New 1960 Topps Kaline variation reported

[Griffins]

Pay no attention to Bob F. He's sitting at my dining table after far too much wine and doing a happy dance about having a priceless variation, even though he said "absolutely no way" to calling it one before he knew he had it.

I vote no on this as well, I've got cards with crop marks like this going back to '08 E91's. It's a printers mistake, and not a legit variation IMO.

[bobsbbcards]

Anthony is just jealous that his Kaline is the absurdly common variation. Furthermore, I don't see how I can be drunk on wine when nobody has even offered me a drop. California hospitality? An oxymoron. \

(In case Anthony reads this, what I meant to say is that I REALLY appreciate his letting me stay with him. Delta sucks.)

[steve B]

Ah, but if it's not from being doubleprinted then it would pass the changed on purpose test. The mask had a defect, and at some point they fixed it so the lines were eliminated. If it's doubleprinted, then it's not on purpose, but that one part of the mask had the defect and another didn't. Much like the 63 that's being discussed, or for sure the variations of the 52 Mantle. Which weren't done on purpose.

That's one of the problems with variations, most criteria based on what caused it can open the door to a vast array of tiny stuff, while possibly excluding major differences.

I keep mine sorted based on a few different things.
Major recognised ones go with my set.
unrecognised ones that are differences in the printing plate have their own box.
Ones that are from plate wear are separate.
And genuine printing errors - miscuts, badly out of register, missing colors etc have their own box.

Steve B

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by steve B

Ah, but if it's not from being doubleprinted then it would pass the changed on purpose test. The mask had a defect, and at some point they fixed it so the lines were eliminated. If it's doubleprinted, then it's not on purpose, but that one part of the mask had the defect and another didn't. Much like the 63 that's being discussed, or for sure the variations of the 52 Mantle. Which weren't done on purpose.

That's one of the problems with variations, most criteria based on what caused it can open the door to a vast array of tiny stuff, while possibly excluding major differences.

Steve B

The 52 high # DP's are interesting since they reversed the stitches on the baseball containing the card number, so I think they were changed intentionally on the backs but maybe not the fronts. I think the Thomson card may have had some photo touchups done to it as well.

Your point about DP's generally is well noted here.

I wonder, from 52-80, if more variations are found on the front of the cards or the reverses when you tally them all up?

[ALR-bishop]

If anyone wonders ( or cares) who is being truthful, give the edge to Anthony. Besides, Bob always makes fun of my variations/errors/print defects.