1961 topps with green inside baseball

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Tomman1961

My first older set I completed was the 1961 set. The year I was born. I have the Santo rookie card with green. So if I get this graded I can sell it for a bazillion dollars? I would replace it with a Santo without the green. Is it that easy for me to turn a few bucks? If so, I will. But I think this variation stuff is getting nuts. As I posted before-Luis or Louis is a variation. Ink drool is not a variation. Color difference is not a variation. We are talking about a time when the cards were printed and no one really cared about a piece of dust eliminating a letter. But if my Santo is worth it- I will grade it and sell it, and buy one without this green. This is nuts. If I go through all my 19671 cards I just might be able to retire because of a green spot

Well said.
A 'variation' is when a card company or the printer makes a purposeful change (a variety of unintended mistakes also count) to the layout of the card during or in between print runs. Name changes, adding additional information (like a player being traded or optioned) or changes to the layout and/or color scheme fit the bill. Stray flecks of color or overly inked areas do not.

If you followed the logic of many ebay sellers, then you would literally have to own every single card printed that year to have all of the so-called variations. If the same card is printed a million times with the same printing plates, there are still going to be minor differences to each and every strike. Some might say they're as unique as fingerprints.

Every time I read another idiot on ebay proclaiming "Newfound Variation!! Rare!! Look!!!" for a stray bit of color on the front of a card, I simply block their auctions from appearing in my searches.

[buymycards]

I'm looking at my SCD right now. #492 Fairly is not listed as a variation. So, why did PSA slab it as a variation but they won't slab any of the others?

Inconsistent.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Well said.
A 'variation' is when a card company or the printer makes a purposeful change (a variety of unintended mistakes also count) to the layout of the card during or in between print runs. Name changes, adding additional information (like a player being traded or optioned) or changes to the layout and/or color scheme fit the bill. Stray flecks of color or overly inked areas do not.

If you followed the logic of many ebay sellers, then you would literally have to own every single card printed that year to have all of the so-called variations. If the same card is printed a million times with the same printing plates, there are still going to be minor differences to each and every strike. Some might say they're as unique as fingerprints.

Every time I read another idiot on ebay proclaiming "Newfound Variation!! Rare!! Look!!!" for a stray bit of color on the front of a card, I simply block their auctions from appearing in my searches.

So if a card is a doubleprint on the sheet and you can tell the two apart would that count?

Or if there were two plates and one had a small flaw but the other didn't?
How about if the plate was damaged and then replaced with a new one?

Or if a completely different ink was used?

Or a different type of cardboard?

Yeah, a lot of what those Ebay guys find are printing mistakes. But there's a load of stuff that isn't. Sometimes it's hard to tell if it's a printing error, or just where in production a mistake happened. Was that bit of dust something that got into the press and stayed for maybe only a handful of sheets? Or was it in when the plate was exposed and every card fro that plate has the flaw. Or was it between the art and camera when the negative was taken and every card should have it but it got noticed and fixed?

Just where do you draw the line?

Aside from not knowing in some cases where a small error came from I have examples of all the stuff above. Some of it can't even be scanned.

Like 93 Upper deck has 3 different sorts of back. All over gloss, gloss only on the photo, and gloss over the photo covered with a lighter overall layer.
Obviously it was done as a deliberate change.

I have an 81 fleer where there's a red line across part of the card. Not an ink smear, but from a scratch on the plate.
Obviously not deliberate.

Or this pair? Totally normal, but one is like the 62 green tints. Deliberate? Just a mistake?



Steve B

[savedfrommyspokes]

No, not really...however, I did recently notice this print defect/variation. Missing borders on both sides.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

No, not really...however, I did recently notice this print defect/variation. Missing borders on both sides.

Haha!!!!!

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by steve B

So if a card is a doubleprint on the sheet and you can tell the two apart would that count?

Or if there were two plates and one had a small flaw but the other didn't?
How about if the plate was damaged and then replaced with a new one?

Or if a completely different ink was used?

Or a different type of cardboard?

Yeah, a lot of what those Ebay guys find are printing mistakes. But there's a load of stuff that isn't. Sometimes it's hard to tell if it's a printing error, or just where in production a mistake happened. Was that bit of dust something that got into the press and stayed for maybe only a handful of sheets? Or was it in when the plate was exposed and every card fro that plate has the flaw. Or was it between the art and camera when the negative was taken and every card should have it but it got noticed and fixed?

Just where do you draw the line?

Aside from not knowing in some cases where a small error came from I have examples of all the stuff above. Some of it can't even be scanned.

Like 93 Upper deck has 3 different sorts of back. All over gloss, gloss only on the photo, and gloss over the photo covered with a lighter overall layer.
Obviously it was done as a deliberate change.

