1961 topps with green inside baseball

[zachclose21]

I have owned the 1961 topps ron fairly with the green inside the baseball and I know psa will slab this card. But I found a #40 bob turley with the same green mark inside the bottom of the baseball. My question is has anyone else seen this with other 61 and will psa recognize this as an error? I had about 5 other turleys and none of them had the green mark.

[Cliff Bowman]

Every time one of these 1961 Topps "Green in Baseball" discoveries pops up I have to scour eBay and COMC looking through back of card scans trying to find one. I must have looked at 200 Turley cards, but luckily found one. There are at least four that I know of, Ron Fairly, John DeMerit, Jose Pagan, and now Bob Turley. Personally, even though I have found quite a few of them, I don't think PSA should have recognized the Fairly because it is strictly a printing flaw and there are so many varying degrees of the amount of green in the ball. It looks like the Deron Johnson might have a little green in the ball in the scan.

[ALR-bishop]

I think this defect occurs in many 1961 Topps cards. Whoever sold PSA on listing the Fairly as a variation in the Registry master list was a good salesman. But once it is added to a master set list, if you collect such sets, you almost have to have one . I admit to getting one of the Fairlys. :-(

The amount of green can vary significantly. A friend has a Fairly in which the entire bottom of the ball is green. Once it becomes obvious how many cards have the defect the initial high prices should drop considerably

[savedfrommyspokes]

I have owned at least 4 different variations of the green in the circle(and have seen additional variations to this card)....would these 61 Topps cards with the green in the ball be considered "uncorrected" print variations, or did Topps actually take the time and "correct" this seemingly insignificant "error"?

Either way, I am not complaining as I sold my 4th copy of the Fairly card for $200 recently. A 501 card recently sold for around $25-30

Here are scans of the three "different" Fairly backs that I have.

[ALR-bishop]

Saved--the middle one is a good one, but PSA has been putting labels on any Fairly card with the slightest smudge in the circle. Don't know what they will do if everyone starts turning in all the other cards with this defect. I think they were all just print defects of varying degrees with some of the green ink sloshing over on the plates. I don't they they intended it or corrected it.

On the other hand I guess it is as " prominent" as a missing part of the R on the back of the 57 Bakep " variation", which is, I think, just another unintended print defect. Only difference between these green smudges and the 57 Bakep, the 58 Herrer or the 52 Campos black or partial black star may be the fact they are apparently much more common that the latter

[steve B]

Those don't look much like overinked cards. Especially the middle one. It's just too neat of a curve. The other two don't look overinked, but don't look like much either.

One way of correcting this sort of thing is by using a special writing thing that's sort of like a limestone crayon. It can be used to erase stuff from the plate or fill scratches and other damage.

I'd guess the two on the sides are incomplete repairs. It's just a bit hard to tell with so little there.

Steve B

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Saved--the middle one is a good one, but PSA has been putting labels on any Fairly card with the slightest smudge in the circle. Don't know what they will do if everyone starts turning in all the other cards with this defect. I think they were all just print defects of varying degrees with some of the green ink sloshing over on the plates. I don't they they intended it or corrected it.

On the other hand I guess it is as " prominent" as a missing part of the R on the back of the 57 Bakep " variation", which is, I think, just another unintended print defect. Only difference between these green smudges and the 57 Bakep, the 58 Herrer or the 52 Campos black or partial black star may be the fact they are apparently much more common that the latter

[zachclose21]

Here is a photo of the bob turley

Thanks for all the response it has been a huge help

[ALR-bishop]

I would always defer to Steve on printing issues, but whatever the defect is, it appears on a good many of the 61 cards.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Saved--the middle one is a good one, but PSA has been putting labels on any Fairly card with the slightest smudge in the circle. Don't know what they will do if everyone starts turning in all the other cards with this defect. I think they were all just print defects of varying degrees with some of the green ink sloshing over on the plates. I don't they they intended it or corrected it.

On the other hand I guess it is as " prominent" as a missing part of the R on the back of the 57 Bakep " variation", which is, I think, just another unintended print defect. Only difference between these green smudges and the 57 Bakep, the 58 Herrer or the 52 Campos black or partial black star may be the fact they are apparently much more common that the latter

Al- I randomly ended up with 3 of the 4 Fairlys in lots I purchased...I may have gone through 15 total 492 cards to find the 3. If this is indeed an accurate representation of the population of these "green in the ball" cards, then 1 out of 5 does not seem like a very rare defect. The fourth I found at a shop in MI while looking specifically for variations.


