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

[JollyElm]

I imagine the actual layout of the Perry card was unchanged (and perhaps the two versions, with and without the blue streak, simply appeared in different places on the print sheet) between the white letter and yellow letter versions, because the absence of a color wasn't caused by editing the physical layout of the cards. Or it's possible the Perry cards were exactly the same in layout, but something occurred during the the printing of the cyan layer and the blue splotch appeared?

[mintacular]

2 more, how would you describe these variants? I've looked at a lot of vintage cards but have never seen anything like the Fregosi... The other '61 has a "streak" what do you call that? Those I think are much more common.

[JollyElm]

That Fregosi has a Jay Johnstone wet sheet transfer on it...or the two cards were once stuck together and ripped apart??

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

That Fregosi has a Jay Johnstone wet sheet transfer on it...or the two cards were once stuck together and ripped apart??

My guess is that they were once stuck together. Does not seem likely that a wet sheet transfer could have occurred as these 2 cards were not part of the same series.

[brob28]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

My guess is that they were once stuck together. Does not seem likely that a wet sheet transfer could have occurred as these 2 cards were not part of the same series.

Agreed, that is not a wet sheet transfer. Has to be cards stuck together due to moisture during storage through the years.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

I imagine the actual layout of the Perry card was unchanged (and perhaps the two versions, with and without the blue streak, simply appeared in different places on the print sheet) between the white letter and yellow letter versions, because the absence of a color wasn't caused by editing the physical layout of the cards. Or it's possible the Perry cards were exactly the same in layout, but something occurred during the the printing of the cyan layer and the blue splotch appeared?

The latter is probably very close.

69 Topps had a fairly complex layout, with different a and B sheets, and some doubleprints. (actually double prints and triple prints, a fine distinction)
So some cards have 3 positions, and most have 2.

Each color should be taken on its own, so the WN/YN is a change in the Yellow, but the Blue mark is a change to Cyan*.

So one of the positions could have had a fault in the Cyan layer, that they didn't fix. When they fixed the Yellow layer the new set of plates would have the fixed yellow, but still have one position with the unrepaired Cyan.
At the craziest not likely, but possible - A first set of plates gets made with a good cyan layer but a bad yellow layer. The cyan mask gets damaged, and later the yellow layer is fixed and new plates are made. Still later the blue is fixed, and the yellow is still fixed, resulting in three versions, two of which are very hard to tell apart. (Or mix in a hand done fix for the blue mark, which would be a pretty rare thing)

Think that can't happen? I just went through the 49 leaf set, and found three -four major changes, plus transitional cards. And that's just in a month or so of looking seriously for the different varieties on Ebay.

*It can also be a change in any or all the other colors, I'd have to see a high res scan or have one in hand to be sure. That would indicate a problem on the pasteup that got fixed.

[ALR-bishop]

Thanks for input Steve. Would you classify the WN v YN cards print defects or variations ? Same Q for 58 Y v Ws. I guess it would depend in part on what definition of a variation is assumed

[steve B]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Thanks for input Steve. Would you classify the WN v YN cards print defects or variations ? Same Q for 58 Y v Ws. I guess it would depend in part on what definition of a variation is assumed

I'd call those variations. And to me they're closer to what most people would call variations than a lot of what I keep as variations.

For the Y/Ws it's pretty clear that the yellow layer was set up wrong, and corrected. I suppose some could stretch that to say that setting the plate up wrong is a print error, but I think that runs afoul of stuff that's even more clear like the 79 Bump Wills.

My definition of a variation is really a loose one. I count anything that appears to be caused by a difference on the plate, or a clear difference in the cardstock or ink. Most of those differences are probably unintentional, I can't imagine the UV reactive backs on late 80's early 90's Topps were intentional.
Considering the range of stuff I'll set aside as "different" trying to determine intent is a rabbit hole I just don't choose to go down.

I do also save stuff that's obviously related to some production issue, either in printing, cutting packing, or even in the manufacture of the cardstock. I've got a card that has what I'd call a massive inclusion, something manufactured into the cardstock that's about half as big as a watermelon seed.

So
Registration problems
fisheyes
Inking problems
cardboard flaws
Die cut on the wrong end, or with the wrong pattern
All those go in the printing mistakes box

Cutting guidelines
Different screening
Die cuts that shouldn't have been obvious(88 score)
Different holograms
Marks from scratches on the plate
Consistent stray marks (not caused by ink spatter)
Printed on a different sort of cardstock (mostly 69 and 70 Topps)
All those go in the main set as variations.

A few can be hard to decide, like if one color foil should have been used but a different color was. Technically an error, so I'd file it there. Which may seem to contradict the placing different holograms as variations, but the different holograms were often a difference between series. (Like one hockey year where the main set has one hologram, but the update set was packed with low # cards and all of them had the next years hologram)

And yes, it's about as confusing as it can be. That's one of the reasons I don't get worked up about the variation/not a variation question.

[ALR-bishop]

Thanks as always for your input Steve. My definition is more narrow but as you know I collect recurring print oddities whatever they are, and agree the 69s and 58s could involve intentional changes in the printing process either way.

Not sure if we did this one. The one on the bottom left is pretty tough. The slight differences on this one remind me of those on the font of the 55 Sullivan (106) and 56 Pepper ( 103), and the back of the 56 Schmidt (322)

[savedfrommyspokes]

Here is another example of a variant, that has slight differences, that could be considered a progressive variant like Al's 55 Elliot card. With the 1972 Topps 534 Hickman card, the known variation is the example with no green on the team name. In looking, I found a few examples that have just a very light green instead of only the yellow.

What I find interesting is that no other cards (at least none that are known) from this series have a similar color variation to them. Not sure what caused this progressive variation to occur(on this card only), but my guess is Steve would be able to help explain the cause.

[JollyElm]

Some people call the #607 Frank Duffy card a variation due to the coloring differences in the shadowy areas of the team name, relatively similar to the Hickman you illustrated above. What I found was on the print sheet there were multiple Duffy cards represented, and one of them had the much lighter shadowing on it--although all the other coloring and all of the other cards looked perfectly fine. So it seems to have been an 'error' in the actual layout of the cards and not some freakish anomaly in the printing process. I'm wondering if the Hickman variation was created in the same manner.