Show...me...your print variations!

[Northviewcats]

Hi Al,

Thanks for the link to Vrechek's article. For anyone who is interested, I scanned the backs of the McBean card to show the two different variations.

The "A" in the cartoon has two different colors. I have over a dozen cards of each variation and all of the McBeans with one strip showing on the front also have a yellow "A" on the back. All of my cards with the second stripe visible on the shoulder on the front of the card have a white "A' on the back.

Interesting.

I also included a scan of the Oldis variation as well.

Best regards,

Joe

[ALR-bishop]

Recurring defect/difference on Carlton card over his cap

[ALR-bishop]

I recently updated my 1959 and 1960 Topps sets to include both the gray and white back variants...1958 ( 199-286)....1960 (375-440). In doing that I noticed this print defect. Not sure if it is recurring. This is a white back

[bigfanNY]

I know not pre 1980 but this one perplexed me. 2012 Topps as they had in past years had a number of "Error" or Short Print cards in both series one and Two. But this #328 John Lackey "Rainbow" error has never gotten a listing. I had a nephew born that year so like many relatives before I put together a master set of cards for him to give when he get older. I saw some early posts for the lackey card but held off until about April then I purchased 3 of the cards one from Alabama one from Ohio and one from California. So I know it had wide distribution was only in the very first print run from that year and was told by folks that broke down many cases of Product that they only got one "rainbow lackey card each. They had held them saw no traction and sold them in April for a couple bucks each. I had them Graded last year and despite clear printing error you can see flip is the same for both cards. I did notice that about 20 2012 lackeys were graded so I would think there is a small population of the cards that has been graded and Look forward to your learned opinions.

[ALR-bishop]

Neat item Jonathan. To the best of my knowledge PSA normally only notes variations/variants/differences on their flips after hobby recognition in some way, such as recognition in a catalog like SCD or Becketts. On the other hand, as far as I know PSA recognized the 61 Fairly on their own.

I know some collectors on CU got some variations recognized by PSA through persistent efforts that included sending them hobby articles about the cards they were trying to get recognized. Others worked to get SCD to recognize their variant cards as a first step

[bigfanNY]

Thank you for the input. What I really do not understand is clearly this card is a "variation" but in this day of company produced "variations" real ones need a champion or group of champions to hound a TPG in order to receive recognition. And I know that quality control is much much better now that in the 50's thru 1990's so real factory error cards are much scarcer but it seems to me a TPG would have enough experts especially in modern cards to recognize an error card when it is siting in their hand. I also know if stuff like this is my biggest problem I have NO problems. Great thread love variations.

Jonathan

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Neat item Jonathan. To the best of my knowledge PSA normally only notes variations/variants/differences on their flips after hobby recognition in some way, such as recognition in a catalog like SCD or Becketts. On the other hand, as far as I know PSA recognized the 61 Fairly on their own.

I know some collectors on CU got some variations recognized by PSA through persistent efforts that included sending them hobby articles about the cards they were trying to get recognized. Others worked to get SCD to recognize their variant cards as a first step

A Beckett dealer told them about the 61 Fairly and then it was listed in Beckett. PSA did not do that one independently.

[ALR-bishop]

Thanks for that info Rich, I had not realized that. In your view how can it be distinguished from other 61s with the green in the baseball on the back ? Or other front and back print defects that are recurring and even more prominent ? I kind of understood Bob Lemke's SCD criteria before he retired. Does Beckett have some known criteria or is it ad hoc depending on who is recommending it or their persistence ?

By the way I have no interested in trying to get anything recognized myself, this is just curiosity