Here is a 447 card I found earlier today, I call it the "green everywhere" defect/variation

[Cliff Bowman]

Found another...

[ALR-bishop]

Saved--I like that title...and the card

Cliff-- you should send all your greenies to PSA . Having done the Fairlty, they would appear to be in a corner. :-)

[savedfrommyspokes]

Thanks Al, found yet another 447, this one does not have so much green

[steve B]

Well that's interesting. And I think I might be wrong on this one. I've at least mentally refiled it under "needs more study"

It might be overinking after all. The 447s look overinked, especially the last one. The first one the ink at the top and bottom that makes the arcs looks very odd for overinking but the rest looks it.

So maybe the others are too.

And you guys made me look at all my 61s to see if I had any. Nothing solid, but I did see some interesting things. And had a couple ideas.

On some cards you can see the green under the black. Not easily but if the black is light and the green stronger it's there. in the picture with the three 492s showing the numbers up close it's visible especially on the left card. On that one it comes almost up to the birthdate line.

On other cards it doesn't go that high. Some it's barely covered by the black.

There's a cutout in the green where the number circle is.

I have a couple cards that are a bit out of register that show the edge of the cutout. Nothing special, just off register enough that the green shows.

And a couple that have some little bit of a mark in the ball. One is obviously overinked, the green is ragged on both narrow ends of the card. But the ball area is a nice smooth curve just like the out of register ones.

Another thing that I realized looking at the card and considering it is that the cutout area for the ball is a small space taken on its own.
The process works by the plate holding water to reject the oily ink from the parts that shouldn't print. And a small bit off the edge of a larger area is prone to uneven drying. And a slightly dry spot on the plate will print.

So I'm thinking there's a combination of things- Overinked, bad registration, and dry plates. And just maybe a few Fairlys with an actual variation.

Of course, now I have to check my extras to see if there are any where the green extends both far under the black and just a little. If there are that gives me a whole new bunch of stuff to look for.

Steve B

[ALR-bishop]

This thread should come with a warning that it may cost you some lost time and your sanity

[steve B]

Sanity left years ago.

[GoldenAge50s]

I have a small run of '61's from 320 thru 370 & I just had to look! All are very clean & NONE have even a hint of green in the ball.

[Paul S]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

This thread should come with a warning that it may cost you some lost time and your sanity

I was going to post this in it's own thread since the situation has happened to all of us, but it's this damn thread that started it.

I read the thread last night and think, Gee. I didn't know this. I wonder if I have any? It's about 12:30am. Out comes a 4-row 18-inch-deep card box, which is jammed with cards, about 150 of which are 61T. This should be a snap. All the cards are either in a sleeve or a sleeve within a toploader. Slippery little bastards. I'm on the edge of my bed, pulling out a handful each time and thumbing through. Yet, each time one or two cards squirts out. Finally finished, I go to put the lid back on and BOOM, the box starts to fall off the bed and I reach over to grab it. There was that one second that seems like an eternity where I saw the future, and it wasn't pretty. The box was falling Upside down so the cards got a good headstart before they hit the nicely waxed slick hardwood floor, and then the box fell on top of them. There, on the floor, was a 3x3 square foot pile of cards that looked like 5 drunken card trick people had tried to fan them -- they needed more practice.
I tired to pick some up that were still spread in order but between the plastic and the floor it was like a greased Rosanne Barr on a Slip'n Slide. Two hours later, 2:30am, they were back in the box. Even then, I had only put them in order by sections of one hundred still not in numerical order. That job is for the future. The irony is that I found not a one of those stupid little baseballs with any green ink in it. This makes a strong case for binders.

[ALR-bishop]

LOL-- now I feel better

[zachclose21]

On Friday i email psa about the bob turley with the green inside the baseball and asked them if they would grade it the same as they would the Ron fairly. This was the response
Psa said
We have not graded one before so we do not have this variation listed. If this is recognized by the manufacturer as part of the set and is listed in the catalog then we will also recognize this and add this to the system. If you do decide to submit this then please make sure to attach a copy of the page from the SCD catalog that specifies this as a variety otherwise PSA will not recognize this.

[4reals]

Amazing how much power SCD has. Some of those cards turn into big dollar items if you can get in the right person's ear.

Too much ambiguity in these print variations for me.

Speaking as a Dodgers collector, there's no way I'm forking over $200 for clean Fairly example. NO WAY! I wouldn't even pay $50.