I have an 81 fleer where there's a red line across part of the card. Not an ink smear, but from a scratch on the plate.
Obviously not deliberate.

Or this pair? Totally normal, but one is like the 62 green tints. Deliberate? Just a mistake?

Steve B

Some of what you say may fit into the category of 'variations,' but 99.999999% of them are simply the result of printing anomalies. Like the Harrah cards you showed. My first impression is the card on the right was printed with an incorrect amount of magenta on the plates. That's it. There are no intentional changes there. Most of the so-called 'newly discovered variations' on ebay follow that model. There's too much color or not enough color in certain areas and they laud it as a rare discovery, when it's nothing but a printing issue.

But then there are legitimate color variations, like the 1969 white letter cards. Since they have yellow in the mix elsewhere (photo of the player, etc.), that means the yellow was purposefully or accidentally eliminated from the part of the plate that included the name, etc. That's significant.

Where it begins to tread into a tough gray area is when you take into account cards such as the 1967 Schaal green bat variation. Normally, I wouldn't consider this anything but a simple print error, because there were no deliberate changes made to the card, but it's been established as a true variation by the collecting community, so what can you do?

[4reals]

Ah, the classic grudge match is back, variation vs. glorified print dot!

It's fun to read about this topic every time it gets brought up. Nobody will ever completely agree on the exact definition but the debate over the semantics is never tiring in my eyes and is what I believe helps make the collecting community vigorous and healthy.

As for my personal opinion, I use three categories.

1. Errors
2. Variations
3. Anomalies

Of course, the line is blurry between each so it really comes down to personal interpretation.

An error in my eyes, regardless of what SCD or Beckett says, is a correction made by the manufacturer to present what was actually intended. I limit this to the design elements and their composition and do not include execution during the printing process. Examples would be misspelling, reversed negatives, airbrushings, etc.

A variation as I see it, is a MAJOR deviation from the manufacturers intention occurring DURING the printing process, having nothing to do with the design layout. These major types of deviations are supposed to be pulled out of the delivery tray by the pressman once the inconsistency is realized to ensure quality control, however, some fall through the cracks and not all of them are caught, finding their way into distribution. Your '82 blackless cards or '73 partial border cards would fall under this category. As would the '80 redless banners that have frequented saved searches recently. Cards depicting different levels of ghosting (poor registration) would. Personally, I would consider the famous Herrera error and 1990 Frank Thomas NNOF rookie error as variations. Variations that may not have necessarily been printing mistakes but rather a way for the manufacturer to save money on materials are cards with different types of card stock (white back/gray back) or '52 Topps red/black ink backs.

With this in mind, an error card can have multiple variations and a correct card can have multiple variations. Cards possessing recognized variations on both the error and correct I call "compound" cards. An example of this would be the '91 Topps Fernando Valenzuela #80. Both the error and correct (with/without diamond) can be found with a bold and faint topps watermark logo on back.

An anomaly in my eyes is a card possessing a MINOR print flaw that occurred during the printing process or cutting process which gives very few examples a distinction but was not considered drastic enough to be removed by the pressman from the delivery tray during quality control prior to distribution. Examples would be hickeys/fisheyes/donuts, dust specks, low ink, miscuts, solution spills, ink blob/drool, etc. I would consider the '61 Greens anomalies.

There will always be exceptions to these rules but they are the guidelines I've found work best for me.

Others have voiced their displeasure with sellers on ebay using improper terminology but I would say since there is no clear cut definition it only makes sense for sellers to fit as many of the buzz words in their title as possible to reach as many different potential buyers as possible. I, for one, appreciate the key words being there even if it's not how I would describe it, at least then I'm given the opportunity to decide one way or the other.

[ALR-bishop]

Daren---are the 62 greenies Variations ( not the pose variations) ? They were not on "purpose", but there they be. The 58 Yellows ? The 69 Whites ? The 72 color variants. In the end, it does not matter what you or I or anyone person thinks...it is a hobby decision...ala the 58 Herrer, the 57 Bakep. the 52 Campos Black star. You can say they were not intentional, and therefore not variations...but what we think does not count....except to us

I just enjoy annoying Doug with these blobs...err...print dots, and I have fun collecting them all .

Howdy from Douglas GB on the way to Belfast

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Daren---are the 62 greenies Variations ( not the pose variations) ? They were not on "purpose", but there they be. The 58 Yellows ? The 69 Whites ? The 72 color variants. In the end, it does not matter what you or I or anyone person thinks...it is a hobby decision...ala the 58 Herrer, the 57 Bakep. the 52 Campos Black star. You can say they were not intentional, and therefore not variations...but what we think does not count....except to us

I just enjoy annoying Doug with these blobs...err...print dots, and I have fun collecting them all .

