1955 Topps 'New' Jackie Robinson Variation

[steve B]

It's not a printing problem, but it is a difference between two different places on the sheet. Whoever did the mask for the plates just cropped one a bit, but not the other. Probably not intentional, but if we go by intent, then most recognized variations aren't.


I'd call it a variation, others might not.


There probably isn't any great interest in making it cataloged by grading companies etc, as it will have been produced in the same quantity as the other version. Or maybe half as much, it looks like 55 had some cards printed twice on the sheet and others printed 3 times. (And each one is probably at least slightly different)

The 52 Mantle is a double print and variation, and the two different versions while known don't get much attention since either one is just as common.

[swarmee]

If it's an obvious variation (like this or yellow fingerprint 1972 or streaks in sky 1963), I don't see why it wouldn't be cataloged and distinguished by the grading companies. Is it because Master set collectors wouldn't want to keep having to buy cards when new variations are blessed?
Why do white back/gray back differences get precedence in a master set in some sets, and aren't distinguished in other sets? There's no consistency.

Why doesn't PSA recognize all the different T205 backs by company instead of putting them all into a single bucket? It's definitely not value, because some commons with rare backs might be worth thousands more than ones with common backs. And those backs are fully recognized as different variations.

Maybe SGC sees an underserved niche in the hobby for variation collectors. PSA requires price guides to bless new variations, but SGC has decided they will try to do it themselves. PSA lost out on the Mascot Dog Food Mantle to BGS because they would not slab it without knowing the entire Mascot set listing.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by swarmee

If it's an obvious variation (like this or yellow fingerprint 1972 or streaks in sky 1963), I don't see why it wouldn't be cataloged and distinguished by the grading companies. Is it because Master set collectors wouldn't want to keep having to buy cards when new variations are blessed?

Then should all of the non-intentional print variations on Richard D's list be cataloged and distinguished by grading companies? Where would it ever end?

A card like the 73 Band-Aid Kaline still has not been distinguished by grading companies, so why should yet another card with a non-intentional print variation receive a designation?

If any one person had enough time, some sort of print variation could be found on almost any card.....

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by steve B

It's not a printing problem, but it is a difference between two different places on the sheet. Whoever did the mask for the plates just cropped one a bit, but not the other. Probably not intentional, but if we go by intent, then most recognized variations aren't.


I'd call it a variation, others might not.


There probably isn't any great interest in making it cataloged by grading companies etc, as it will have been produced in the same quantity as the other version. Or maybe half as much, it looks like 55 had some cards printed twice on the sheet and others printed 3 times. (And each one is probably at least slightly different)

The 52 Mantle is a double print and variation, and the two different versions while known don't get much attention since either one is just as common.

I couldn't tell how many times the JRob card appears on that sheet, but I completely agree it was non-intentional, and based on the number out there, it is either due to the number of times this card appears on the sheet or it's left edge location on the sheet.

[RaidonCollects]

Thanks everybody for their opinions. Looks like the poll is in a three way tie at the moment. savedfrommyspokes thanks for the link to the variation site, lots of different variations that I hadn't heard of before.

Owen

[ALR-bishop]

SCD recognized the 52 Mantle, Thompson and Robinsons as variations. Not so PSA. I think the reason they do not get much "attention" is that few master collectors would want to need two of each in their set .

I think DP differences, even if not intentional were a result of intentional acts in the printing process and are variations ( my view only). Is the 55 Robinson a DP ? If not, I would view it as a recurring print defect, and agree that if you pick any card from any Topps set and look hard and long you will eventually find some defect. Some are common and recurring, others scarce.

All are interesting to me. And the hobby has been fairly inconsistent as to what gets formally recognized

I also think it virtually impossible to know for sure whether many or even most recurring print defect were intentionally corrected. I think most were not,

I always enjoy these discussions

[RaidonCollects]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

SCD recognized the 52 Mantle, Thompson and Robinsons as variations. Not so PSA. I think the reason they do not get much "attention" is that few master collectors would want to need two of each in their set .

I think DP differences, even if not intentional were a result of intentional acts in the printing process and are variations ( my view only). Is the 55 Robinson a DP ? If not, I would view it as a recurring print defect, and agree that if you pick any card from any Topps set and look hard and long you will eventually find some defect. Some are common and recurring, others scarce.

All are interesting to me. And the hobby has been fairly inconsistent as to what gets formally recognized

I also think it virtually impossible to know for sure whether many or even most recurring print defect were intentionally corrected. I think most were not,

I always enjoy these discussions

I wouldn't call a print defect IMO. I think it is a genuine variation that was caused due to an error with the printing process (poor calibration/cropping/etc) which affected a notable portion of the Robinsons in distribution. I think it was an 'variation' similar to those that we see with the T206 plate scratches.

Robinson is not a DP in the set (there are only 4). So I would assume that the reason why we see the two variations is that the error was corrected (or not made a second time) after a printing run/group of sheets/series of the error versions were made.

Owen

[Dewey]

Made me look.

[G1911]

Legit variation in my book, Topps clearly re-cropped this card and the Grim. There are a few others with similar variations in the team logo in 1955.