[ALR-bishop]

There is a thread on CU in the PSA forum about getting PSA recognition of a variation in SCD. Since Bob Lemke retired, the path is not clear. I do not think Bob would have recognized the Fairly as a variation. Although he posts here and may disagree. And the Fairly, while it is in the PSA master list, is not in SCD. So they are being inconsistent and appear to be closing the barn door.

In the CU thread a couple of folks have said they have had successful discussions with the new SCD editor, Tom Bartsch, about getting recognition of new variations. I don't know if that means there will be an update to the Standard Catalog or not, either in print or on line. Otherwise I am not sure how any new recognition gets published in the hobby for PSA, or us non graded master set collectors. Will have to check the CU thread for any updates

[savedfrommyspokes]

Found another one also:

[AddieJoss]

I found a few others. I am not sure how PSA will slab them though. The DeMerit that I have not only has green inside the baseball but several other random green spots/lines on the back borders.

[ALR-bishop]

Cory--hard to say, having slabbed the Fairly as a variation and put it in their master set list, what they will do when they realize how many there are like that in the set. Maybe they will rescind their initial decision, or maybe grandfather it. Bob Lemke on occasion removed listed variations from SCD as he developed a more restrictive view of what should define true variations. I think he and maybe Beckett used to be their guide post, but now Bob has retired

Or maybe they will become Greenies 2 ala the 62 set...or 1

[savedfrommyspokes]

I found this 501 recently

[ALR-bishop]

Saved---I have one like that as well

[brightair]

Hi Al and all,
Thanks for this thread! Looking through my 1961 dupes I found only a couple of baseball bleeds and a couple margin bleeds, which I am listing on my variations pages. Also listing all the ones you guys so thoughtfully scanned.
Meanwhile I noticed a handful of my dupes had what looked like two-toned green on the back. Meaning that the large green area around the stats was significantly darker in one area and lighter in the rest. Didn't look like light exposure and varied completely in extent and degree from card to card. I would send scans but don't yet know how. I found this on cards #216, 225, 230, 242 and 246. Curious that the numbers are so close...
Anyone else notice this?
Richard Dingman
https://sites.google.com/site/richar...ns-1960---1969

[Cliff Bowman]

And another...

[ALR-bishop]

Another good catch Cliff. What should PSA do ?

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Another good catch Cliff. What should PSA do ?

If PSA only recognized the version of the 1961 Topps Ron Fairly with the whole bottom part of the baseball neatly filled in with green ink up to the stitches there wouldn't be a problem, but when they allowed any version with just a random smattering of green ink in the baseball it opened up a can of worms.

[ALR-bishop]

That may have given them an out but I have seen a DeMint with a pretty full bottom.... as bad as that sounds

[Northviewcats]

Went through a lot of 1961 Topps this morning and found a Turley with the Green smudge.

Another fun thing to look for when buying lots on eBay.

Best regards,

Joe

[Tomman1961]

I have to agree with Cliff. I see far to many print differences to call them varitions. When I was collecting the set, the variations listed were mainly the checklists. The green bleed on these, and print defects where dust landed on the plate and no ink, is getting to be a bit much to list them all as variations.

[doug.goodman]

I am happy to report than a grand total of none of my 598 different Topps 1961 baseball cards have even a hint of green inside the baseball on the back.

These are print dots, not variations.

Give me 50 different copies of a specific card from this set, and I will show you 50 different "variations" based on similar happenings in the print process.

I'm happy for the ebay sellers who make money selling these "newly discovered variations" to those who weren't around for PT Barnum to sell things to.

I'm also happy that the people who get paid for their opinions are deciding to note these differences, and not because they make more money doing so, I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

Happy collecting,
Doug

[Tomman1961]

My first older set I completed was the 1961 set. The year I was born. I have the Santo rookie card with green. So if I get this graded I can sell it for a bazillion dollars? I would replace it with a Santo without the green. Is it that easy for me to turn a few bucks? If so, I will. But I think this variation stuff is getting nuts. As I posted before-Luis or Louis is a variation. Ink drool is not a variation. Color difference is not a variation. We are talking about a time when the cards were printed and no one really cared about a piece of dust eliminating a letter. But if my Santo is worth it- I will grade it and sell it, and buy one without this green. This is nuts. If I go through all my 19671 cards I just might be able to retire because of a green spot

[savedfrommyspokes]

I would certainly flip it....I do not even think I would get it graded, just sell it as is. I sold one of my extra ungraded Fairly green smudge cards recently for $200, so there is not telling what one of the most popular cards in the 61 set with a green smudge might sell for. On top of that, I have yet to see a Santo with a green smudge, so the sky is the limit.

