Top 100 Errors / Variations and the state of collections these cards prior to 1985

[ALR-bishop]

The 2011 version of the SCD Standard Catalog listed the 52 Mantle, Robinson and Thompson as variations. The front and back differences are obvious, and although not likely intentional, did result from a decision to double print them.

Can you imagine the anguish if PSA ever includes them in it's master 52 list causing a need to have two of each for a master set . Since I have them I am ok with that .

I bet it would be hard to get full agreement here on what should constitute the definition of a variation. And no matter what definition were adopted applying it in all cases would not be easy.

Anyone interested in post war variations might want to look at this project

http://baseballcardvariationsguidebo...wordpress.com/t

[BobC]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

The 2011 version of the SCD Standard Catalog listed the 52 Mantle, Robinson and Thompson as variations. The front and back differences are obvious, and although not likely intentional, did result from a decision to double print them.

Can you imagine the anguish if PSA ever includes them in it's master 52 list causing a need to have two of each for a master set . Since I have them Topps I am ok with that .

I bet it would be hard to get full agreement here on what should constitute the definition of a variation. And no matter what definition were adopted applying it in all cases would not be easy.

Anyone interested in post war variations might want to look at this project

http://baseballcardvariationsguidebo...wordpress.com/t

Thanks, good one(s) Al, I forgot about the 1952 Topps Robinson and Thompson card variations as well. The Mantle definitely belongs as a well-known variation, and most likely the Robinson card as well. Many people will likely put the Thompson card variation much farther down such E&V lists as he is not as well-known and impactful to the hobby overall as are Mantle and Robinson.

[Exhibitman]

I think we need to refine our terms.

An error is a mistake, either corrected or not. The flipped image 1989 UD Murphy is an error. The 1969 Topps Aurelio Rodriguez 'batboy' card is an uncorrected error. The 1952 Topps Paige-Sain screw up is a corrected error as is the 81 Fleer Craig Nettles.

A variation is a change not made to correct a mistake but to change the card. The Nettles loop is a variation. The Kaline "boo boo" is a variation. The myriad FF Ripkens are variations.

The 1952 DPs are not variations, they are two different cards of each player.

A printing freak is an unintended production process failure. The "Bakep" and "Herrer" cards are print freaks. The 'finger' Fleer cards are freaks. All of the really fun mistakes (IMO) are freaks. They carry premiums because guys like me collect them.

[ALR-bishop]

I like your definitions Adam but disagree on DPs. For me two different cards of the same player with the same # are variations. And if they are two different cards of the same player in the same set it would seems to me you would need both for a master set. But the fact there are a whole bunch of DP card differences in most old Topps sets likely makes your definition more manageable and sensible

[steve B]

For stuff like the double prints I like the term Varieties.
It's used in one of my other hobbies to describe an item that's not a correction, but typically a constant error that's a difference in the plate at a particular spot.

There are then specific terms for exactly what the heck went wrong.... Double transfer, Foreign entry, plate scratch, Rust hole, erasure, plate crack, (and that's just for the engraved ones.. typographed and lithographed have their own list of problems.

Collectability depends on how rare or spectacular that variety is, rare AND showy = expensive.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I think we need to refine our terms.

An error is a mistake, either corrected or not. The flipped image 1989 UD Murphy is an error. The 1969 Topps Aurelio Rodriguez 'batboy' card is an uncorrected error. The 1952 Topps Paige-Sain screw up is a corrected error as is the 81 Fleer Craig Nettles.

A variation is a change not made to correct a mistake but to change the card. The Nettles loop is a variation. The Kaline "boo boo" is a variation. The myriad FF Ripkens are variations.

The 1952 DPs are not variations, they are two different cards of each player.

A printing freak is an unintended production process failure. The "Bakep" and "Herrer" cards are print freaks. The 'finger' Fleer cards are freaks. All of the really fun mistakes (IMO) are freaks. They carry premiums because guys like me collect them.

Actually the 1952 HI # Double Prints are variations, there are 5 ways to tell the difference with the most noticeable one being the way the baseball on the front stitching is facing. Yep, it's really different in those 2. I remember discussing that with Andy Broome way back in the day when two of those popped into BGS on the same day

[G1911]

The 52’s are variations and long recognized as such. I’ve never heard of a DP exemption before. This would be new terminology.

[bnorth]

You all can call them anything you want. I call them cool cards I collect.

This pristine card is my favorite Hank Aaron.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by G1911

The 52’s are variations and long recognized as such. I’ve never heard of a DP exemption before. This would be new terminology.

The reason the 52's have the DP notification is cards 311-313 were printed 2x on the full 52 high number sheet. It was an 100 card sheet but 97 cards in the set so Topps just printed, yep 311-313 2x on those sheets.

So of course it's only Mickey Mantle, Jackie Robinson and Bobby Thomson which are DP's which is how that occurred.

Rich

[ALR-bishop]

The 3 52 DPs have noticeable differences front and back. Many if not most Topps DPs have very subtle differences, often only minor cropping differences.

For myself I view cards with recurring differences from their common counterparts as variants. I tend to view variations as variants where the difference resulted from an intentional intervention in the cards appearance by the manufacturer , such as the added traded or option lines in 1959 or the correction of Spahn’s DOB.

Although DP differences themselves were not likely intended, they did result from intentional decisions in the printing process. But as I conceded to Adam there are hundreds of very subtle DP differences. For instance there are two versions of the 1956 Ted Williams card that are pretty hard to spot. ( not the 55 dotted i card)

And how can it be accurately determined if the hundreds of recurring print defects in cards were detected and corrected or simply came and went undetected in the printing process ?

If you collect any and all variations, variants, varieties, errors corrected and uncorrected, definitions may not matter. But it is hobby recognition of card differences that creates market demand and drives pricing.

PSA recognition seems to be one of the few ways to get current recognition of a “new” variation. But I guess if they can designate a 61 Fairly with an errant green smudge in the baseball on the card back as a variation, there is hope for almost any defect

We need someone in charge of this stuff