The Wilhelm "suffered" is available with a Cycle and Hassan back.

The Wilhelm "suffe ed" is available with a Piedmont back.

I've never seen a Cycle Wilhelm and SGC only has a record of 1 before they started keeping track of the "suffered" variation, but if what you say is correct, that makes for an interesting situation - the Matty variation would seem to indicate the Cycle's were printed before the other runs, hence it has the error which was later corrected. If the Cycle Wilhelm is the "suffered" variation, then that would lean towards the Cycles being a later run, after the Piedmonts...

It exists, but I've only seen two in the past five years.

Hopefully the board member who owns one will post a scan.

Matt,

A Wilhelm "suffered" version does exist with a Cycle back. I believe the owner is a board member (Lentel) and he has shown the back several times.

r/
Frank

Interesting. I wonder where that leaves the discussion on if the Cycle's were printed before or after the other brands. Is it possible that different players were printed with different brand order? e.g. The sheet that Matty was on had it's first run with a Cycle back, but the sheet Wilhelm was on did it's Cycle run at a later date, after it was run with Piedmont.

wilhelm suffered cycle
 

Here is a scan of my t205 wilhelm "suffered" cycle back. SOrry the scan is not the clearest. But it is the "suffered" version with a cycle back.

Thanks Kyle, So now we need to think about the issue I raised above in terms of the ordering of the Cycle printings...

Front wilhelm
 

Here is the front if anyone is interested

Kyle,
Very nice Wilhlem.

Matt E.

I don't think it can be conclusive either way to look at a print variation as a measure of the timeline of the print run. It is just as likely that a plate was damaged or mistakenly adjusted at the end of the run thus causing the "incorrect" variation (Cycle Mathewson, Wilhelm "suffe ed", Doc White Polar Bear, etc) as it is that the mistake was discovered early and corrected in future runs.

As far as the Nee card with the printer's mark, I would not consider that a variation as there is no change in the content (meaning artwork design or text) of the card. This is simply a function of the placement on the sheet rather than any change in content of the card. If this is considered a variation, then every single card ever produced would have to be a variation as no two cards are printed and cut absolutely identically.