I enjoy print shifts as well or color loss. I tend to steer clear of the stray ink bubbles or fish eyes. I definitely pick up crop variations or card stock variations for my team sets. In regards to miscut cards, I will only pick them up if there is random info in the border from the sheet like the sheet designation or pressman notes.

1957 #404 Anderson
 

Here are two versions of this card with black marks near his head. It is recurring.

1957 #384 Smith
 

This is a little more subtle, but he has a stain or spot on his left sleeve and body near it. This is only on the left two versions and I included the right one as an example to the normal one where this is NOT present. I am not sure about eBay, but I saw two of these on COMC, therefore, it is recurring and probably easy to pick up. As you can see from the card colors, this is part of my multiple sets that show the color contrasts in this neat set.

1954 #116 Easter
 

This card appears to have the bat come up short at the top margin on the left version. FYI, the version at the right is one with the two black dots that is now known.

A true variation, not a print anomaly:

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...5%20dollar.jpg

The common version of this card says "WIN $10"; I had been searching for one of the $5 versions for a long time. Someone posted three at the same time on eBay. I'd have bought them all except that I don't know anyone else who cares...

This 59 Rip Repulski card has a recurring white print spot on the upper left portion of the player's image circle. There is also a small recurring white print spot along the lower right edge. Found one on my end and just one other copy on COMC.

I believe that would be one of those smooshed bug variations that were discussed earlier in this thread :).

Yes, but the lack of an eye-pleasing splatter pattern on this card make those previously mentioned bug squash variations far more desirable.

Bob is my go to guy on squashed bug variants

In honor of Rusty's passing, here is another one of the 48 cards from his group, found this one yesterday.

1952 #313 Thomson
 

We all know about the stitching on the ball being different directions, but here are some other features about this card.

On the reverse, the ball is touching the left margin on one, but not the other. This is recurring.

On the obverse, there is a yellow top to the fence or whatever is at the left, leading to his cap. The other version does not have this. This also is recurring.

The yellow obverse is on the same card with the version that has the ball touching the margin on the back.I looked on both eBay and COMC and have concluded that this is the way these cards were done. I recall that this, along with Mantle and Robinson, were double printed and thus the differences.

Thomas—I have both of the Mantle, Robinson and Thompson stich versions and agree there are other front and back differences on each beyond the stitching. The Mantle differences are often pointed out, more so than the Thompson and Robinson. It was my impression in each case the differences are consistent depending on which version of the stitching is involved. Also agree it seems to be DP issue.

Good eye on the Thomson. That is something I never noticed before even though I have the yellow top version. (Tough card to find centered)

Oddball Mantle recurring print defect: 1967 Laughlin World Series 1964 card
Stain on Mantle's pants.
https://d9nvuahg4xykp.cloudfront.net...9917626452.jpg
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/qwkAA...gWl/s-l800.jpg
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/pyAAA...1IO/s-l800.jpg
I just bought the one above. Let's see what it grades at PSA. Centering for this issue is solid, but I would have preferred the non-stain variant.

I recently noticed this curly line on top of my Dale Mitchell card (colored part) which is more noticeable on the colored top right corner.
Did a quick search; it is not common but but not rare so I highly doubt it could be classified as a variation.

That's just a red plate shift, due to a mislignment during the printing process. Not really a recurring print defect.

Thanks John. I didn't think it was anything special or unique. I am home sick and just getting bored. :D

Read the COMC primer I just posted then. Are OPC cards plentiful in your area? You could make a bunch sending them in to spend on 1952 Topps. BTW, I'm posting from a bed in the hospital; had awfully painful back spasms on Monday.

I read that, thanks.

I would assume OPC cards are more plentiful around here but with the lack of any decent card shops, I really have no idea what the ratio could be?

Sorry to hear about your back. That is never a fun thing to deal with.

Get well soon, John. :)

52 Mitchell
 

Agree it is not a “variation” and is s print misalignment, but why would a recurring misalignment not be a recurring print defect ?

Because there are way too many of them? And minor ones are not specifically recurring.