As Doug has mentioned, some ebay sellers are profiting from these cards....the only reason these GS cards are selling and some ebay sellers are profiting is because there are some collectors willing to buy these GS cards. Whether these GS cards are or are not considered variations by individual collectors, some collectors have placed their own value on them, likely due to their (perceived) scarcity.

Could you also post a scan of your Santo?

[ALR-bishop]

Doug---even over here in Ireland they know these are "blobs", not dots

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Tomman1961

My first older set I completed was the 1961 set. The year I was born. I have the Santo rookie card with green. So if I get this graded I can sell it for a bazillion dollars? I would replace it with a Santo without the green. Is it that easy for me to turn a few bucks? If so, I will. But I think this variation stuff is getting nuts. As I posted before-Luis or Louis is a variation. Ink drool is not a variation. Color difference is not a variation. We are talking about a time when the cards were printed and no one really cared about a piece of dust eliminating a letter. But if my Santo is worth it- I will grade it and sell it, and buy one without this green. This is nuts. If I go through all my 19671 cards I just might be able to retire because of a green spot

Well said.
A 'variation' is when a card company or the printer makes a purposeful change (a variety of unintended mistakes also count) to the layout of the card during or in between print runs. Name changes, adding additional information (like a player being traded or optioned) or changes to the layout and/or color scheme fit the bill. Stray flecks of color or overly inked areas do not.

If you followed the logic of many ebay sellers, then you would literally have to own every single card printed that year to have all of the so-called variations. If the same card is printed a million times with the same printing plates, there are still going to be minor differences to each and every strike. Some might say they're as unique as fingerprints.

Every time I read another idiot on ebay proclaiming "Newfound Variation!! Rare!! Look!!!" for a stray bit of color on the front of a card, I simply block their auctions from appearing in my searches.

[buymycards]

I'm looking at my SCD right now. #492 Fairly is not listed as a variation. So, why did PSA slab it as a variation but they won't slab any of the others?

Inconsistent.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Well said.
A 'variation' is when a card company or the printer makes a purposeful change (a variety of unintended mistakes also count) to the layout of the card during or in between print runs. Name changes, adding additional information (like a player being traded or optioned) or changes to the layout and/or color scheme fit the bill. Stray flecks of color or overly inked areas do not.

If you followed the logic of many ebay sellers, then you would literally have to own every single card printed that year to have all of the so-called variations. If the same card is printed a million times with the same printing plates, there are still going to be minor differences to each and every strike. Some might say they're as unique as fingerprints.

Every time I read another idiot on ebay proclaiming "Newfound Variation!! Rare!! Look!!!" for a stray bit of color on the front of a card, I simply block their auctions from appearing in my searches.

So if a card is a doubleprint on the sheet and you can tell the two apart would that count?

Or if there were two plates and one had a small flaw but the other didn't?
How about if the plate was damaged and then replaced with a new one?

Or if a completely different ink was used?

Or a different type of cardboard?

Yeah, a lot of what those Ebay guys find are printing mistakes. But there's a load of stuff that isn't. Sometimes it's hard to tell if it's a printing error, or just where in production a mistake happened. Was that bit of dust something that got into the press and stayed for maybe only a handful of sheets? Or was it in when the plate was exposed and every card fro that plate has the flaw. Or was it between the art and camera when the negative was taken and every card should have it but it got noticed and fixed?

Just where do you draw the line?

Aside from not knowing in some cases where a small error came from I have examples of all the stuff above. Some of it can't even be scanned.

Like 93 Upper deck has 3 different sorts of back. All over gloss, gloss only on the photo, and gloss over the photo covered with a lighter overall layer.
Obviously it was done as a deliberate change.

I have an 81 fleer where there's a red line across part of the card. Not an ink smear, but from a scratch on the plate.
Obviously not deliberate.

Or this pair? Totally normal, but one is like the 62 green tints. Deliberate? Just a mistake?



Steve B

[savedfrommyspokes]

No, not really...however, I did recently notice this print defect/variation. Missing borders on both sides.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by steve B

So if a card is a doubleprint on the sheet and you can tell the two apart would that count?

Or if there were two plates and one had a small flaw but the other didn't?
How about if the plate was damaged and then replaced with a new one?

Or if a completely different ink was used?

