closer inspection it will reveal it is most missing the red ink in a splotch pattern.

[SMPEP]

Good point Ted. But the hat clearly has the full red on it.

So whether the change is defined as the logo or some area larger than the logo, the printer clearly did not like the look of the card, and took a step to correct it. Thus this is a variation, not print error.

Cheers,
Patrick

[ALR-bishop]

Great post Patrick. Agree with you for the most part. Your paragraph on the gray area is the key. Any print not a registration error could be a variation if it was an early defect that was noticed and corrected. Most are likely just a temporary recurring print defects. But in most cases we will never know.

Another gray area for me is double prints and second print runs. In many double prints there are cropping or other front or back differences that were not intended specifically but did result from decisions about layout or the printing process. The 52 double print differences or the 63 double print differences highlighted by George Vrechek are examples. The 62 greenies ( non pose variants ) and 68 Milton Bradley's are other gray areas. So also stock differences in the same series of several Topps sets

I collect any variation listed by SCD, Beckett or the Registry. I also collect recurring print defects or odd print defects that appeal to me. I just refer to them as variants.

My definition would be somewhat broader. A variation is a card that differs from it's common counterpart either because the manufacturer decided to make specific changes to the card for some reason, or intentionally made changes to the sheet layout or printing process that resulted in such differences, intended or not.

I wonder about the Campos black star because of the partials.

But no matter what we think, if PSA slabs a 61 Fairly noting an errant green smudge on the back, or fails to note the House difference or the front Campos defect, it has to be recognized there is no real hobby standard

And keeping up with all the possibilities across a full run of Topps, Bowman and Fleer sets is a chore. Fun though

[ALR-bishop]

By the way, there are miscuts to the same side on eBay that do not have the notation and from the examples in the thread the location of the notation may not always be the same. What if some sheets have it and others not ? Intentional ?. If the location differs is that intentional ?

On the Banks cards I have and have seen the notation usually appears in the same location, but not all miscuts have it.

[SMPEP]

Miller would have been printed 3 times on the sheet. So you would only expect 1 of 3 Miller cards with the same level of miscut to have the "Sect II" showing. I would actually bet that the "Sect II" would even be less than that though because the cutter would see that mark when he was cutting - and could align the cut better.

Cheers,
Patrick

[ALR-bishop]

Patrick---what is your view on my personal expanded definition above ?

I know little about the printing processes and sheet layouts so always appreciate such input from folks like you and Steve

[SMPEP]

I agree with you on the double/triple print variation. That is another grey area. I tend to view these as variations. My basis for this is in the 1952 Topps set every single card was at least double printed, but the only known A sheet/B sheet variations come in the 6th series - where Topps folks admit that they threw the series together as fast as they could in order to try to get it out that year. So you wind up with two different Mantles, Bobby Thomsons and Jackie Robinsons - but also with two different Campanellas variations. You don't have these A sheet B sheet variations in the first 5 series. Just the last one that was haphazardly put together. I'm not as knowledgeable on other printing years - but it seems this type of error was pretty infrequent even though you might expect it to be relatively common if you have a card located on 3-4 spots on a sheet. So unfortunately, I argue for a master 1952 set (which no one has ever completed by the way - unless someone wants to send me a Reiser Grey back!) you need two Mantles.

Cheers,
Patrick

[ALR-bishop]

Someone who lacks the second Mantle might disagree with us, and have their own definition . We need to elect a Variations Arbitration Board where you can submit your proposals for debate and decisions

[SMPEP]

I need the second Mantle - but unfortunately it's not debatable that it is in the master set (base set - yes, that can be debated. But not the master set.)

Cheers,
Patrick