Because the masks were put together by hand, it's possible that for one color in one position (Or more than one, I think Topps were possibly done in blocks) To be misaligned compared to the other colors.

What would be really hard would be proving that it was from that one plate being made a bit off instead of just being out of registration.
If you had an uncut sheet showing the color registered on most of the cards, but not on one or not on a block, AND a sheet showing the same cards all in register. That might be convincing.

I know several collectors who avidly collect the 56 misaligned cards that have different colored lines between the boxes with the player and team info. Somone on here has several such versions of the Ted Williams card, and legendary variation guys Dick Gilkeson and Richar D on here both list them in their “variations” checklists. I personally don’t pursue them but have some examples.

Examples have been posted earlier in this thread.

If a card has a difference from it’s common counterpart that recurs I tend to collect it, whatever the cause or nature of the defect or difference. It may be rediculous but it is what I do �� ��

The 56s I think are actual variations. On the Williams, the stripe is over the team/name box, and there are three different (at least). None of them are from misregistration. There could be some added ones that are misregistrations, but the wide yellow strip, wide green stripe and narrow blue stripe are all actual differences.

I would always defer to you expertise on printing issues, Steve. I collect recurring differences in cards whether they are print defects or intended differences.

The latter would be my definition of a "variation" as opposed to a variant. But I include in my personal definition of a variation both changes specifically intended ( like the 59 traded or optioned cards) and changes not specifically intended but resulting from intentional changes in the printing process itself, such as the Mantle and numerous other DP differences, or stock changes, or the 62 green tints.

I assume the printers in 56 did not intend the colored line differences, but what did they do that resulted in them, in particular the several different ones that exist for the Williams card

The overall process would lead to them, especially in a place that was focused on production over quality.
The color strips on the 56s could come from a couple things.

One would be the original pasteup, which I believe Topps did in blocks or strips. So there would be a bit of original art (Using art pretty loosely, whatever you're making a plate of is the "art" even if it's text. ) The team boxes and the name/position box would be glued onto the pictures used for that block. If it's done a bit sloppy the picture shows over the box. Then when you photo the art for color separations, it becomes part of the negative.

More likely, it happened while making the raw negatives into the masks - large plate sized opaque paper with an assortment of negatives taped on making one large negative the plate is exposed from.

That would probably have had the art for the images initially just as pictures, one plate for each color CMYK at a minimum. The area where the team and name boxes were to go would have probably been blocked off by the mask paper. The Williams strips show some small cropping differences on the image that are consistent with the sort of stripe.
The blocks with the information would have been photographed all at once, and small negatives cut out.
Then those would be put onto the mask. The easy way is to make a small mask, which will make a non- printed area around the block. Then cut a hole in the negative and tape the small mask with the block into place. But only on the mask for that color or colors. If that small mask was added higher or lower a small bit of the underlying picture would show around the edge.
On one, what was left showing was a thin line of blue. On the others, one got a thick line of yellow and Magenta, while the other got all the colors also in a thick line.
I believe the different lines aren't different press runs, but are different individual instances on the plate. They would be consistent as long as the same mask was used, even if more than one set of plates was made.

None of that would be intentional, just sloppy work.

So very similar to the differences on the 52 Mantle. Interestingly, the numbers for the different versions are located slightly differently in relation to the laces. That would probably be from the laces and number being added to the mask individually. That's a good deal of extra work compared to having the number on the original art. It's hard to see a reason to make one left laces and one right, but it was done on all three doubleprints, so maybe it was intentional.


A number of 1981 Fleer were done sloppily so the tape holding the negative to the mask shows in the picture. I haven't seen any corrected ones.

The presence of tape is very prevalent in the 1962 set. Many of the regular cards and green tints have it (although none of the corresponding GT's and regulars have matching tape appearances). On Santo, it is blatantly there in both of the upper corners...

Attachment 316640

Steve-- thanks for the tutorial. I always appreciate your insights. However to me that still makes them recurring print defects of a sort

Darren- I had not noticed that one.

1964 Checklist #102
 

I noticed that the red "CHECKLIST" in the left version is closer to the black border. It is not much, but was just enough to catch my eye.

Good catch .....many of the checklists from 61 through the early 70s have some sort of minor variance such as this due to most of them being produced separately for two series of cards from each set. The copy on the left appears to be the one that appeared on the 2nd series sheet, while the other copy appeared on the 1st series sheet.

https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball-c...a/7135-81674.s

1964 checklist 2
 

Thomas---can not remember if it was here or somewhere else that is was pointed out that this card has a recurring red dot defect on the back in the number. My red dot version seems to have more spacing on the front. Do you know if those differences coincide ?

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...g?t=1526658569

That's what makes this both cool and frustrating. We can all define a variation or variety in the way that makes sense to us.

I'd say we should try for a common set of terms, but I know that getting even common agreement among collectors would be almost impossible.

I think the red is just printed low.

But the bottom of "ies" in series is different, so still a different card.

With the 1964 #102 Checklist, the easiest way to immediately see the different versions is to look at the player's mitt near his wrist. As you can see in Sliphorn's pics, one has a fully brown mitt and the other has a strip of the brown missing there. There seems to be an equal number of each version out there, so it definitely fits in with the 'printed in different series' scenario...or they were possibly both printed at the same time on the same sheet in the same series.

1964 #102
 

Good eyes picking up the mitt colors. That is what I like with the group being able to spot things I missed. I also see these as being orange and not red. Am I color blind?

How is "its" different? I am not seeing it. I assume you mean on the back with the World Series highlights? Thanks.

I'll check on the coincidence. I went to COMC and it appeared that they do NOT have specific issues. Good question.

My card with the red dot in the number on the back has the missing brown in the mitt on the front pointed out by Darren, and the defective IES in Series on the front pointed out by Steve, and the brighter orange border on the back pointed out by Thomas. Are these differences always consistent such there are just 2 versions ?

Proof Variations
 

I love the unique proof variations ... cards printed prior to production and never made it further. Some are very obvious (like the 1977 Reggie), others not so much.

Cubs unissued proofs
 

trying to list a few Cubs cards ....

1989 Topps Gold Borders
 

Not sure if I'd call these proofs, variations, or prototypes. Obtained about 10yrs ago from Topps Vault ... these cards have fully-printed backs.

On the front, in the word series.

The ies on the left is missing an arc from the bottom of the letters. The one on the right is normal.

I didn't know the Sizemore existed, the Cubs traded him to the Red Sox in August 1979 so I'm surprised the 1980 proof still had him as Cub. What is the difference on the 1980 Cubs Future Stars cards? I have compared them to the issued card and can't find a difference.

The Sizemore card is a pretty neat card.....on the FS card, it looks like there are some cropping differences on the images for first two players pictured. The color of the "Cubs" in the banner is different also, but that might be because the card is a proof?

1949 Questions
 

I always assumed the 1949 Bowman set used 36-card sheets. These overprint examples are farther apart numerically than 36 by a long shot. Feller is #27 while the overprint is #99 Gustine. Kooks is #31 while the overprint is #103 Tipton. The difference between the two is 72 in both cases, likely two sheets? A mystery.

BTW, the card that is partially into the Kokos #31 is #32 Eddie Yost. Apparently the red commercial at the bottom got changed before too far along.

In this case, though, the logic is a bit flawed. Because there are overprints doesn't necessarily mean the cards were being printed at the same time. For instance, it's possible a sheet with a printed back was accidentally included with the sheets of blank paper at a later date (when a different series was being printed). And there is always the possibility it could have been just a piece of scrap the printers used to test a print run.

https://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/1959...&size=original
1959 Topps - [Base] #223.2 - St. Louis Cardinals Team (White Back)
Courtesy of COMC.com
Recurring print defect in right border.

1957 Focus Grasshopper Focus
 

http://imagehost.vendio.com/a/204295...FREAKS_NEW.JPG

..I'm showing a normal Logan and Long for comparison--- all the OOF cards have a strong green bar across the top of the photo....

..in hand , they induce a migraine.....rumor has it that some people deliberately seek out and collect these...yup , that's what I've heard....

..

Surely not

Yep, you have heard correctly. I have differences in all 407 of them.