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

[ALR-bishop]

Finally we have a real variation man in this thread

....welcome

[variation-man]

thanks I do many variations and the miscut, faded, etc. are not variations. those are factory errors and mainly worthless. example of a true variation is the 1967 bolin white streak. a miscut card of a 1968 johnny bench rookie card showing half his face is worth zero unless you use it as a conversation piece showing on how bad quality control was back then.

[ALR-bishop]

What is your personal definition of a "true variation " ? Do you think the Bolin was an intentionally corrected error or an unintended recurring print defect, and in either event how could one tell....or does it matter ?

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Do you think the Bolin was an intentionally corrected error or an unintended recurring print defect, and in either event how could one tell....or does it matter ?

+1. Nearly all of the 1967 Topps "variation" cards are actually just printing flaw error cards. These include the frontal errors of Bolin, Spiezio, Nen, G. Brown, and the back errors of Marichal, Queen, Belinsky, Phillies Rookie Stars, and Gomez.

[variation-man]

The 1967 cards I agree that they are "printing flaws" but they we corrected. I do not recognize such errors as miscuts, print dots or faded. if the printing company made a correction, then I believe it is a variation - 1969 white letters - 1966 purple tree Heffner. this could be argued all day long.

[ALR-bishop]

If they were intentionally corrected it would be a "true variation". Examples would be the 1959 Spahn DOBs or traded/optioned cards....no doubts.

But agree with Cliff the 67s could well be unintentional print defects that simply occurred in some runs but we're not detected. There are thousands of such defects, including in my mind the 58 Herrer and 57 Bakep. There is no way to tell if such cards were early run errors that were intentionally corrected, or just a temporary undetected defect in the printing process. I think the no name Thomas may also have been a temporary unintentional recurring print defect. On most such cards, you simply can not tell if a recurring print defect was intentionally corrected. The hobby recognizes some but not others.

For myself, a true variation is a card that the manufacturer clearly changed intentionally, or a card that differs from it's counterparts because an intentional change was made in the printing process itself....the 62 greenies and double print differences such as occurred in the 52 Mantle, Robinson and Thompson are examples of the latter. But that's just me and many may disagree.

If you read this entire thread you can see this debate played over and over. There is not recognized hobby standard, so to each their own. Many in here , myself included, collect variants ( cards that differ from their common counterpart) whether they are "true variations"or not.

Look forward to you contributions to the thread