Help verify a 1956 variation?

[Bob Lemke]

Tomorrow about this time I'm going to post on my blog (linked below) a possible new listing for the Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards for a variation in 1956 Topps. As shown here, it's a "no losses" version of Willard Schmidt's card #323.



I'm also posting a few words about the explosion of variation reports from all eras, and how catalog policy is likely to change on what is, or is not, listed in future editions.

If you can post scans of your Schmidt "no losses" cards, please do so, or e-mail them to me or PM me. Your responses will have much to say about whether or not this card gets into the "big book" as a variation.

Thanks much!

[cardinalcollector]

Hi Bob, I've known about this variation for a few years. I found mine at the 2006? Cleveland National. I found 10 regular versions before I found this one. I think this should be considered a real variation due to the clear differences in the cards. Take care, Randy Trierweiler

[GasHouseGang]

Interesting. I looked up the Schmidt in my set after reading this. Mine looks similar to Cardinal Collector's. But mine has even more blanks. The year Won column, and Lost column are both blank. Also for the Life Lost record, Pct., and Hits column are only partly there. As you may have noted, the word "Major" is mostly missing on the second example as well with just the M showing and that's how mine appears. The entire rest of the card is very brightly printed, and is in a PSA 6 holder.

[fkw]

(non-man made) Print Error

I think the only variations listed as part of a set should be man made (then corrected) ones, not these missing letter/word ones where the printing plates were dirty. They are just print errors.

1958 Topps Herrer"a" is a good example. Its just a dirty printing plate..... Ive seen example with more of the "A" showing and also examples with some of the last "R" missing along with the "A".

If you start listing all the "lack of quality control" print errors (ie T206 missing red ink, etc.) then the book will be 2X bigger.

Within T206....... Nodgrass, Murr'y, Mitchell (Toront'), Shappe, etc. are all print errors too and should not be listed as a variation. IMO

[Bob Lemke]

Frank, your description of "non-man made error" pretty much sums up my thoughts on what should or shouldn't be listed as a variation, though I've never used that terminology.

The 1956 Schmidt will not make the cut as a listed variation.

A few cards, like the Herrer and the 1990T Frank Thomas no-name have been grandfathered because of their value/popularity.

The T206s you mention are not included in the Standard Catalog set list for T206, but rather have a separate listing along with Sweeney no B, etc.

[doug.goodman]

As a guy who has been working to complete 1952 thru 1992 "master" run of Topps baseball, the closer I get to the finish the more I agree with Frank about "non-man made" errors.

Doug

[GasHouseGang]

Would blank backed cards count as manmade errors, or variations? I have several 1974's that came out of the pack blank backed. I never liked them at the time, but they may command a premium now.

[ALR-bishop]

Some blank backs are proofs, and there can be a whole "set" of them, like the 1984 Topps Encased cards or the 1985 Topps Mini blank backs. Topps Vault sometimes sells blank back proofs from various years with a letter of authenticity .Those are usually pre production/distribution cards. If a blank back came out of a pack, I assume it was a printing error or mistake, much like the many wrong back cards that also show up. Sometimes they sell at a premium but in my experience the market is limited for them

If I understand the man made proposal, it would involve the manufacturer printing a card, realizing there was a mistake or error ( for example the 59 Spahn DOB), or that there had been an change in situation ( for example the 59 traded/optioned cards) and developed a 2nd printing of the card to correct the card or update it. In that case cards like the Herrer and Bakep and Campos would not seem to qualify. I assume it would, however, include the whole series of pose and print variations in the greenies 1962 series.

On your blank backs I would guess they would not qualify since it was a temporary printing defect that was not intentionally corrected. But I stand to be corrected. Another example of a whole set of print defects listed in the SCD Catalog are the 1982 ToppsBlackless cards .

Good issue for discussion

[GasHouseGang]

I'm with you ALR. I always thought anytime the printing press process got messed up, it was human error. When they changed something on purpose, then we are talking about a variation. The 1956 team cards come to mind. Some have the dates for example and some don't. That is a variation. Or the 1973 manager cards, where they changed the backgrounds on some of the small photos. That's a variation. If a printing press breaks and causes a letter to be missing, that doesn't seem like a variation. It's a malfunction. They can be interesting, but I certainly wouldn't include it in the "master" set. They had several cards in the 1981 Fleer set that had a random hair on the printing press that happened to look like a hand. I never thought that was a valid variation, but people were chasing them. Other opinions are certainly welcomed, but that's my opinion on what is a valid variation.

[ALR-bishop]

GasHouse---good example on the 56 Teams. Another is the 74 Washington/San Diego cards.

On the 73 Manager cards I had not known if the different backgrounds were intentional( like the change in printing company made by Topps to correct the 62 greenies) or just unintended printing deviations. Have you heard or read something about that ? Others I have wondered about are the 58 Yellows and the 69 Whites...were the changes intentional or mistakes ? Looking for any input on that. There are some gray areas for any definition

On a newer front I have the 4 SCD Catalog listed yellow names and one no name listed in the 1980 Topps set ( plus a 5th yellow not listed..McEnaney), but those again would seem to only be print defects---like the no name Thomas and related cards from that sheet with blank spots

Still, I won't pitch them, or the Herrer, or the Bakep, or the Campos...unless Bob L starts yanking them from the Catalog

[GasHouseGang]

As far as the 73's, I've not read anything about them specifically lately. I think there was something that appeared in an article in SCD probably 20 years ago that generated some excitement. Then they were being sold at shows as the different variations for a premium. I'm not sure exactly what caused the variation, but they certainly looked to be changed on purpose by the manufacturer. I was never sure one variety was actually rarer than another. And I really didn't care to be honest, but there was definately a variation. I chased the Washington Nationals when I was putting together my 74's. And I would pick up a white letter variation of the 69's if they showed up. I even picked up the differnt #11's and #22's in the deckle edge set. I guess what it comes down to for me is I like the more obvious variations, not printer malfunctions.