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

[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