1967 minnie rojas variations

[con40]

Al, you raise a real big question on this, and it's a good one.

The bottom line is that everyone has their own definition of what a variation is. Some folks think wrongbacks are variations, or even slight print defects due to dust on the press. And that's fine. There can be as much latitude as the hobby wants as long as there is an appetite to pay a premium for it.

My "personal" belief is that a variation truly must be a "variant" meaning there are intentional varieties created by human hands in the production process.

A few legitimate variation examples:

1. A design error that is caught on press and requires the job to have new film and/or plates created to correct the error. Examples: 1979 Topps Bump Wills, 1989 Upper Deck Dale Murphy, 1969 Topps Twins Rookies, 1982 Fleer Littlefield, 1969 Topps white letters, 1958 Topps yellow letters. Most variants likely fall into this category.

2. A printing error that is caught on press and fixed by the pressman, but does not require new film and/or plates. Usually this means removing something from the plates by "stoning it off" or masking it out. Possible examples: 1952 Topps Campos, 1989 Fleer Bill Ripken, 1989 Fleer Randy Johnson, 1957 Topps Mantle with ghost, 1982 Topps George Foster All Star with auto.

3. A printing error likely resulting from using "make ready" sheets (test sheets) that have something incomplete or missing, yet make their way into the final press run along with the variant corrected by the pressman on press. Examples: 1990 Topps Frank Thomas NNOF, 1982 Topps Blackless, 1988 Topps one-color backs.

Then, there are what I call "anomalies". Anomalies are things that happen during a press run and likely correct themselves in the process of running a hundred thousand sheets over the course of a day or two. Offset printing is a very fluid process requiring lots of QC checks along the way to maintain ink density, plate endurance, ink registration, blanket endurance, and general cleanliness.

As sheets move through the press all these things have to be monitored, but there are always anomalies occurring along the way and this accounts for many of the cards we consider variations today. There are multiple versions, but no one intentionally created them or even realized they occurred.

Some examples of anomalies:

1. When one ink runs low (or out), you can get massive color shifts that correct as the press is re-inked. Usually there is a range of color loss that can be seen on many cards. Possible examples: 1980 Topps letter color variations

2. When debris gets on the blanket, it can obscure content that should be printed until the debris is cleaned off or works its own way off and then the image is no longer obstructed. Usually there will be dozens of nuances in the anomaly as the debris works its way around and then off the roller. Possible examples: 1958 Topps Herrer, 1957 Topps Bakep, assorted border breaks, ghost marks, white blotches, and missing letters.

3. When the blanket breaks down and leaves areas unprinted or printing poorly. This requires the blanket (and possibly press plate) to be changed out to correct the problem, but usually many many sheets have run through the press before its detected. This could cause some of the same anomalies as debris, but it's usually a larger defect. Possible examples: 1986 Topps Clemens, Seaver, 1982 Topps Pascual Perez no auto (could be a true variation though), 1952 Topps House (a crushed blanket may have obscured the application of red ink evenly)

Then there are those variations that defy definition or known origin. It's hard to know how they occurred or were corrected. They are clearly not anomalies, but didn''t seem to merit entirely new film for a plate change. Among this group of oddballs I'd include 1962 Topps Green Tints, 1956 Topps Ted Williams, and possibly the 1952 Topps Frank House.

Sorry to ramble, but hopefully this is a good framework for how I'd classify errors, variations and anomalies according to how they occurred, the intnetion in creating the variant, and the manner in which offset printing works and just creates variants on its own.

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Ok, now you have stepped in it Keith , you now have to give us your definition of a "true variation". Does it include the 58 Herrer and 57 Bakep, or the 52 Campos/House cards ?

I agree this is not a variation , which is what I call a card that was intentionally changed by the manufacturer for any reason ( this would, for me, include cropping or other differences in DP cards like the 52 Mantle or the 62 green tints, since they resulted from conscious decisions about how to set up the print runs).

But some of us collect what I would call variants, which are just cards that are in some way , any way, different from their counterparts. Recurring print defects are one example, like the border irregularity that occurs in some of the 52 Snider cards or the Campos partially missing front border. And if someone takes the view that any difference in a card, for any reason, is a variation, what official hobby rule book says they are wrong

Even if this card is not a variation, or a recurring print defect, it can still be a recurring variant. You can easily find both versions of this card...and there are differences

Wanted to add that Keith makes some of the finest "cards that never were".... and I have a bunch of them. And, like Steve, a go to guy for me on questions about the printing processes involving baseball cards

[ALR-bishop]

Great input as usual Keith. Thanks for all the good info and insights

[CobbSpikedMe]

Originally Posted by con40

Then there are those variations that defy definition or known origin. It's hard to know how they occurred or were corrected. They are clearly not anomalies, but didn''t seem to merit entirely new film for a plate change. Among this group of oddballs I'd include 1962 Topps Green Tints, 1956 Topps Ted Williams, and possibly the 1952 Topps Frank House.

