1952 topps Printing flaws vs errors VS variations rehash fun for some, not for others

[Republicaninmass]

Just checking in with the 52 topps collectors, and beating the dead horse once again! I know their is a slight diffence of opinion on errors vs variations, so I wanted to post these two cards for thoughts. I'm working on a raw master set with all errors and variations, printing flaws not so much.

Hattan, spot on the hat is reoccuring, though not often. One to keep?


Chico, I cant seem to find this missing spot on the border on any other ones. One to keep?

FIRE AWAY

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Just checking in with the 52 topps collectors, and beating the dead horse once again! I know their is a slight diffence of opinion on errors vs variations, so I wanted to post these two cards for thoughts. I'm working on a raw master set with all errors and variations, printing flaws not so much.

Hattan, spot on the hat is reoccuring, though not often. One to keep?


Chico, I cant seem to find this missing spot on the border on any other ones. One to keep?

FIRE AWAY

IMO, I would call both the Chico and Hatten "print variants", as I would also call the House card. I would consider the two different Mantle cards "variations".

As to whether or not to keep, purely personal preference, I kept an extra 280 Boyer because of the stray red line and a yellowish logo House card.....but I did not go out of my way to acquire either, they were simply part of a lot I had purchased. Keep them both.

[ALR-bishop]

I tend to think of variations as intentional changes in cards, or changes resulting from decisions or changes made in the printing process ( including DPs ). I think of recurring print defects ( it is sometimes impossible to determine if these were discovered and corrected) as variants.

For Topps I have collected any "variation " listed in SCD, Beckett or The Registry. Many of those are in my view recurring print defects ( Bakep and Herrer for example). I also collect variants or recurring print defects for my sets.

Some I find on my own, some I see posted here or in other venues. When I see one I do not have I look for it on eBay, or Deans or COMC if it involves a back. if it does not show up there over some period of time I drop it as not recurring or recurring enough.

I would keep both. Hatton because it is apparently recurring though scarce, and Cico because that type of defect tends to be recurring, even if rare ( like the Campos black star, partial star, missing front border)

On the House I have heard it argued it is a variation because different versions of it appear on different backs. Not sure myself

[irv]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Just checking in with the 52 topps collectors, and beating the dead horse once again! I know their is a slight diffence of opinion on errors vs variations, so I wanted to post these two cards for thoughts. I'm working on a raw master set with all errors and variations, printing flaws not so much.

Hattan, spot on the hat is reoccuring, though not often. One to keep?


Chico, I cant seem to find this missing spot on the border on any other ones. One to keep?

FIRE AWAY

I looked at a lot of Chico's in my quest to obtain one, Ted, but I don't ever recall seeing one like that.
Imo, if I could only keep one, I'd definitely keep the Chico card.

[bnorth]

I see them both as common print errors. On certain cards I have paid insane premiums for a little random print spot/defect. On 99.99% of cards I would pass on a card with those type of print defects. Collect what you like and never think about resale value and you will be much happier.

[Exhibitman]

Picked up a Page with Sain bio. That’s a variation. The fisheye pieces are just print flaws. No extra value IMO. Hell it is hard fo find a 1961 MVP or a 1975 without a fisheye.

[SMPEP]

I agree with Adam on the fish eyes. The Hatton is not included in my master set list.

Cheers,
Patrick