1961 Topps Stu Miller New variation? Opinions?

[ALR-bishop]

Again, it all depends on your definition of a variation. There is no official hobby definition, and variations listed by SCD, Beckett and The Registry in total defy any limited definition. So what is your's, Patrick ?

Are these both print defects, or is one a variation ?

[JTysver]

Out of register is a print defect, not a variation. A variation would be a change in the original card.

[sbfinley]

Edit: miss read a post.

[ALR-bishop]

Originally Posted by JTysver

Out of register is a print defect, not a variation. A variation would be a change in the original card.

In your definition does the change have to be intended, or can it be unintended ? Which is the 58 Herrer ? The 57 Bakep ? The 52 Yellow House ? The 52 Campos ? What about the two versions of the 52 Mantle ? The no name Thomas and it's relatives ? What about the 68 Milton Bradley set ? The 62 greenies with no pose differences) ? What about the 61 Fairly recently recognized by PSA.

I tend to view variations as cards intentionally changed by the manufacturer, but no one made me the chief authority. If someone wants to define a variation as any card that differs on a recurring basis from their common counterparts, who is to officially say they are wrong ?

The hobby has defined several unintended print defects as variations, whether I like it of not. Value in the end depends on hobby recognition, not on what either you or I think

[SMPEP]

The card in question - Stu Miller - is a miscut card. Nothing more. Nothing less. Every card on the sheet in that same location had the same "sect II' by it. If the sheet was cut poorly enough - it shows. If it was cut as it was supposed to be - it does not.

Now the Yellow tiger - to me - that is a variation. They misprinted it originally (because the other colors in the card are correct), and then they noticed this and fixed it. Same with the Campos black star - clearly corrected.

The Bakep/Herrer cards are the line between variation and print error. Hard to know for certain whether that was just a poor printing job - or whether it was an error that was caught later. I tend to lean toward print error. But I'm not the authority there.

I agree with the poster above - the poor registry Herrera is a more interesting card than the Herrer. But poor registry does not make that an error either. Just a bad printing job on a sheet.

Cheers,
Patrick

[ALR-bishop]

?

[SMPEP]

Variation - a card that was originally designed to look one way; but the designer of the card changed something and then reprinted it. For example the text on the back of the Page/Sain cards - clearly, intentionally changed by the designer.


Print Errors - registry color shifts, miscut cards, missing colors, extra colors, etc. The thread about the opening of the 1955 Cello pack on the main board shows a print error. The Clemente has a black printing line on the lower right portion of the card. That was not intended by the designed of the card. It resulted from poor printing techniques. It is possible it has been replicated (on this card or another one), but this was not the intent of the manufacturer for the card to look this way. The pack also shows tons of miscut cards.

This leads to the Bakep/Herrer cards. These could go either way depending on when the correction was made. For example, it could be the case that the very first card from the very first print run was missing the r/a, and the manufacturer noticed this and corrected it. Or it could be that there was a goof in the printing process somewhere along the lines and this is nothing more than a recurring print error. I tend to think it is the latter - because you have so many gradual variations. But short of knowing when the card came off the line, I'm not sure you can say conclusively.

On the flip side, I think one can draw definitive conclusions about the yellow tiger. Even though there are some variations in the amount of orange, you do see that the only color that changes relates to the logo - suggesting a goof that has been corrected. And when you add this to the fact that the grey backs also have the same variation (yellow and orange exist - there is no proof that any in between exist) it is suggestive that there was a conscious change of some sort. (This also suggests that the grey back paper was mixed in a stack with the white back paper, and that the greys were not just printed once by accident - but rather resulted from someone mixing a stack of different paper into the same print run. To my mind, this totally debunks the silly notion that the 52 grey backs are Canadian issues. That only gained credence because some uneducated dealer noticed the similarity with the 54 Canadians and thought they were the same thing. The fact that you have the same error and correction on the card shows that this was all printed at the same place, at the same time).

Cheers,
Patrick

[Republicaninmass]

On the flip side, I think one can draw definitive conclusions about the yellow tiger. Even though there are some variations in the amount of orange, you do see that the only color that changes relates to the logo - suggesting a goof that has been corrected. And when you add this to the fact that the grey backs also have the same variation (yellow and orange exist - there is no proof that any in between exist) it is suggestive that there was a conscious change of some sort

COME ON PATRICK

You can clearly see from a mile away there is red missing on House's throat, making a green streak! Upon closer inspection it will reveal it is most missing the red ink in a splotch pattern.

[bnorth]

I am no help with the definition of variation Al, I would pick the card on the left everyday to add to my collection. I really don't care for the one on the right especially at the price it brings for a printing error.