A New 1962 Variation for the Hardcore E & V Collectors

[JollyElm]

I recently acquired a 1962 Dick Hall, #189, as a slight upgrade for my set. After receiving it in the mail, I realized that the stuff on his chin wasn't wax remnants as I had initially thought. It's actually printed that way.

Fast forward to today and I was in a card shop digging through the guy's 1962's and what did I run across? Why, a nearly identical 'Soul Patch' Dick Hall (yes, I just coined that phrase), so now I know this anomaly isn't a one-time thing.

Here is the regular version of the card (a screen capture from ebay) on the left and my two bearded buddies on the right. These are non-green tint version cards. And speaking of ebay, I did a search and found no other 'Soul Patch' cards. There were two that had somewhat similar anomalies, but they were less drastic and offset from the center of his face.

152258

[savedfrommyspokes]

Nice catch on the spotting this "soul patch"

[ALR-bishop]

Nice find Darren

[bnorth]

With a little looking it looks like the soul patch slides across his face on different cards. These 2 are mine but I found several online.

[bnorth]

Just found this one also. Hoping to add it to my collection.

[brob28]

Let the hunt begin!

[brightair]

On some cards without the vertical stripe it almost looks like there was an attempt (appearing blurry) to airbrush or somehow clean away the stripe.

[ALR-bishop]

No telling how many Halls you have to have now in order to have a "master" 1962 set ;):)

It may surpass he 55 Frank Sullivan

[steve B]

This isn't something I'd class as a variation.

It's most likely a drag mark from a part of the press.

Steve B

[ALR-bishop]

I personally agree with you Steve, but the 58 Herrer, the 57 Bakep and 61 Fairly are all print defects too. And the 55 Sullivan too. What the hobby ultimately recognizes as a "variation" is beyond me :)

[JollyElm]

This is precisely why I entitled the thread "…for the Hardcore E & V Collectors." It's obviously not everyone's idea of what an 'official' variation is.

[ALR-bishop]

While I may define "variations"more narrowly like Steve, I collect variants and print defects of any kind that I find interesting. If the hobby later classifies some of them as variations it may sometimes amuse me, like the Fairly, but that is what makes this part of the hobby interesting to me. I personally am glad you and others keep finding and posting them.

[JollyElm]

Hey Al.
My views on 'official' variations are well known to everyone around here. I've posted countless times on the subject and I get PM's on the subject all the time. To me, these cards must really feature a demonstrable or deliberate change to the image (front or back) between print runs to count. There are other cards, like the '61 Fairly you mentioned, that I make an exception for and include in my comprehensive list.

But, because I know other people chase after all sorts of non-recognized variants--print anomalies and so forth--I start threads here and there about cards that these folks might find interesting. So when someone pointlessly chimes in to say, "That's not a variant to me," I say, "Who cares??!! Move on then."

[savedfrommyspokes]

Hey Al.
My views on 'official' variations are well known to everyone around here. I've posted countless times on the subject and I get PM's on the subject all the time. To me, these cards must really feature a demonstrable or deliberate change to the image (front or back) between print runs to count. There are other cards, like the '61 Fairly you mentioned, that I make an exception for and include in my comprehensive list.

But, because I know other people chase after all sorts of non-recognized variants--print anomalies and so forth--I start threads here and there about cards that these folks might find interesting. So when someone pointlessly chimes in to say, "That's not a variant to me," I say, "Who cares??!! Move on then."


+1....I think each collector is ENTITLED to have their own opinion (and respect other's opinion on the subject) as to what constitutes a variation to them. For me, anything(print errors, typo's, airbrushing) "deliberately" changed/corrected by Topps qualifies as a variation to me. For me, I also collect what I consider "print variants" (61 Fairly, 62 Hall card from this thread). To each their own on this subject....

[steve B]

Just to be clear.

While this doesn't reach my fairly low bar for variations, it is something I'd class as a misprint. And I collect those as well.

So it's not a matter of whether I'd consider it collectible, but rather one of which box I'd put it in.

I suspect it's a drag mark from the bits inside the press that guide the paper into the outfeed area. Or maybe the anti-static mechanism. The guides into outfeed are often rollers on a bar they help guide the stock into the parts that align it side to side. Sometimes the rollers get stuck, or get a bit of ink on them from a jammed or misfed sheet. If it's not fixed it will affect every sheet after it happens. If it's fixed, it will only affect a few sheets. This sort of mark is pretty typical of the sheet coming out and hitting a stuck roller then essentially falling below it or bouncing off.

If anyone likes collecting it as an example of a malfunction in the printing process..........That's pretty cool. (And this is a fairly severe example, so it's noteworthy.)

That's also why I prefer the term "varieties" - it includes a wide range of differences without as much baggage as "variations" And it doesn't require us to assign intent. Many of the variations most likely happened without any intent. Like the 1963 cropping variations. They're obviously different plates, but are probably just an artifact of how manual the process was at the time. There are far fewer card pairs where Intent is obvious. Like the 79 Bump Wills, or the trade/no trade sort of things.

Steve B

[goheels]

I think its a variation and I need to get one

Nice technical analysis as usual Steve.

[ALR-bishop]

You may need more than one Carlton. I like this one because the defect "moves"

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/WhitenOldClothes848_zps4eba623e.jpg?t=1405687341

[JollyElm]

It's in rough shape, but a 'soul patch' appeared on the 'bay:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1962-Topps-Baltimore-Orioles-Card-Lot-6-Breeding-34-112-121-Hitchcock-165-189-/390911154831?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item5b041eda8f