1959 Topps Haywood variation question
 

I just received a card I bought via eBay: a PSA 5 1959 Topps Haywood Sullivan 'no circle, U.S.A' card (no circle on the copyright, no period after 'A') variation. I took a close look, and it looked to me like there was a very light period after the 'A,' however.
I couldn't tell from the listing this light period was there, and it there was nothing wrong with the photo on the listing. It looked like there was no period.
Attached are two photos I took, one of the lower back or the card and a look with my loupe close up on the punctuation in question.
Does anyone know if this light/faded/faint period is typical for this variation, or if some shenanigans are going on?
Side note: I bought an example of the other variation (no circle, but with the period after the 'A') from COMC last fall. When it arrived, it looked like it had a faint circle around the copyright and I sent it back. Is it possible that these "variations" aren't really a lack of these marks, but just very lightly printed? I typically think that a variation that notes it doesn't have something should, you know, not have it. :P
Thanks for the help!

I would say that definitely qualifies as a missing circle. You might just be overthinking it.

I believe the missing period version usually (always?) has the slightest hint of a faint period there, but your pictures seemingly show an obvious period appearing. It's definitely a bit of a gray area, and it's always possible that the graders got the slab wrong??? Here's one from COMC where you can (especially when enlarged) make out the hint of a period...

Attachment 394124

This card is an example of the hobby recognizing minor recurring print defects as variations. Whether the period is missing or just in the process of periodlessing is in the eye of the beholder

But because it was listed in the SCD Standard Catalog I had to run down all 3. The missing period is the toughest.

The situation with the 58 Herrera is similar. The a can be missing or partially missing. How much is missing is enough for some to see it as the variation, others not. It is a transition print defect. The 82 Blacklessing v Blackless v gray ghosts is another example

Thanks for the replies, guys. There are two "no ." versions on COMC (both Dean's) and both can really be blown up, with both having a faint "." visible. My example might be a tad more, below are my three versions of the card with the backs together to compare. The green wash on the "no circle, no ." one of mine might have also lead me to wonder about shenanigans...
Al - I'm in a similar boat, going for Topps team sets of the Red Sox with the variations. Something like this one honestly doesn't do much for me since, as you note, it's just a recurring print defect. But I've got one now.

Garth--- There is a front variant to this card. Look on your versions in the lower left front border near the logo. On many of his cards there is a faint rectangular box, others not. Now if each of the 3 back versions can be found with and without the rectangle, how many versions do you need to have all possible versions ? :)

I saw that those were a "thing." Ugh. All of mine have the box, so I can only assume that they are the easier ones to find!!