Do you consider this a legit variation
 

Here are two Boots Day cards
One with a light stantion in the background and one without. Your thoughts?

[IMG]<a href="http://www.comc.com/Cards/Baseball/1971/Topps/42B/Boots_Day_no_lights/6881404/REVIEWED/COMC/G-VG-EX"><img src="http://img.comc.com/original/9fcbf8d6-392d-4ceb-a83e-b002b89c0626.jpg" alt="1971 Topps #42B - Boots Day no lights [Good to VG‑EX] - Courtesy of COMC.com" /></a>[/IMG]



<a href="http://www.comc.com/Cards/Baseball/1971/Topps/42/Boots_Day/1836511"><img src="http://img.comc.com/original/946535de-7f1c-4081-899b-e0e6c1339b88.jpg" alt="1971 Topps #42 - Boots Day - Courtesy of COMC.com" /></a>

Well, I see the stantion in both cards, although in the top card it is much more faded. What I'm more interested about is the .COM in his signature. He must have been ahead of his time!

It's on both cards IMO.
That's a seller's variation. :)

Burkett tells me to get a copyright on "stantion".:eek:

IMO it looks like it may be a poor attempt to remove the light tower. While it may never be recognized in publications as a listed variation I think it's a good find none the less and if something similar were found with a Dodgers player on it I would be a buyer.

Variant
 

This card has been offered as a variation on ebay for some time. I personally think it does qualify as a variation in that in later runs I think Topps intentionally tried to reduce or eliminate the object. You can find some cards where it is even less visible. The same effort occurred in the Northup card from this set. That card can be found with a large blob on the front, a smaller blob and a speck

I believe Jim Nash
 

also comes with and without a blob

1971
 

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img214.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img215.jpg

The Nash, Day and Northrup are all listed in SCD as variations....I have seen the less populated versions of each of these cards sell for a slight premium on ebay.

Not sure if it's recognized in the Price Guides, but '71 Carl Morton is extremely tough to find without the ugly black line at the top.

Morton et al
 

I view the Morton and these others as unintentional print defects, but I still collect them :)

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...g?t=1380126919

1971
 

Posted wrong Hiatt

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...g?t=1380127403

No question, but because these defects were corrected, I think they are legit variations. Not unlike the 57 Bakep or 58 Herrer cards.

Bakep and Herrer
 

I have them, and the Campos, but view them all as unintentional print defects, not true variations. But I realize the hobby has recognized the Herrer, Campos and Bakep as variations ( and, amazingly, the 61 Fairly green smudge on the back), and that's fine with me. I collect variants of any ilk.

During one of my
 

After leaving Beckett full-time but still doing contract work, we got the Fairly put in as a variation.

I will forward this thread to Brian F at Beckett and update him as to what I emailed him last evening. Yes, I still talk to all of them frequently and even occassionaly do some contract work still.

Rich

61 Fairly
 

That same defect exists on multiple 1961 cards

Hey Al, I have the Grabarkewitz green and red dot as well, not too many people know about that one. Still fairly easy to find both variations on ebay.

Some people collect the team name in red & orange as well. I haven't crossed that line....yet.

Here are a couple I've found: