New 1960 Topps Kaline variation reported

[Bob Lemke]

I hate to chase you over to my blog, linked below, but it's lunch time and I just don't want to rehash all the details here, as well.

The error involves "cut marks" in the upper-left corner of the borders. It appears to be a legitimate variation, but I don't know if it's "catalogable."

Your opinions are welcome.

cutmarks 1.jpg

[sflayank]

ill vote a no on this
ive probably seen 1000s of cards with that printers line
from all years in the 50s and 60s...always just considered it a print line in fact i believe psa will mark it on the holder
Bob did you see my post right under this on cards that im trying to verify the existance of?

[steve B]

I'd say yes, but a bit conditionally. It is a variation, and the explanation the Tigers card website guy gave is spot on.

Listing it will depend on a lot of stuff that's more of an editorial call. There are loads of variations like this, and for a lot of reasons. Some are as simple as a difference in the mask between 2 examples of a doubleprinted card. It's really hard to get both to be exactly identical. And sometimes there are differences between two plates made from the same mask at different times due to the mask getting worn or being alined up differently. Or cutting guidelines being on the sheet or not. For example, 1970 Topps have black or gray or white or no lines between cards. I have one where there's 3 -4 copies with different lines. I count them because they came from differnt plates, but I doubt there are many other people that would actually care.
(And it's trouble since the same line can be found on 2 cards, one at the top and another at the bottom)

There's also a group of variations that are caused by plate wear, which is a whole different thing.

I think it comes down to how small of a variation do you want to count, and when does a difference get big enough to be listed.

In other hobbies the main catalog lists the major stuff, and gets updated once a year. Then there are more detailed catalogs that might get updated avery few years or so. And finally some very detailed catalogs that you're fortunate if they get updated once a generation or so. The last type usually only covers one small aspect, like one particular stamp or group, or one coin.

I'm thinking I'd leave this one out of the big book unless one version ends up being much harder to find and leave it for someone else to catalog, maybe as part of a listing that only covered 1960 Topps.

I probably would put it in a database though. The more places the info is the less chance of it being forgotten.

Steve B

PS there's also some large but mostly invisible variations, like one fairly recent set that the backs either do or don't flouresce under blacklight.

[toppcat]

It seems to me this does not pass the "changed on purpose" test. While I realize that would eliminate sacrosanct variations like the '58 Herrer, these type off errors just seem like production or printing glitches to me. Those '70 Topps card examples cited above are common and I can't see them being a legit variation either.

Maybe a better solution would be a subsection with known print variations for each year.

[bobsbbcards]

I was about to post that I don't think it's a legitimate variation either, but then I checked the scan of the one I own......



Definitely should be catalogued and probably should be MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE than the one without the cut marks.

[Griffins]

Pay no attention to Bob F. He's sitting at my dining table after far too much wine and doing a happy dance about having a priceless variation, even though he said "absolutely no way" to calling it one before he knew he had it.

I vote no on this as well, I've got cards with crop marks like this going back to '08 E91's. It's a printers mistake, and not a legit variation IMO.

[bobsbbcards]

Anthony is just jealous that his Kaline is the absurdly common variation. Furthermore, I don't see how I can be drunk on wine when nobody has even offered me a drop. California hospitality? An oxymoron. \

(In case Anthony reads this, what I meant to say is that I REALLY appreciate his letting me stay with him. Delta sucks.)

[steve B]

Ah, but if it's not from being doubleprinted then it would pass the changed on purpose test. The mask had a defect, and at some point they fixed it so the lines were eliminated. If it's doubleprinted, then it's not on purpose, but that one part of the mask had the defect and another didn't. Much like the 63 that's being discussed, or for sure the variations of the 52 Mantle. Which weren't done on purpose.

That's one of the problems with variations, most criteria based on what caused it can open the door to a vast array of tiny stuff, while possibly excluding major differences.

I keep mine sorted based on a few different things.
Major recognised ones go with my set.
unrecognised ones that are differences in the printing plate have their own box.
Ones that are from plate wear are separate.
And genuine printing errors - miscuts, badly out of register, missing colors etc have their own box.

Steve B

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by steve B

Ah, but if it's not from being doubleprinted then it would pass the changed on purpose test. The mask had a defect, and at some point they fixed it so the lines were eliminated. If it's doubleprinted, then it's not on purpose, but that one part of the mask had the defect and another didn't. Much like the 63 that's being discussed, or for sure the variations of the 52 Mantle. Which weren't done on purpose.

That's one of the problems with variations, most criteria based on what caused it can open the door to a vast array of tiny stuff, while possibly excluding major differences.

Steve B

The 52 high # DP's are interesting since they reversed the stitches on the baseball containing the card number, so I think they were changed intentionally on the backs but maybe not the fronts. I think the Thomson card may have had some photo touchups done to it as well.

Your point about DP's generally is well noted here.

I wonder, from 52-80, if more variations are found on the front of the cards or the reverses when you tally them all up?

[ALR-bishop]

If anyone wonders ( or cares) who is being truthful, give the edge to Anthony. Besides, Bob always makes fun of my variations/errors/print defects.