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

[ALR-bishop]

[gracecollector]

1959 Don Zimmer #287. From what I've tracked, about 90% of printing has unbroken "O", 9.5% has broken "O", and 0.5% has a partially broken "O".

Unbroken "O" in Dodgers.


Partially broken "O" in Dodgers.


Broken "O" in Dodgers.

[ALR-bishop]

Good one Brad. Has Don ever looked better than on that card

[4reals]

Steve, thanks for the explanation, your reasoning makes sense to me. Do you think the other 90's from that sheet will ever be recognized like the Thomas?

Here's a Podres variant...some can be found with a section of pink in the top border where there should be orange. On ebay the pinks are about 20:1. Not too hard to find.

[steve B]

I think the other 90's related to the Thomas should be recognized. Each is just as tough if not tougher because commons don't get much attention. (Took me more than 2 years to find an 88T Canseco to finish the set and he's not exactly a common)

But I don't think it will happen anytime soon. The Thomas was an obvious error on a really popular card and was in guides early on.
The first time I saw one the seller wasn't sure of it and to me it looked like a print error. So the others would have been treated the same way if they'd been noticed. And for better or worse, pricing and acceptance revolved around Beckett and they always downplayed print errors.

Obviously neither they or the standard catalog could list every difference, especially once the huge production of the late 80's began. And even now there are dealers that put minor print errors out there as "variations" often with what I'll politely call "imaginative pricing". If a major price guide began listing actual small differences to an audience with no understanding of the technical aspects that sort of thing would only be worse.

Especially for stuff in the questionable category. I have a couple 1991T partial wrong backs. Player cards with the underlying pink that's not a player card background but a manager background. Are they ones where they were printed on a sheet intended to be a different sheet? Like one printed with the pink from say the A sheet then finished with the blue and front from the C sheet? Or was the pink back plate made wrong. Eventually I'll compare the sheet layouts and see if any normal sheet matches up. If it does, they're probably the first, and "just" print errors - uncommon but errors. If none of the normal layouts match they're likely actual major variations that escaped notice for years.

Steve B

[4reals]

Broken borders in upper left corner, one with a single break and one with a double. The double is somewhat tough to find.

[Cliff Bowman]

This is not my card nor is it my auction. It is currently on eBay. If I'm not supposed to do this, somebody please let me know. I was wondering if anyone has an opinion on it. I'm guessing that someone in the past 45 years whited out the Clarence Gaston square and colored in the circle with a marker. It is a very neat job if someone did, though. The back of the card has the normal printing, the seller put up a scan of both sides on the listing.

[Exhibitman]