1967 minnie rojas variations

[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.

[ALR-bishop]

Agreed Keith; stuff about the history of Topps is hardly ever clear cut

It is too bad Minnie Rojas died several years ago. He might have been amused by this thread "about him"

Apologies to the OP for the sidetrack, but after all you started it