Make it a Variation

With a new discussion about a possible New T206 variation I have to wonder where the lines of a true variation are. What makes a card a Variation? Is it just a printing mistake like the "Nodgrass" with part of the S missing or the new Lundgren? I often have to wonder where the realm of a true variation is. Since I deal primarily with the T205 set I can say that most of the time when a variation like the White quotes No quotes comes up it is disregarded as a variation when in fact it is just the same as the Hobby NO Stats, the Matty Cycle variation, and Wilhelm.

Why can't we be the Hobbies voice and set a guideline of rules that need to be in place before we can add a variation to a checklist. After all we have the likes of Mr. Lemke, and SGC, lurking the boards. They seem to be the ones the hobbies opinion follows anyways.

Could we as a collective come to an agreement on a set of rules. I am sure that there are many thing that are agreed upon and that there are a few differences. Since a majority rules those differences could be narrowed out. Right

Easy one
- A card found to have a variated pose


Open to discussion
- A variated typeset on the card, (excluding a misprint/error such as a partial letter), Exp: Magee spelled Magie on T206, Wilhelm with a "Suffered/Suff ed" back, Moran Stray line/No stray, Demmit STL, O'hara STL.

Since we know that the cards were mass produced and the type set was removable on some this would leave room for errors. A partial letter would be caused by the lack of ink or a wore down typeset letter. Not from the shear forgetfulness of the printer such as the Moran stray line or the wilhelm suff ed. Even these cards were produced on multiple backs and not corrected.

I would like to hear what you all thing of this.

[Zach Wheat]

Andrew,

Unfortunately, it depends on whether you own a "variation" doesn't it? Sort of kidding here, but a lot of people do not believe in sharing information on variations. I am not from that camp but quite a few others are...

MWheat

[barrysloate]

My definition of a variation is something that was intentionally changed by the printer. The T206 Magie is a variation of the correctly spelled Magee. But all these little printing glitches are just that, slight irregularities due to some very minor technical issue during the printing process. While collectors are free to pay a premium for many of these cards, they are not in the same category as true variations.

[marcdelpercio]

To me, a variation is any change in the text or artwork DESIGN of a card. This would not include such things as stray print marks, variances in color shading due to low or missing ink, or other variances due simply to inconsistencies in the printing process. Rather, this would include cards that have a different actual design, meaning a variation in text (missing/different letters, punctuation, stats, etc), or artwork (different team, insignia on uniform, border design, etc).

I believe that the advertising back is irrelevant as this was meant to be used interchangeably among all copies of the card. So, in my opinion, even cards that appear with only one ad back (T206 Demmitt & O'Hara St. Louis, T205 Mathewson "37-1" & Doc White "no quotes") should still be considered variations as the DESIGN of the card is different.

[Bridwell]

Marc, I agree 100% with your definition.

Let's separate 'design variations' from 'printing errors'. To me, those are 2 different types of collectibles.

Originally Posted by marcdelpercio

To me, a variation is any change in the text or artwork DESIGN of a card. This would not include such things as stray print marks, variances in color shading due to low or missing ink, or other variances due simply to inconsistencies in the printing process. Rather, this would include cards that have a different actual design, meaning a variation in text (missing/different letters, punctuation, stats, etc), or artwork (different team, insignia on uniform, border design, etc).

I believe that the advertising back is irrelevant as this was meant to be used interchangeably among all copies of the card. So, in my opinion, even cards that appear with only one ad back (T206 Demmitt & O'Hara St. Louis, T205 Mathewson "37-1" & Doc White "no quotes") should still be considered variations as the DESIGN of the card is different.

I will +1 that

[steve B]

I also collect stamps, and the way they handle it there's a few different levels of collecting. First is the basic stamp, then the cataloged differences of perforations or watermarks, then major cataloged varieties like plate cracks and double transfers. And finally going way beyond the catalog to highly specialise in one series or even one stamp. Each way of collecting is equally ok.


For me it's a matter of there being a difference on the plate. That can be accidental or deliberate. - Magie - deliberate, Nodgrass - accidental.

Add to that a question of wether an accidental difference happened during the making of the plate or sometime after. Nodgrass was probably done while makingthe plate. I have a few cards with marks from plate scratches which are obviously both accidental and later.

Stuff that happens during printing and processing the sheets into cards(or during packaging) I consider to be printing errors and not variations.


I collect all the above, mostly because I find them interesting.

But I wouldn't expect most people to collect them that way or to recognize the small imperfections as variations.

[E93]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

My definition of a variation is something that was intentionally changed by the printer. The T206 Magie is a variation of the correctly spelled Magee. But all these little printing glitches are just that, slight irregularities due to some very minor technical issue during the printing process. While collectors are free to pay a premium for many of these cards, they are not in the same category as true variations.

+1 Well said Barry.
JimB