New E121 (Series of 80) Variation (HOFer Harry Hooper)??

[rhettyeakley]

As I was looking at my E121 cards tonight I noticed that the 2 Harry Hooper cards I had were indeed slightly differnt in the picture portion, which to me constitutes a new variation. I initially noticed that the Hooper's feet were different distances from the frame of the picture, but was wonderng if that was really enough to warrant being considered a new variation.

I then showed my wife the cards to see what she thought (to get a second set of eyes) and she quickly asked why they took the "house" out of the picture on the one card. I looked and sure enough the one where Hooper appears to be slightly larger with his foot closer to the bottom frame is a slightly blown up image where the house or shed (or whatever that is on the left side of the card at the horizon) has been cut off.

While most people here could care less about the E121 set, I feel this is enough to warrant a new variation on this particular card. What are your thoughts?

Image:
http://starsofthediamond.com/e121hoopervariation.JPG

I tried to line up the borders of the actual photo portion relative to one another, but they still weren't exactly lined up, so I appologize.

[ChiefBenderForever]

You can see the corner of the rooftop in the 2nd card. My guess would be that in another printing they accidently enlarged the image, it does seem to be slighty larger. I think it is the same photo, but different size. Which could be a variation or a 1st printing vrs. 2nd printing ?

[canjond]

Are the black "spots" at the top of the card on the left a stain on the card, or part of the image?

[rhettyeakley]

Jon, the black splotches are fairly common in the set, the cards were printed fairly cheaply and there was just some extra ink on the press when the one with the spots were produced. Many cards in the set do have unusual ink blotches on the cards that do always show up on the same subject, but that isn't the case with Hooper, it was just extra ink on the press.
-Rhett

[Matt]

Interesting find. Can we see the backs?

[brianp-beme]

I have a Hooper from both the 80 series and the 120 series, and they each look like the card you show on the right (the one without the 'love' shack). Are there any differences between the cards with the print on the back side? The shack card strikes me as looking unfamiliar, so I am assuming this would be the less common variation.

Brian

[dstudeba]

Is there a player's arm and leg along the right border of the second card?

[V117collector]

Rhett,

I think the two Hooper's are from two different sets. The Hooper on the left hand side is a stripe card "W575-1" (hand cut), and the other more desirable card is from E121 (Series of 80). So no variation if I am right!

[Mark]

Rhett
Nice work, again. Everytime you post about E121's, I am 2000 miles away from my collection! Please specify the series of the cards that you show.
Mark

[rhettyeakley]

Brad, both cards have a regular E121 Series of 80 back. I am at work right now, but when I get a chance this evening I will provide scans of the backs. This isn't totally unprecidented in this set as Tris Speaker also was produced in a Small & Large Projection, but this example is MUCH more subtle.

It is not uncommon in the E21 series of 80 for there to be very slight variations in the placement of the text on bottom, etc. but there haven't been too many projection or photo variations. I only really notice these types of things because I am a Colgan's Chips collector and I am always looking at my dupes in that set to see if there are any minor photo projection variations (there are several in the E254 set).

-Rhett

[V117collector]

Rhett,

Very intresting indeed I guess you do have a variation on your hands. Good observation!
----
How many steps does one take before validation?

[canjond]

Jon, the black splotches are fairly common in the set, the cards were printed fairly cheaply and there was just some extra ink on the press when the one with the spots were produced. Many cards in the set do have unusual ink blotches on the cards that do always show up on the same subject, but that isn't the case with Hooper, it was just extra ink on the press.
-Rhett

Thanks Rhett

[Ladder7]

Good eye.

There is a similar, undocumented "enlargement" variation with the W517 Ruth and Lou.

[t206wagner]

I don't know if it is just a simple enlargement. If that was the case, wouldn't the "houses" on the right side of the image be fewer or smaller. It appears that you see more of the "houses" on the right side in the blown up version of the card. I think it could be two different photos or the original photo was cropped differently in a different printing.

[Al C.risafulli]

That's a great catch, Rhett.

I'm the last guy to talk to about Topps cards, but I remember reading somewhere that some of the Topps sets were actually produced by two different printers. There were subtle variations in some of the card images or border colors as a result.

This seems like it could be a similar situation. If it is, I would say that if there's one variation like this, there are others.

-Al

[rdixon1208]

I have a Hooper from both the 80 series and the 120 series, and they each look like the card you show on the right (the one without the 'love' shack). Are there any differences between the cards with the print on the back side? The shack card strikes me as looking unfamiliar, so I am assuming this would be the less common variation.

Brian

There is one for sale on Ebay right now. It also matches the one on the right. Great catch Rhett.