A New 1962 Variation for the Hardcore E & V Collectors

[ALR-bishop]

I personally agree with you Steve, but the 58 Herrer, the 57 Bakep and 61 Fairly are all print defects too. And the 55 Sullivan too. What the hobby ultimately recognizes as a "variation" is beyond me

[JollyElm]

This is precisely why I entitled the thread "…for the Hardcore E & V Collectors." It's obviously not everyone's idea of what an 'official' variation is.

[ALR-bishop]

While I may define "variations"more narrowly like Steve, I collect variants and print defects of any kind that I find interesting. If the hobby later classifies some of them as variations it may sometimes amuse me, like the Fairly, but that is what makes this part of the hobby interesting to me. I personally am glad you and others keep finding and posting them.

[JollyElm]

Hey Al.
My views on 'official' variations are well known to everyone around here. I've posted countless times on the subject and I get PM's on the subject all the time. To me, these cards must really feature a demonstrable or deliberate change to the image (front or back) between print runs to count. There are other cards, like the '61 Fairly you mentioned, that I make an exception for and include in my comprehensive list.

But, because I know other people chase after all sorts of non-recognized variants--print anomalies and so forth--I start threads here and there about cards that these folks might find interesting. So when someone pointlessly chimes in to say, "That's not a variant to me," I say, "Who cares??!! Move on then."

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Hey Al.
My views on 'official' variations are well known to everyone around here. I've posted countless times on the subject and I get PM's on the subject all the time. To me, these cards must really feature a demonstrable or deliberate change to the image (front or back) between print runs to count. There are other cards, like the '61 Fairly you mentioned, that I make an exception for and include in my comprehensive list.

But, because I know other people chase after all sorts of non-recognized variants--print anomalies and so forth--I start threads here and there about cards that these folks might find interesting. So when someone pointlessly chimes in to say, "That's not a variant to me," I say, "Who cares??!! Move on then."

+1....I think each collector is ENTITLED to have their own opinion (and respect other's opinion on the subject) as to what constitutes a variation to them. For me, anything(print errors, typo's, airbrushing) "deliberately" changed/corrected by Topps qualifies as a variation to me. For me, I also collect what I consider "print variants" (61 Fairly, 62 Hall card from this thread). To each their own on this subject....

[steve B]

Just to be clear.

While this doesn't reach my fairly low bar for variations, it is something I'd class as a misprint. And I collect those as well.

So it's not a matter of whether I'd consider it collectible, but rather one of which box I'd put it in.

I suspect it's a drag mark from the bits inside the press that guide the paper into the outfeed area. Or maybe the anti-static mechanism. The guides into outfeed are often rollers on a bar they help guide the stock into the parts that align it side to side. Sometimes the rollers get stuck, or get a bit of ink on them from a jammed or misfed sheet. If it's not fixed it will affect every sheet after it happens. If it's fixed, it will only affect a few sheets. This sort of mark is pretty typical of the sheet coming out and hitting a stuck roller then essentially falling below it or bouncing off.

If anyone likes collecting it as an example of a malfunction in the printing process..........That's pretty cool. (And this is a fairly severe example, so it's noteworthy.)

That's also why I prefer the term "varieties" - it includes a wide range of differences without as much baggage as "variations" And it doesn't require us to assign intent. Many of the variations most likely happened without any intent. Like the 1963 cropping variations. They're obviously different plates, but are probably just an artifact of how manual the process was at the time. There are far fewer card pairs where Intent is obvious. Like the 79 Bump Wills, or the trade/no trade sort of things.

Steve B

[goheels]

I think its a variation and I need to get one

Nice technical analysis as usual Steve.