Possible variation T205 Nee Printers mark on card vs No printers mark

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Pup6913

Matt are you sure there were more cards printed after the Cycle print run w/Mathewson?

Not sure I understand the question. There was an error on the print run with the Cycle backs and it was fixed for the runs with the other backs.

[barrysloate]

Andrew- it's a tough call. The only cards that could possibly have those marks are ones printed around the periphery of a sheet. If every Nee card appeared along the edge in the same position, they would all have that mark. Would that then be considered a variation? Probably not.

However, you've determined that some examples of Nee do not have the mark. Is it possible it was double printed on the sheet, with the second example occupying an interior position? Therefore, it would not have that mark and we would in fact have two variations- with and without the marks. Does that make it a true variation? Well, there are differences between the two but neither one can be considered a corrected error. So now we need a strict definition of what constitutes a variation. And we don't have one at this time- that's an area of the hobby that is still a little vague.

My opinion is if the only difference between the two cards is the tiny printing mark, then it is not a true variation. There are so many of these cards known with printing marks- do collectors now need to go after all of them to complete a master set? I don't think so.

[steve B]

It really depends on how the hobby decides to recognize varieties and variations. So far there's no consistent defenition. Some recognized variations aren't from different plates. (the 81 topps missing the top frame lines) And some stuff from different printings/plates isn't recognized or cataloged. (91 topps that have light or dark logos on the backs - or odder still 1991 topps that have back ink that luminesces under a uv light or that doesn't react)

And each collector should decide what level of craziness they want to participate in. I do think that the official lists for registries or the big book should only cover the more major differences.

But there should also be some published lists of the fine details of each set.
Stuff like the tiny Doyle differences, and m'rray and nodgrass. I think the Doyles are erasures done directly on the plate, and the others are from worn plates or plates that had dirt during the plate making process. Obstructed prints where dirt etc gets in the way are far less common, and usually turn up as fisheyes.

Steve B

Matt I guess what I am asking. Could the Cycles have been the last of the print run causng the messup? A rush job. Isn't there a Cycle backed Wilhelm missing the "R" or was that the corrected one?

Barry the ones with the mark seem to be missing the gold from the name area. But like the card shown in post #38 has it and no mark and gold ink. The seller was kind enough to remove the card though from auction.
Maybe due to placement on the sheet Nee got lucky enough to have marks. Maybe there was mark accross the whole sheet vert. and hor. for alignment reasons?

Does anyone know about this area of T205's

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Pup6913

Matt I guess what I am asking. Could the Cycles have been the last of the print run causng the messup? A rush job.

It would seem odd that they would take a perfectly good plate and remove a 1 from his record causing the error, no? Much more likely the Cycle Matty's were printed first, and between the Cycles and the other brands, someone spotted the error and fixed the plate by adding the 1.

[asoriano]

Originally Posted by Pup6913

Isn't there a Cycle backed Wilhelm missing the "R" or was that the corrected one?

The Wilhelm "suffered" is available with a Cycle and Hassan back.

The Wilhelm "suffe ed" is available with a Piedmont back.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by asoriano

The Wilhelm "suffered" is available with a Cycle and Hassan back.

I've never seen a Cycle Wilhelm and SGC only has a record of 1 before they started keeping track of the "suffered" variation, but if what you say is correct, that makes for an interesting situation - the Matty variation would seem to indicate the Cycle's were printed before the other runs, hence it has the error which was later corrected. If the Cycle Wilhelm is the "suffered" variation, then that would lean towards the Cycles being a later run, after the Piedmonts...

[asoriano]

Originally Posted by Matt

I've never seen a Cycle Wilhelm and SGC only has a record of 1 before they started keeping track of the "suffered" variation, but if what you say is correct, that makes for an interesting situation - the Matty variation would seem to indicate the Cycle's were printed before the other runs, hence it has the error which was later corrected. If the Cycle Wilhelm is the "suffered" variation, then that would lean towards the Cycles being a later run, after the Piedmonts...

It exists, but I've only seen two in the past five years.

Hopefully the board member who owns one will post a scan.

[Tcards-Please]

Originally Posted by Matt

I've never seen a Cycle Wilhelm and SGC only has a record of 1 before they started keeping track of the "suffered" variation, but if what you say is correct, that makes for an interesting situation - the Matty variation would seem to indicate the Cycle's were printed before the other runs, hence it has the error which was later corrected. If the Cycle Wilhelm is the "suffered" variation, then that would lean towards the Cycles being a later run, after the Piedmonts...

Matt,

A Wilhelm "suffered" version does exist with a Cycle back. I believe the owner is a board member (Lentel) and he has shown the back several times.

r/
Frank