Thanks guys - my cursory search didn't return any results on this, so thanks for mentioning. Here is an old thread on the same topic:
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=133119
I think this begs the question though: why ISN'T this a recognized variation? If cards like the "Herrer" from the '58 set or the Gene Bakep in '57 can be recognized variations, then why not a significant issue (not a print dot) like a totally different colored background be considered and recognized as a variation?
I'd love to hear from others - we now have at least three of these Aaron cards like this, and I'm sure there are more - what is enough to constitute a variation, if the answer is not three?