I thought the 62 Green Tints were all cropped slightly differently that the non-green tints. Wouldn't this make them legitimate variations?

Thanks,

AndyH

[ALR-bishop]

The changed poses are definite variations. And you are right Andy, that there are noticeable cropping differences as well as the tinting differences on the same pose cards. I think that was a result of a second printing company producing them and thus they are similar to the 56 and 63 DP differences George Vrechek has written about. I consider them real variations. Although the differences may not have been "intended", they resulted from intentional set ups of the printing process itself

But that is just me and as I mentioned there is no formal hobby definition of a varition that I know about. I think everyone is entitled to their own view and there is no on right or wrong

Keith -you mentioned the 57 Mantle. Are you aware of any examples where the little guy is not partially brushed out, or is completely gone ? I have seen what I think are different degrees of his presence.

[con40]

You're tight that 19622 Green Tints have some that are clearly variations because the photo is different, but there are others where its just a difference in color separation. Those are hard to categorize. Best guess on my part is that they did re-strip the film and do new plates. Stripping was done by hand back then, so it would have been impossible to make an exact duplicate if the film was re-stripped. Things would be off in some way. Then, depending on how the color separation is done and how each plate is exposed, you can lose or gain certain colors in the image. I suppose that the "green" cards were the first run and it was rejected by the art director at some point, so the printer re-stripped new film and made new plates to fix the problem resulting in the non-green tint cards.

Does anyone know this for sure? I'd love to know the story behind those. Were they done in two print shops? Or possibly just two print runs from different film and plates in the same shop?

Al, I don't own that card but have seen many examples where the guy is visible to different degrees, though not completely, and others where he is virtually gone. My assumption is that the pressman kept "etching" the four color plates. This process allows the ink to stick to the plate in areas that are etched putting more ink on the sheet. They probably kept stopping the press and etching a bit more and a bit more until someone was satisfied that the guy was dark enough. The run between etchings would have been hundreds of sheets at a minimum, so that would explain why it can be found easily with so many differences.

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

The changed poses are definite variations. And you are right Andy, that there are noticeable cropping differences as well as the tinting differences on the same pose cards. I think that was a result of a second printing company producing them and thus they are similar to the 56 and 63 DP differences George Vrechek has written about. I consider them real variations. Although the differences may not have been "intended", they resulted from intentional set ups of the printing process itself

But that is just me and as I mentioned there is no formal hobby definition of a variation that I know about. I think everyone is entitled to their own view and there is no on right or wrong

Keith -you mentioned the 57 Mantle. Are you aware of any examples where the little guy is not partially brushed out, or is completely gone ? I have seen what I think are different degrees of his presence.

[ALR-bishop]

Keith

This is what I was referring in saying two printing companies may have been involved

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...,d.aWw&cad=rja

[brob28]

I did not read Al's link. But I think the story goes that Topps was expecting a lot of demand for the cards and outsourced some printing to meet expected demand to a second company that was not a regular source. The GT's originate from that source. Keith, I'm 99% certain that there is cropping differences on all GT's - on a few though it's very tough to spot.

[ALR-bishop]

I think the source of what Bill has heard is the link. And as far as I know,there are cropping differences on each same pose green tint. Darren is the expert on that. I think it has been reported that PSA has been reluctant to to note the green tints on slabs because if you are looking at just one card at a time they can be hard to differentiate at times. I think that is true . If they had Darren's comparison scans, it would be easy. Bartsch has reported in SCD recently that they will be running an article on the green tints, maybe that will help. Hope Darren has had some input on it.

[con40]

Bill, if there were two distinct print runs with two sets of film stripped then most likely there would be some variation for every green tint card since stripping cannot be done identically due to the nature of handwork involved.

So, to revise my initial post on where these fit in the scheme of variations and anomalies, perhaps they should all be classified as true variations, though with the slightest of differences in some cases.

Thanks for the link Al, that was an interesting article, though it didn;t quite close the case on where the green tints originated.

Originally Posted by brob28

I did not read Al's link. But I think the story goes that Topps was expecting a lot of demand for the cards and outsourced some printing to meet expected demand to a second company that was not a regular source. The GT's originate from that source. Keith, I'm 99% certain that there is cropping differences on all GT's - on a few though it's very tough to spot.