Or a different type of cardboard?

Yeah, a lot of what those Ebay guys find are printing mistakes. But there's a load of stuff that isn't. Sometimes it's hard to tell if it's a printing error, or just where in production a mistake happened. Was that bit of dust something that got into the press and stayed for maybe only a handful of sheets? Or was it in when the plate was exposed and every card fro that plate has the flaw. Or was it between the art and camera when the negative was taken and every card should have it but it got noticed and fixed?

Just where do you draw the line?

Aside from not knowing in some cases where a small error came from I have examples of all the stuff above. Some of it can't even be scanned.

Like 93 Upper deck has 3 different sorts of back. All over gloss, gloss only on the photo, and gloss over the photo covered with a lighter overall layer.
Obviously it was done as a deliberate change.

I have an 81 fleer where there's a red line across part of the card. Not an ink smear, but from a scratch on the plate.
Obviously not deliberate.

Or this pair? Totally normal, but one is like the 62 green tints. Deliberate? Just a mistake?

Steve B

Some of what you say may fit into the category of 'variations,' but 99.999999% of them are simply the result of printing anomalies. Like the Harrah cards you showed. My first impression is the card on the right was printed with an incorrect amount of magenta on the plates. That's it. There are no intentional changes there. Most of the so-called 'newly discovered variations' on ebay follow that model. There's too much color or not enough color in certain areas and they laud it as a rare discovery, when it's nothing but a printing issue.

But then there are legitimate color variations, like the 1969 white letter cards. Since they have yellow in the mix elsewhere (photo of the player, etc.), that means the yellow was purposefully or accidentally eliminated from the part of the plate that included the name, etc. That's significant.

Where it begins to tread into a tough gray area is when you take into account cards such as the 1967 Schaal green bat variation. Normally, I wouldn't consider this anything but a simple print error, because there were no deliberate changes made to the card, but it's been established as a true variation by the collecting community, so what can you do?

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

No, not really...however, I did recently notice this print defect/variation. Missing borders on both sides.

Haha!!!!!

[4reals]

Ah, the classic grudge match is back, variation vs. glorified print dot!

It's fun to read about this topic every time it gets brought up. Nobody will ever completely agree on the exact definition but the debate over the semantics is never tiring in my eyes and is what I believe helps make the collecting community vigorous and healthy.

As for my personal opinion, I use three categories.

1. Errors
2. Variations
3. Anomalies

Of course, the line is blurry between each so it really comes down to personal interpretation.

An error in my eyes, regardless of what SCD or Beckett says, is a correction made by the manufacturer to present what was actually intended. I limit this to the design elements and their composition and do not include execution during the printing process. Examples would be misspelling, reversed negatives, airbrushings, etc.

A variation as I see it, is a MAJOR deviation from the manufacturers intention occurring DURING the printing process, having nothing to do with the design layout. These major types of deviations are supposed to be pulled out of the delivery tray by the pressman once the inconsistency is realized to ensure quality control, however, some fall through the cracks and not all of them are caught, finding their way into distribution. Your '82 blackless cards or '73 partial border cards would fall under this category. As would the '80 redless banners that have frequented saved searches recently. Cards depicting different levels of ghosting (poor registration) would. Personally, I would consider the famous Herrera error and 1990 Frank Thomas NNOF rookie error as variations. Variations that may not have necessarily been printing mistakes but rather a way for the manufacturer to save money on materials are cards with different types of card stock (white back/gray back) or '52 Topps red/black ink backs.

With this in mind, an error card can have multiple variations and a correct card can have multiple variations. Cards possessing recognized variations on both the error and correct I call "compound" cards. An example of this would be the '91 Topps Fernando Valenzuela #80. Both the error and correct (with/without diamond) can be found with a bold and faint topps watermark logo on back.

An anomaly in my eyes is a card possessing a MINOR print flaw that occurred during the printing process or cutting process which gives very few examples a distinction but was not considered drastic enough to be removed by the pressman from the delivery tray during quality control prior to distribution. Examples would be hickeys/fisheyes/donuts, dust specks, low ink, miscuts, solution spills, ink blob/drool, etc. I would consider the '61 Greens anomalies.

There will always be exceptions to these rules but they are the guidelines I've found work best for me.

Others have voiced their displeasure with sellers on ebay using improper terminology but I would say since there is no clear cut definition it only makes sense for sellers to fit as many of the buzz words in their title as possible to reach as many different potential buyers as possible. I, for one, appreciate the key words being there even if it's not how I would describe it, at least then I'm given the opportunity to decide one way or the other.

