What is the procedure to get PSA to acknowledge a "new" variation?

[Harford20]

I have had many variations added to PSA's grading population, as well as many variations turned down. Here is a variation successfully lobbied for and one unsuccessful.

The card is the 1966 Topps Braves team #326. In reviewing our Aaron collection with my father, we noted that this card had a variation with a DOT in between the words "Place" and "National" on the card front, and a variation that did not have a DOT. This was not listed in the SCD or Beckett as a variation.

Step 1. Contacted PSA Customer Service with scans of both cards (front and back). At that time, only one was PSA graded and no variation had been listed with PSA.
Step 2. The Customer Service rep took the email scans to the "Research Staff" for review.
Step 3. This was deemed NOT a variant by the staff as one card had not been evaluated by PSA for authenticity.
Step 4. My dad and I sent in the variant for grading as "Card 326 Braves Team" and received a PSA 7 grade to go along with the PSA 8 of the other variation we had.
Step 5. We re-contacted PSA Customer Service, now with scans of both PSA graded cards, and these were again taken to the "Research Staff"
Step 6. PSA contacted us saying that these cards would be considered a variation, but now both cards had to be sent back to PSA as Mechanical Errors for a new "flip" listing
Step 7. Entry onto the Aaron Master Set registry was relatively easy after the variation listed by PSA.
Total time for completion of step 1-6 was approx. 9 months.

Now for the rest of the story......
1966 Venezuela Topps #326 Braves Team
This card has the exact same variation as the 1966 Topps #326 Braves Team card did.
The above steps were again done AFTER grading both the DOT and NO DOT Venezuela Topps variation. When the researchers received the scans of both variations, the decision was "PSA does not recognize this variation at this time". This Venezuela variation question has been asked of PSA now on three separate occasions, each with high-quality scans sent to PSA, the rationale of the variation documented in the 1966 Topps set, but this variation remains undocumented by PSA.

As this was mainly for the Registry, neither my father or I have tried to get the variation recognized by any other TPG, nor do we have an interest to do so.

I have found that variations that have already been listed in the SCD (and sometimes in the Beckett guide) have had an easier path of "approval", but even this is not perfect.....Even last week, PSA refused to recognize a card stock variation (white vs grey card stock) for a 1970's Topps card that clearly has both card stock types listed in the SCD. I give up.....

It mostly takes persistence and being a pain in *** to PSA to get these variations through.

Dave

[ALR-bishop]

Another reason I miss Bob Lemke. He himself had an interest in variation cards and wrote about them often in his column and his blog. When he was editor of SCD I found him always willing to discuss variants and whether they should be considered variations in SCD.

He actually started removing some variants, particularly border gaps, from the Catalog lists of variations because he came to think recurring print defects ought not to be classified as variations. He seemed to believe there had to be some indication the card had been intentionally changed. That left a gray area as to cards where it is virtually impossible to tell if a difference in cards was intentional or not...which is often.

Since there is not an accepted universal hobby definition as to what constitutes a variation, I think the recognition process by PSA or catalogers will always be haphazard.

But if PSA can recognize an errant green smudge in the baseball on the back of the 61 Ron Fairly card as a variation, anything may be possible Persistence and documentation does seem to be they key

[Rich Klein]

That was after Beckett added that variation and I know since I added that card myself back in the day

[ALR-bishop]

Does Beckett have a definition they work with, or do they just know one when they see it ? There are several of 61s with that kind of smudge

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Does Beckett have a definition they work with, or do they just know one when they see it ? There are several of 61s with that kind of smudge

I'm not there any more but if someone pointed out something like that to us we would have listed those on a case by case basis.

if you want to post the numbers here, I'll take a look at the COMC scanned inventory and see what appears to be significant in terms of variations. There are print cases such as the blobs on the 1971 Jim Nash and Jim Northrup cards which to me are legit printing issues. There is also a black mark under one of Mike Marshall's eye in 1971.

So post or PM me and I'll look and add if appropriate.

Rich

[Rich Klein]

This is the old David Rudd trick to follow oneself, but we've even been informed and verified some subtle legit variations on 1988 Donruss. I've got to go back and check Gregg Jefferies (posted on the post-war side of this board)

but it's cool to add material such as that to the hobby knowledge

Rich

[callou2131]

1962 babe as a boy has a pretty obvious variation as well. in one, in the lettering it looks like a hair splitting the letters.

[whiteymet]

Hi Guys:

Thanks for all the input, especially Dave's with his saga.

As mentioned I THINK my "argument" should be pretty straight forward and in my mind exactly like the 63 Topps Sticker backs. Two different backs both noted in the SCD Catalog

I will be attending the National. Is there anyone who will be there who would have final say on deciding something like this I could present my case to?

Keep the info coming!

Thanks,

Fred