1955 Topps 'New' Jackie Robinson Variation

[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.

[jchcollins]

I think it's a legit variation if you are into that kind of thing...what I don't agree with is it being "new" by any stretch of the imagination. I have been aware of that particular variation on the '55 Robinson for years. I always saw it as more of a mistake, and usually tried to go after versions of that card that have the complete diamond logo.

[ALR-bishop]

The poll was almost 50/50 as to whether it is a"true variation" ( with no definition of what that is) or a scarce recurring print defect. I tend to be in the camp of print defect, since if ( big if I know ) a true variation is a card intentionally changed by the manufacturer ( a definition that seems simple but in very hard to verify in many cases), then I think it impossible to know if this defect occurred at the start of printing and was "corrected, or occurred in later runs and was noticed and corrected, orwas just a temporary recurring defect.

But like many of the contributors to the never ending variation thread, I collect recurring print variants whether the hobby recognizes them as variations currently or not. So, I had to have one