1955 Topps 'New' Jackie Robinson Variation
 

Hi everyone,

I just came across this article here: https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...robinson-card/ describing a newly discovered "partial diamond" variation of the Jackie Robinson card in the '55T set. Looking at all the examples they show, it is clear this is definitely a genuine print variation. However, since it is such a minor variation, and was possibly brought about by a slight plate/calibration error (I'm not too educated on the printing process for the set), should it be classed as a variation? The article also shows that SGC has begun recognizing the error.

In addition to this, I remembered reading a similar discussion on here: http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=233799 which mentions the Robinson 'variation' and discusses Bob Grim's card having the same issue.

I've added a poll, so everybody can share their stance on the cards' status.

Owen

I apologize for the complete lack of enthusiasm, but...... There are likely a THOUSAND similar print variations from the 1950s-1970s Topps issues already discovered and there are likely a 1000 more still waiting to be discovered.

This variation is nothing more than a non-intentional print variation like so many, many others previously "discovered" and posted in the variations thread.


The most likely reason it took until now to notice is that many collectors/dealers don't necessarily have multiple copies of key HOFers such as this to compare to one another, so it takes longer to discover such things on higher profile cards.


This card does not appear to be "rare" by any stretch, just check the completed listings on ebay. There are not only other more well known print variations that are much more rare, there are also other true variations that are far tougher to locate.

FWIW, the article fails to mention some other previously mentioned PRINT variations from the 55 Topps set......see below for a link to Richard D's variation site:

https://sites.google.com/site/richar...riations-lists

Disagree. If this was a simple print defect, it's highly unlikely this would have affected multiple print colors (magenta, yellow, and black at a minimum). The fact that it's not just a single color missing makes me think it was an error that was intentionally corrected during the print process.
Kind of has the feel of a cropping difference as well, based on it being on the side of the card where the variation with the corner has yellow all the way to the side, whereas the missing corner the yellow stops where the diamond disappears.

It's not a printing problem, but it is a difference between two different places on the sheet. Whoever did the mask for the plates just cropped one a bit, but not the other. Probably not intentional, but if we go by intent, then most recognized variations aren't.


I'd call it a variation, others might not.


There probably isn't any great interest in making it cataloged by grading companies etc, as it will have been produced in the same quantity as the other version. Or maybe half as much, it looks like 55 had some cards printed twice on the sheet and others printed 3 times. (And each one is probably at least slightly different)

The 52 Mantle is a double print and variation, and the two different versions while known don't get much attention since either one is just as common.

If it's an obvious variation (like this or yellow fingerprint 1972 or streaks in sky 1963), I don't see why it wouldn't be cataloged and distinguished by the grading companies. Is it because Master set collectors wouldn't want to keep having to buy cards when new variations are blessed?
Why do white back/gray back differences get precedence in a master set in some sets, and aren't distinguished in other sets? There's no consistency.

Why doesn't PSA recognize all the different T205 backs by company instead of putting them all into a single bucket? It's definitely not value, because some commons with rare backs might be worth thousands more than ones with common backs. And those backs are fully recognized as different variations.

Maybe SGC sees an underserved niche in the hobby for variation collectors. PSA requires price guides to bless new variations, but SGC has decided they will try to do it themselves. PSA lost out on the Mascot Dog Food Mantle to BGS because they would not slab it without knowing the entire Mascot set listing.

Not really sure what this disagreement is, but nowhere did the word "simple" get used, but the following was used as a descriptor: "a non-intentional print variation"

The point behind the post was print variations such as this are common and this example, based on previous sales, appears to be far more available than other print variations.


Below in the link to 55 Topps uncut sheets thread, while the Robinson card is hard to see in the image in post #4, it does appear to be on the far left edge of the sheet....this could help explain a variation on the card's left edge. Could have been a piece of tape used during production?

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...=152506&page=3

Then should all of the non-intentional print variations on Richard D's list be cataloged and distinguished by grading companies? Where would it ever end?

A card like the 73 Band-Aid Kaline still has not been distinguished by grading companies, so why should yet another card with a non-intentional print variation receive a designation?

If any one person had enough time, some sort of print variation could be found on almost any card.....

I couldn't tell how many times the JRob card appears on that sheet, but I completely agree it was non-intentional, and based on the number out there, it is either due to the number of times this card appears on the sheet or it's left edge location on the sheet.

Thanks everybody for their opinions. Looks like the poll is in a three way tie at the moment. savedfrommyspokes thanks for the link to the variation site, lots of different variations that I hadn't heard of before.

Owen

SCD recognized the 52 Mantle, Thompson and Robinsons as variations. Not so PSA. I think the reason they do not get much "attention" is that few master collectors would want to need two of each in their set :).

I think DP differences, even if not intentional were a result of intentional acts in the printing process and are variations ( my view only). Is the 55 Robinson a DP ? If not, I would view it as a recurring print defect, and agree that if you pick any card from any Topps set and look hard and long you will eventually find some defect. Some are common and recurring, others scarce.

All are interesting to me. And the hobby has been fairly inconsistent as to what gets formally recognized

I also think it virtually impossible to know for sure whether many or even most recurring print defect were intentionally corrected. I think most were not,

I always enjoy these discussions

I wouldn't call a print defect IMO. I think it is a genuine variation that was caused due to an error with the printing process (poor calibration/cropping/etc) which affected a notable portion of the Robinsons in distribution. I think it was an 'variation' similar to those that we see with the T206 plate scratches.

Robinson is not a DP in the set (there are only 4). So I would assume that the reason why we see the two variations is that the error was corrected (or not made a second time) after a printing run/group of sheets/series of the error versions were made.

Owen

Made me look.

Legit variation in my book, Topps clearly re-cropped this card and the Grim. There are a few others with similar variations in the team logo in 1955.

I think it's a legit variation if you are into that kind of thing...what I don't agree with is it being "new" by any stretch of the imagination. I have been aware of that particular variation on the '55 Robinson for years. I always saw it as more of a mistake, and usually tried to go after versions of that card that have the complete diamond logo.

The poll was almost 50/50 as to whether it is a"true variation" ( with no definition of what that is) or a scarce recurring print defect. I tend to be in the camp of print defect, since if ( big if I know ) a true variation is a card intentionally changed by the manufacturer ( a definition that seems simple but in very hard to verify in many cases), then I think it impossible to know if this defect occurred at the start of printing and was "corrected, or occurred in later runs and was noticed and corrected, orwas just a temporary recurring defect.

But like many of the contributors to the never ending variation thread, I collect recurring print variants whether the hobby recognizes them as variations currently or not. So, I had to have one :o

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...g?t=1542474021