Howdy from Douglas GB on the way to Belfast

Not sure if you're talking to me, but the 62 greenies were definitely done on 'purpose.' Each of those cards deviate from their non-greenie counterparts. The photographs are cropped differently, so they represent distinctly different versions of the cards. When I use the phrase 'on purpose,' I'm not necessarily talking about the motives of the people producing a card, but I am referring to noticeable differences in print runs. Blobs of misplaced colors aren't variations, but a photo cropped differently is, without a doubt, a significant change and thus a variation.

[steve B]

Interesting defenitions Joe.

I'm not quite there, but maybe just shifted a spot.

Errors - To me are mistakes of any kind that didn't get changed. I'm only interested in them as things that might have been changed.

Variations- Cards where there are two versions, an error and a corrected one, or a noticeable difference between printers or printings. The 62 Greens are, the two 52 Mantles are, but also the different holograms on early Upper Deck cards, and the three different die cuts on 88 Score . I've gotten into the habit of mostly only refering to major stuff or stuff that's already recognized as variations.

Varieties - A term I borrowed from stamps. (I collect constant plate varieties of the US official stamps from the 1870's) It's basically any difference that is a) A difference on the plate And B) consistent over at least a portion of the press run. These can be really minor, but they are "different" cards. It might just take a magnifying glass to see the difference easily. And most of them would be classed as just errant dots by most people. I have a pair of 71 High numbers that the only difference is that since they're miscut you can see that one was on the edge of the sheet and the other was in the middle. It's only visible when the cards are miscut, but they're technically different cards.

Printing errors - Some are hard to tell apart from minor varieties, some aren't. But I put all production mistakes here. From simple miscuts to stuff like a card where the die cut is at the bottom rather than the top, or the serial number got stamped twice, one on an angle.
A lot of the "variations" on Ebay are just errors, the most common being fisheyes and bad registration. Unless it's really severe or unusual some other way They're not really interesting.

Nearly whatever people want to call them is ok with me. It's the two extremes that bug me. Either the "It's not a variation unless it's like a totally different picture" People, or the "L@@k! It's got a tiny dot that I've only found on one card and It's a rare variation" (even though it's obviously a fisheye and a tiny one at that) There's some interesting stuff in the middle ground. The Junkwax gems guy does pretty well at sorting the little differences from the mere sloppy printing. He's listed a few clunkers, but I think there's a few on every variation list.

I'm in the process of typing up my 81 topps list.........Lots more than you'd think, but most of it really minor.

Steve B

[4reals]

Originally Posted by steve B

The Junkwax gems guy does pretty well at sorting the little differences from the mere sloppy printing. He's listed a few clunkers, but I think there's a few on every variation list.

Steve B

I completely agree, I enjoy Jackson's blog

[nolemmings]

So how would you classify these 1961 Bobby Bolin cards below? The first one has a bottom border bleed that fills in the "P" in Pitcher. This came from ebay, as my copy, which has a far more noticeable bleed, is playing hide and seek with me at the moment.



Next is Bolin with the bottom edge stray black line. Are these noteworthy variations or print defects?

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by steve B

Varieties - A term I borrowed from stamps. (I collect constant plate varieties of the US official stamps from the 1870's) It's basically any difference that is a) A difference on the plate And B) consistent over at least a portion of the press run. These can be really minor, but they are "different" cards. It might just take a magnifying glass to see the difference easily. And most of them would be classed as just errant dots by most people. I have a pair of 71 High numbers that the only difference is that since they're miscut you can see that one was on the edge of the sheet and the other was in the middle. It's only visible when the cards are miscut, but they're technically different cards.


Steve B

To me, the Zimmer matches up to what Steve has dubbed a "Variety" as these two Zimmer cards are actually two "different" cards. The subtle inset photo differences in these two cards are consistent through the entire print run as it was Topps' intent to have these two Zimmer cards to both appear together on a single sheet. Since they likely did not notice the subtle difference between the two cards on their sheet, as neither did many collectors, Topps made no attempt to "correct" the subtle difference between these two cards as they appear to have an equal population. To me a variation would be the 66 Bob Uecker (trade statement on or not on back)....the production of this card was not consistent through the print run and it was Topps' intent to produce this card with updated information on the back making this card available in two variations.

[4reals]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

To me a variation would be the 66 Bob Uecker (trade statement on or not on back)....the production of this card was not consistent through the print run and it was Topps' intent to produce this card with updated information on the back making this card available in two variations.

I would call that an error and correct. But I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong or anyone else for that matter. That's the reason we have to be flexible with the way sellers list them on ebay, because everyone has a slightly different interpretation. Let's just call it what it really is - a good time!