[ALR-bishop]

Daren---are the 62 greenies Variations ( not the pose variations) ? They were not on "purpose", but there they be. The 58 Yellows ? The 69 Whites ? The 72 color variants. In the end, it does not matter what you or I or anyone person thinks...it is a hobby decision...ala the 58 Herrer, the 57 Bakep. the 52 Campos Black star. You can say they were not intentional, and therefore not variations...but what we think does not count....except to us

I just enjoy annoying Doug with these blobs...err...print dots, and I have fun collecting them all .

Howdy from Douglas GB on the way to Belfast

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Daren---are the 62 greenies Variations ( not the pose variations) ? They were not on "purpose", but there they be. The 58 Yellows ? The 69 Whites ? The 72 color variants. In the end, it does not matter what you or I or anyone person thinks...it is a hobby decision...ala the 58 Herrer, the 57 Bakep. the 52 Campos Black star. You can say they were not intentional, and therefore not variations...but what we think does not count....except to us

I just enjoy annoying Doug with these blobs...err...print dots, and I have fun collecting them all .

Howdy from Douglas GB on the way to Belfast

Not sure if you're talking to me, but the 62 greenies were definitely done on 'purpose.' Each of those cards deviate from their non-greenie counterparts. The photographs are cropped differently, so they represent distinctly different versions of the cards. When I use the phrase 'on purpose,' I'm not necessarily talking about the motives of the people producing a card, but I am referring to noticeable differences in print runs. Blobs of misplaced colors aren't variations, but a photo cropped differently is, without a doubt, a significant change and thus a variation.

[steve B]

Interesting defenitions Joe.

I'm not quite there, but maybe just shifted a spot.

Errors - To me are mistakes of any kind that didn't get changed. I'm only interested in them as things that might have been changed.

Variations- Cards where there are two versions, an error and a corrected one, or a noticeable difference between printers or printings. The 62 Greens are, the two 52 Mantles are, but also the different holograms on early Upper Deck cards, and the three different die cuts on 88 Score . I've gotten into the habit of mostly only refering to major stuff or stuff that's already recognized as variations.

Varieties - A term I borrowed from stamps. (I collect constant plate varieties of the US official stamps from the 1870's) It's basically any difference that is a) A difference on the plate And B) consistent over at least a portion of the press run. These can be really minor, but they are "different" cards. It might just take a magnifying glass to see the difference easily. And most of them would be classed as just errant dots by most people. I have a pair of 71 High numbers that the only difference is that since they're miscut you can see that one was on the edge of the sheet and the other was in the middle. It's only visible when the cards are miscut, but they're technically different cards.

Printing errors - Some are hard to tell apart from minor varieties, some aren't. But I put all production mistakes here. From simple miscuts to stuff like a card where the die cut is at the bottom rather than the top, or the serial number got stamped twice, one on an angle.
A lot of the "variations" on Ebay are just errors, the most common being fisheyes and bad registration. Unless it's really severe or unusual some other way They're not really interesting.

Nearly whatever people want to call them is ok with me. It's the two extremes that bug me. Either the "It's not a variation unless it's like a totally different picture" People, or the "L@@k! It's got a tiny dot that I've only found on one card and It's a rare variation" (even though it's obviously a fisheye and a tiny one at that) There's some interesting stuff in the middle ground. The Junkwax gems guy does pretty well at sorting the little differences from the mere sloppy printing. He's listed a few clunkers, but I think there's a few on every variation list.

I'm in the process of typing up my 81 topps list.........Lots more than you'd think, but most of it really minor.

Steve B

[4reals]

Originally Posted by steve B

The Junkwax gems guy does pretty well at sorting the little differences from the mere sloppy printing. He's listed a few clunkers, but I think there's a few on every variation list.

Steve B

I completely agree, I enjoy Jackson's blog

[nolemmings]

So how would you classify these 1961 Bobby Bolin cards below? The first one has a bottom border bleed that fills in the "P" in Pitcher. This came from ebay, as my copy, which has a far more noticeable bleed, is playing hide and seek with me at the moment.



Next is Bolin with the bottom edge stray black line. Are these noteworthy variations or print defects?

[JollyElm]

In my world, those are nothing more than print defects, since nothing was changed in the printing process to make an alteration to the original design. Those types of things are so plentiful across print runs, that it would be completely unworkable to consider them all as separate variation examples.