[ALR-bishop]

I do not collect T 206, but for example the Topps 58 Herrer, missing or with only a partial e commands a large premium. It is a simple,scarce but recurring print defect that long ago received hobby recognition.

In the years before he retired Bob Lemke was narrowing his definition of a variation that would be listed in the SCD Standard Catalog. He seemed to require that the difference in the card be a result of an intentional change in the card by the manufacturer. But in some cases it is hard to tell if a recurring print defect was corrected, or simply occurred unintentionally in the printing process for some period of time. And with ebay and internet scans, there has been an explosion in the discovery of "variant" cards...cards that differ from their typical counterpart in some way, intended or not

Since Bob retired it is harder and a bit haphazard getting any new "variation" listed in SCD. Not sure about Beckett. I used to think PSA took it's cue from listings in SCD or Beckett, but not long back they added a 61 Ron Fairly with an errant green smudge in the baseball on the back of the card to their master set list. Not sure if they got that from Beckett. It did not come from SCD. That defect exists on many 61 cards. It would appear that persistence in pursuing the recognition of a variation can pay off, and as Leon mentioned, there is an economic payoff if you succeed.

I personally collect any variation recognized by SCD, Beckett or PSA for my sets. I also collect recurring print defects, whether intentionally corrected or not, because I find such "variant" cards interesting. But I just collect them. I do not sell them to others or try to "sell" them to the catalogs or PSA.

To each their own