New variation discovered in 1971 Topps

[ALR-bishop]

One of the problems of trying to limit the definition of a "true variation" to intentional change is determining when in fact a difference in cards results from an intentional act by the printer or an unintentional temporary printing defect.

Sometimes such differences can be the result of a DP. Should such recurring differences be treated as variations and if so who decides that ?

It does not matter much to me because I collect them either way. It does matter from a value standpoint because if recognized by a major catalog or PSA master collectors who might otherwise ignore them then need them.

There is no doubt some lesser differences and recurring print defects have been recognized by the hobby in the past. A scroll through the never ending variation thread in here shows there is no shortage of additional candidates.