1966 Topps High # Print Variations

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by BillP

As a collector or this year I would have to say that depending on the print sheet there can be variations. I have always felt that the checklist variations are the result of an A sheet v a B sheet. And that when it comes to the Traded v No-Trade lines on Uecker, Johnson, Groat, that only 1 sheet was not updated while the other was and subsequent use of the print sheets were also updated creating a 1 out of 4 situation for the variations.
Now in the 63 3rd and 4th series someone within the past few months highlighted about 11 variations based on the picture centering. I think this as well is a A sheet v B sheet difference that was adjusted in a 2nd print run.
Also same with card #139 in 62. How else can you explain 3 different cards/poses for one number.
So where does all this go. If your a collector of the ultimate set then I guess you want all of these. But print lines and lack of print color isn't a legitimate one in my book.

Again comments welcome BillP

Agreed. For me, I consider variations to be the result of deliberate changes to the piece being printed, such as the photo cropping differences in the 1963 cards (and 1962 green tints) you mentioned.

However, there does exist a gray area, too. For instance, these 1960 Ernie Banks cards:
60banksblue3.jpg
60banksblue4.jpg

I spelled out the number of differences in these cards in a thread way back (most dealing with the colored lines emanating from the bottom left, green corner). In the two cards above, one has (I presume) handwritten printer's notes visible in blue at the bottom, while the other does not. It's important to note that enough white space exists in the top card that these notations would/should be visible if they were present on all versions of the card. But they are not there. So, to me, this represents a legitimate, although somewhat sketchy, variation. Are printer's notes that appear on only a fraction of the cards a true variation? Tough call. I guess the bottom line is, if something is significant enough, then you want to add it to your 'master' set checklist. That's how I feel about this particular Banks.

(Forgive my momentary grumpiness, but this is usually the time when some idiot chimes in to say, "There is no official definition. A 'variation' is whatever you want it to be. You can collect whatever cards you want to." Yes, we know. We get it. Duh!!)