T205 Archer Variation

[Leon]

It almost looks like someone tried to erase "at"? Is it rough under magnification? Interesting......though in my personal little quest I doubt I will go for the minutiae cards, but ya' never know.

[T205 GB]

Leon I would write this off as paper loss or damage had I not seen one a few years back on a Pied 25 back that was just like this. The back is smooth and undamaged. Only the print is defective

[sb1]

If you look at the enlarged Sterling scan, the "at" is clearly there, just a bit weaker as is much of the back, probably just underinked as is often found. The diagonal mark thru it might be some foreign matter on the plate, hard to say. Either way it might be a printing anomaly, but certainly not a new "variation". If in fact that several more can be found with the same mark, and weak letters, it is just that a group of cards that had some foreign matter in the road during a brief part of the printing runs.

[T205 GB]

Originally Posted by sb1

If you look at the enlarged Sterling scan, the "at" is clearly there, just a bit weaker as is much of the back, probably just underinked as is often found. The diagonal mark thru it might be some foreign matter on the plate, hard to say. Either way it might be a printing anomaly, but certainly not a new "variation". If in fact that several more can be found with the same mark, and weak letters, it is just that a group of cards that had some foreign matter in the road during a brief part of the printing runs.

Would you include the Doc White PB No Quotes in that group also? There are faint quotes on some of them but its recognized as a variation by most. I could probably list several others that are like that also.

There is a Pied 25 in VG/VG-Ex condition that is Raw with this same printing anomaly as mentioned above. I do not have a pic of that unfortunately.

Does anyone have that Pied 25 Archer or another like the one shown?

[kmac32]

I have 8 different T205 Archer cards representing all the different backs and all of mine say “at”. So could be a rare variation or just a printing fluke. Not completed convinced it is a new varient but who knows.

Ken

[Wite3]

I would lean towards printing fluke...not a variation IMHO.

Joshua

PS Will look at my Archers and see what is what with mine.

[gonzo]

I have three Archers and none of them have that mark.

Whether or not one calls it a “variation”, it is neat to learn about repeated printing differences within the T205 set. The powers of observation on this forum are pretty amazing. This seems similar in a way to the Titus print mark reported earlier this year at http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=243236

Thanks for sharing this information!