1963 Topps variations

[Tony Gordon]

I was aware of variations with the checklists and and rookie cards but learned this past weekend that Jim Davenport #388 has a variation with the cropping of the image. In one card, the collar of his shirt rests very close to the bottom border. In a second card, there is noticeably more space between the shirt collar and the bottom border. Does anyone know whether this sort of cropping variation is common and exists in other cards in the set? If so, I would love to see some posts of the images. Thanks!

[toppcat]

Gilkeson doesnlt seem to list the cropping error-got any scans folks?

[rnisly]

Do these illustrate what you are talking about?

,

from ebay

[toppcat]

I wonder if that's either the result of the card being an "extra print" or sheets being produced in two locations. Hard to tell from scans only but the one on the right looks washed out. There must be others like that in '63 then.

Now the one on the right looks like both photos are projected "larger" or more closeup when compared to the other card. This seems a common phenomenon in vintage sets, even predating Topps. Does this maybe mean one set of images is copied or photographed from the other, possibly becoming a little smaller, or larger, in the process?

[ChiefBenderForever]

In the little green circle one shows a hand and other doesn't. Also glove touches red border and other is inside.

[doug.goodman]

This is absolutely a print variation, not a goofy misprint like the 1958 Herrera.

The main picture is cropped differently top to bottom, and the smaller picture is cropped differently side to side.

By my count, the 1963 Topps master set just went to 589 cards.

Doug

[Rich Klein]

If you say hand visible in inset photo vs no hand in inset photo it is easier to ID these two cards as variations.

In my Beckett days; that would have been a similar enough difference to the 73 Coach variations to list those cards.

Regards
Rich

[Bob Lemke]

It's possible this card was in a double-print row, accounting for the cropping differences. Either way, I concur with Rich that it is a legitimate variation and should be listed in the Standard Catalog. My quick search on eBay shows about a 50-50 split in examples being offered.

[Tony Gordon]

Thanks for the replies! When I get a chance, I'll scan eBay and see if I can find some others. I'm curious if this is an isolated variation with the Davenport or whether there are other cards that have similar cropping variations.

[vrechek]

What we need is a scan of uncut sheets from this series. My thought is that there are 11 cards where this occurs - all in one row.

[vrechek]

See article in the 5/28/10 Sports Collectors Digest regarding the solution to this puzzle - 11 variation cards found.
George Vrechek

[ALR-bishop]

Originally Posted by vrechek

What we need is a scan of uncut sheets from this series. My thought is that there are 11 cards where this occurs - all in one row.

Thought your article in this week's SCD on the 11 variations, including the Davenport was very good. I have been able to get of all 11, with the possible exception of Lee. I had a hard time distinguishing the two photos you had in the article and as I recall that one was not specifically mentioned in the article. Still, I think I have both of them at this point.

It is also interesting that two of the 11 have the back differences you discuss, both of which do not seem related to the front difference.

It is articles like this one, and those of Bob L, that keep me getting the magazine

[toppcat]

Finally got a chance to read this, now have to have a bit of a think about it as the Brits say. George-great job!

[doug.goodman]

Can somebody post a link to the story, or email it to me? I'm in Europe on a business trip for 6 weeks and (surprise) newsstands don't have SCD over here.

Doug
doug.goodman@earthlink.net