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

[begsu1013]

i am not a variation guy at all. not to say, i don't have extreme respect for folks and their eyes that can find this type of stuff.

...i still cant find waldo.

with that being said, not sure if this is a noted one or not, but i thought something looked off on the 61 koufax card.

it took me a while, but then it hit me. the "A"s in "sandy koufax" are filled in w/ white.

not a scanner fill in, card is in hand.

[JollyElm]

There's a recurring anomaly on 1972 Tom Timmermann cards. On the upper half of the right side white border, there is a short, black, vertical line and a little ways down from there is a deflated balloon shape and some random lines.

Here are three separate cards containing these anomalies…

72timmermann.jpg

[ALR-bishop]

I wonder if we picked one random card from every Topps set 52 to 79, and one of us variant obsessive types were assigned to research each card, front and back, for any variant cards on eBay for a specified period, say a month, if it would tend to indicate every/any card can found with some print defect, recurring or not, if you look long enough and close enough.

[SMPEP]

Hi Al,

Can't speak for every year, but for 1952, I'd say nope. You couldn't do it with just any random card in the set. At least with regard to RECURRING print defects. Sure if you count one time defects on a card as a variation like the Bartirome with the overprinted red ink on back - you probably could find something on every card in the set. But in my opinion, that card is not a variation. It's just a one off printing mistake. Makes it one of a kind. But not an addition to the checklist.

Cheers,
Patrick

[ALR-bishop]

Personally I do not consider any variant a variation unless it was changed intentionally by the manufacturer (that would include unintentional changes that occurred from intentional changes or set up in the printing process)

I do think it is often impossible to tell if a recurring print defect was intentionally changed. But non recurring print defects or unintentional temporary print defects, whether common, scarce or rare, are not real variations....for me.

But, my point was that if we searched long enough and close enough on any card, front and back, it would not surprise me if you would eventually find a print variant of some sort. I think most the cards posted in this thread are not variations, but they are variants ( cards that differ from their common counterpart in some way).

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

But, my point was that if we searched long enough and close enough on any card, front and back, it would not surprise me if you would eventually find a print variant of some sort. I think most the cards posted in this thread are not variations, but they are variants ( cards that differ from their common counterpart in some way).

Completely agree with this. You can take any 2 same player/year cards from pre-1990 and you will find some kind of print flaw that is different between the 2 cards. Some people even list these print flaws on eBay as variations for 100X and more of their normal value. At least with those prices you don't have to worry about shilling.

[SMPEP]

Sadly, Ben .... you still do.

[4reals]

Originally Posted by begsu1013

i am not a variation guy at all. not to say, i don't have extreme respect for folks and their eyes that can find this type of stuff.

...i still cant find waldo.

with that being said, not sure if this is a noted one or not, but i thought something looked off on the 61 koufax card.

it took me a while, but then it hit me. the "A"s in "sandy koufax" are filled in w/ white.

not a scanner fill in, card is in hand.

Neat Koufax variation! I never noticed one like that before. Did you ever notice the magenta square in the lower right corner just under his arm? I believe it's an uncorrected print defect. I've looked unsuccessfully for a variation without it but have never seen one.