1968 Topps Yastrzemski Checklist variation question

[Cliff Bowman]

I have seen other variations that I very seriously doubt exist on Trading Card Database so I would take it with a grain of salt. They have a 1979 Kellogg’s Pete Rose with the updated ‘P’ logo on the back but still will the 33 triples error. That card doesn’t exist, the 33 triples error only appears on the first printing with the two Quaker kids Phillies logo and the copyright in Tony the Tiger’s scarf. They also have the 1979 Kellogg’s Carl Yastrzemski error card with 9930 at bats on a second printing card. That card doesn’t exist, the error card is only on the first printing that has the copyright on Tony the Tiger’s scarf. I tried to include a variation in the 1980-81 Topps Basketball set with several scans of proof but they refused it. I tried repeatedly to get them to correct listing errors in the 1985 Subway Discs set and also include variations in the set in the past 6 weeks or so but now they won’t even respond to me, but the virus probably has something to do with that. I am convinced that people have sent in scans of photoshopped cards to get variations that don’t exist listed, which is beyond me.

[AGuinness]

I tend to take everything with a grain of salt! The photo looks convincing, but I don't think it would be hard at all to Photoshop that, considering all the text you need is on the two well-known variations.
PSA includes variations on slabs, although they refer to the "Special Baseball Playing Card" vs. "Special Baseball Playing Card Game" at the top of the ad.
Neither PSA nor Trading Card Database make note of how the photo of Yaz on the front can be different, though. And speaking of this, the listing for all three of the variations with Trading Card Database uses the same photo of the front for all of them. Not helpful, as I would imagine there could be helpful identifying marks or something on the different variations. Photos of an example's true front could be helpful in that regard.
I'm more inclined than not to think this is a fabrication... can anyone else chime in otherwise?

[JollyElm]

I sorta read the post quickly, so forgive me if I'm not providing what you're looking for, but here's a graphic I created way-back-when showing the 4 different versions (verbiage on back/different cropping on front) of the 1968 Yaz checklist...

[AGuinness]

Thanks, Darren, and nice work. My inquiry is about a possible THIRD type of verbiage, as seen on Trading Card Database, which may not be real. Ever seen it?

[Rich Klein]

It will take me a while as we're just trying to keep up during these times at COMC but I will make sure all 4 variations (the cropping issue on the B in Yaz's cap is fairly obvious) is broken out someday. Can't say when, but it's now on my list especially because it's fun to work on those cards.

Updated to note I have now broken out all 4 varieties in the COMC checklist and please feel free to send in individual corrections to move cards accordingly.

Rich

[JollyElm]

I have never seen that one before. (Not weighing in on whether or not it's fake, but...) it would take about a minute to create that in photoshop. Just a quick copy of one of the existing "s," combos, and you're off to the races.

[Cliff Bowman]

Here is an example of what I was referring to, someone contributed a 1975 Hostess Burt Hooton 'corrected' scan to the Trading Card Database, the much rarer variation. The problem is whoever did it photoshopped the ON at the end of HOOTEN to make it HOOTON but they didn't photoshop the BERT to make it BURT. The genuine card is on the right, a real 1975 Hostess Burt Hooton corrected card. A 1975 Hostess 'Bert Hooton' card doesn't exist, only a Bert Hooten and a Burt Hooton.