1961 topps with green inside baseball

[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?

[JollyElm]

In my world, those are nothing more than print defects, since nothing was changed in the printing process to make an alteration to the original design. Those types of things are so plentiful across print runs, that it would be completely unworkable to consider them all as separate variation examples.

[ALR-bishop]

Todd---neat card, Had not seen

Steve---your usual good take

Darren---no one is wrong...or right on this stuff. Too each his own. But value still needs hobby recognition....for good or bad. Since I am just in it as a hobby, I just collect what appeals to me

[4reals]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Based on the definitions I use it would depend on the print line. If the print line is determined to be a cut line found on every sheet the cards were printed on I would call them miscuts and they would be anomalies. If the print lines were designer errors that found their way on early runs I would call them variations because they were "fixed". As for the P that is filled in with black ink that is definitely an anomaly in my eyes. Cool finds none the less. Here are some from the '63 set that I'm not sure where to categorize. Miscuts, yes, but not all the miscuts of these cards have the same appearance. I'm leaning towards just calling them miscut anomalies because if I start trying to categorize a card based on something that was never intended to be viewed (off of the design area) then I may really have issues.

Here is the correct, the miscut with a yellow bar, and a miscut with a white bar


Here is a similar scenario with the Fairly card


Here are definite unlisted variations, which depict a cropped image of Zimmer. Note the number of stripes on his uniform and the placement of the bat from the inset image on Zimmer's turtleneck and his elbows on the inset image.


Wasn't this a thread about '61 Topps Greenies? How'd I end up in 1963? sorry 'bout that!

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by 4reals

Based on the definitions I use it would depend on the print line. If the print line is determined to be a cut line found on every sheet the cards were printed on I would call them miscuts and they would be anomalies. If the print lines were designer errors that found their way on early runs I would call them variations because they were "fixed". As for the P that is filled in with black ink that is definitely an anomaly in my eyes. Cool finds none the less. Here are some from the '63 set that I'm not sure where to categorize. Miscuts, yes, but not all the miscuts of these cards have the same appearance. I'm leaning towards just calling them miscut anomalies because if I start trying to categorize a card based on something that was never intended to be viewed (off of the design area) then I may really have issues.

Here is the correct, the miscut with a yellow bar, and a miscut with a white bar


Here is a similar scenario with the Fairly card


Here are definite unlisted variations, which depict a cropped image of Zimmer. Note the number of stripes on his uniform and the placement of the bat from the inset image on Zimmer's turtleneck and his elbows on the inset image.


Wasn't this a thread about '61 Topps Greenies? How'd I end up in 1963? sorry 'bout that!

Not to continue to stray OT, but the Zimmer is a part of the group of 63s that feature the two different inset image croppings.... IMO, not a true variation as these are actually two different cards.

http://www.oldbaseball.com/refs/1963_New_Variations.pdf

[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!

[ALR-bishop]

I agree with Doug and Joe...boy that was hard to admit.

The Zimmer and other 63 double prints have front cropping differences and some of them have distinctive back differences as well. They are similar to the 52 double prints of Mantle, Thompson and Robinson, which were listed as variations in the last issue of SCD.

But even if they are just variants, they are fun to look for on ebay. There is an on line article by George Vrechek that appeared in SCD that pictures and describes the differences in the 63 cards

[cobblove]

Hey guys. I just went though my 5000 count 61s and I found these 5 with green in the baseball. I have a 3rd Turrley but it was a little faded.
Thoughts? Are these what yall are talking about? Also the Vic Powers has a water spot on the bottom left corner. It didnt cause the green in the ball, but thats why the bottom stats are faded.
I found a Vic Powers with green. I had about 10 but this was the only one with green in it.