1961 Topps Stu Miller New variation? Opinions?

[Cliff Bowman]

Here is a 1960 Topps #10 Ernie Banks with a very similar "SECT II" printed on the edge.

[SMPEP]

No it's not.

It's a miscut cards that shows the border.

Every Stu Miller card in that location on the original sheet had the "Sect I" in the border. Some sheets were miscut and showed "sect II" on the card. Most sheets were cut properly and did not show this. (Just like the Banks shown above). Now there are other Stu Miller cards in a different location on the sheet that would not have the "Sect II" in the border - but this has to do with where the card was located on the sheet and how badly the sheet was miscut.

Still a fun card.

Just not a variation.

Cheers,
Patrick

[ALR-bishop]

Again, it all depends on your definition of a variation. There is no official hobby definition, and variations listed by SCD, Beckett and The Registry in total defy any limited definition. So what is your's, Patrick ?

Are these both print defects, or is one a variation ?

[JTysver]

Out of register is a print defect, not a variation. A variation would be a change in the original card.

[sbfinley]

Edit: miss read a post.

[ALR-bishop]

Originally Posted by JTysver

Out of register is a print defect, not a variation. A variation would be a change in the original card.

In your definition does the change have to be intended, or can it be unintended ? Which is the 58 Herrer ? The 57 Bakep ? The 52 Yellow House ? The 52 Campos ? What about the two versions of the 52 Mantle ? The no name Thomas and it's relatives ? What about the 68 Milton Bradley set ? The 62 greenies with no pose differences) ? What about the 61 Fairly recently recognized by PSA.

I tend to view variations as cards intentionally changed by the manufacturer, but no one made me the chief authority. If someone wants to define a variation as any card that differs on a recurring basis from their common counterparts, who is to officially say they are wrong ?

The hobby has defined several unintended print defects as variations, whether I like it of not. Value in the end depends on hobby recognition, not on what either you or I think

[SMPEP]

The card in question - Stu Miller - is a miscut card. Nothing more. Nothing less. Every card on the sheet in that same location had the same "sect II' by it. If the sheet was cut poorly enough - it shows. If it was cut as it was supposed to be - it does not.

Now the Yellow tiger - to me - that is a variation. They misprinted it originally (because the other colors in the card are correct), and then they noticed this and fixed it. Same with the Campos black star - clearly corrected.

The Bakep/Herrer cards are the line between variation and print error. Hard to know for certain whether that was just a poor printing job - or whether it was an error that was caught later. I tend to lean toward print error. But I'm not the authority there.

I agree with the poster above - the poor registry Herrera is a more interesting card than the Herrer. But poor registry does not make that an error either. Just a bad printing job on a sheet.

Cheers,
Patrick

[ALR-bishop]

?

[bnorth]

I am no help with the definition of variation Al, I would pick the card on the left everyday to add to my collection. I really don't care for the one on the right especially at the price it brings for a printing error.