1952 Topps Collectors - new Duke Snider variation?

[ALR-bishop]

Someone should be appointed or elected to officially define a variation.

And should we be upset that Net 54 is not a legitimate source of reliable
published information ? What can we do to turn this around ?

I personally think the 61 Ron Fairly with a green smudge in the baseball on the back of the card recognized as a variant by PSA should be the hobby standard. If we could just define it.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Someone should be appointed or elected to officially define a variation.

And should we be upset that Net 54 is not a legitimate source of reliable
published information ? What can we do to turn this around ?

I personally think the 61 Ron Fairly with a green smudge in the baseball on the back of the card recognized as a variant by PSA should be the hobby standard. If we could just define it.

I propose we define a variation as a card I have acquired all the different copies of. An unofficial variant is a card I have not yet acquired all the versions of, and nobody should care about them

[Republicaninmass]

Frank house has a variation and a ln error!


If you think the psa registry has a ways to go. Glance at the weights for the signed set.


They just copies the weights from the set. No regard for when the players died, signing habits, population...etc


Good grief

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Someone should be appointed or elected to officially define a variation.

And should we be upset that Net 54 is not a legitimate source of reliable
published information ? What can we do to turn this around ?

I personally think the 61 Ron Fairly with a green smudge in the baseball on the back of the card recognized as a variant by PSA should be the hobby standard. If we could just define it.

The only way around the "not viewing N54" as a legit source of information which PSA recognizes - is for someone to publish an article based upon our collective findings. As Ted has suggested previously, if enough people contact PSA about a variation, we have a better chance of it being included (in the old days) - maybe not now.

A print error variation, imho, should be a subest of the overall Variation category. A Variation "should" include variations in printing or design, intentional or not, that occurs more than a set # of times. A variation that we can find 10 copies of seems to be a reasonable dividing line between a common variation and the ridiculous occurences Al-R was referring to earlier where only 1 copy exists. Thoughts?

Consider this a proposal we can chime in and vote on......if other alternatives exist, please propose.

[ALR-bishop]

I collect any variants that are recurring and involve a difference from the regular issued card. Probably most of what I collect would pass the 10 rule, a few not.
I tend to view a variation and a card intentionally changed by the manufacturer, but that would include intentional additions or subtractions from the card, clean up of printing errors, and DP differences. But it is virtually impossible to tell if a printing error was intentionally changed or just ran its course, so like most definitions it is often hard to apply.

And yes I know the hobby has haphazardly recognized many recurring unintentional print defects as variations. There are so many of them out there with 10 or more examples it would be hard to know where to start or how to
prioritize.. other than starting with the ones Greg has :-)

[G1911]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

There are so many of them out there with 10 or more examples it would be hard to know where to start or how to
prioritize.. other than starting with the ones Greg has :-)

Thanks Al

[flkersn]

...the myriad of print defects within the gray backs subset.

[ALR-bishop]

Also, we best not let the Registry set collectors know that we are plotting to expand their checklists to include a bunch of weird variants