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

[steve B]

Originally Posted by 4reals

so I took a page from Cliff's playbook and looked up the sheet that Lillis was on (sheet2). Lillis is at the top row and the cards to the left and right on the top row, Walt Moryn #91 (cardinals), Jim Woods #59 (phillies), Joe Amalfitano #87 (giants), and AL HR Leaders #44 (with Mantle/Maris) all have back print defects with stray ink if anyone is so inclined to add them. Not super attractive since it is the back of the card but cool nonetheless. The HR Leaders card is the least obvious. The bottom left corner of green is a sharp square on most of the cards but a select few have a soft rounded corner and wavy bottom. I also found a green in ball (variation) for the Dodgers Southpaws card #207 which is on a completely different sheet. Couldn't find a 61 topps sheet with the Fairly on it to see what other cards are around it.

These are to me the weirdest things to be accepted as variations.
Most are overinking, and won't really be consistent.
The Amalfitano is a registration problem.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by steve B

These are to me the weirdest things to be accepted as variations.
Most are overinking, and won't really be consistent.

I couldn’t agree more, in my opinion the 61 Fairly green in ball is the worst vintage postwar variation that PSA recognized, with the 57 Bakep being the next. They recognized the 73 Earl Williams border gaps for a short time but then wisely stopped it. Hopefully they stopped recognizing the 73 Bahnsen and 73 Bell single border gaps as well.

[ALR-bishop]

For a time, Lemke was listing border gap defects in the Standard Catalog. He stopped doing that and I think removed some or all when he tightened up his definition of a variation...intentional change in card by manufacturer ( an often hard to apply definition).

The expanded use of scans on ebay and elsewhere made it clear there were minor and even major recurring print defects everywhere, and recognizing them was a lost cause. But the Fairly recognition was surprising. Did it not first get recognized in Beckett ? Maybe it is Rich's fault

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

I couldn’t agree more, in my opinion the 61 Fairly green in ball is the worst vintage postwar variation that PSA recognized, with the 57 Bakep being the next. They recognized the 73 Earl Williams border gaps for a short time but then wisely stopped it. Hopefully they stopped recognizing the 73 Bahnsen and 73 Bell single border gaps as well.

I think some of them were recognized early on by the handful of people that were into variations. The Bakep and herrer were both in Ralph Nozakis book in 1975. And they're uncommon enough that I hadn't seen one until sometime after I joined here (Didn't look all that hard after a while)

When something is that uncommon, and it's listed during a time when there isn't ready access to images, I think most people take it on faith - Like I did, because hey, the guy wrote a book listing loads of variations, he must really be an expert!


The Fairly is just weird, because it got recognized at a time when images are readily available and sharable. I haven't yet seen a 61 with green in the ball that I'd think of as being anything but over inking or registration. (I do think they're possible, I've found a couple differences where the color under the back print is actually different. )

I'm more comfortable with the missing black cards, and the border gaps, as in most cases it's at least somewhat clear that the plate was either made differently or had a defect.
If the definition is intentionally changed, that works for me for variations, and maybe use varieties for plate differences that weren't intentional.
That's also a bit fuzzy, as an example, 88 Score has three different die cuts used to separate the sheet. And the changes were intentional as it was done in response to customer complaints. BUT they are also screened differently for one press run than another. Intentional? they probably happened when the errors were fixed, so to some extent intentional. But I don't think the person doing the new halftones was like "It will look better if I put the red at 30 degrees instead of 45" Likely the camera was set up that way that day, and they just didn't consider it to be important.
Lots of sets from that era have similar things going on.

[swarmee]

Speaking of recurring border gaps:

1959 Topps - [Base] #260.2 - Early Wynn (white back)
Courtesy of COMC.com

[ALR-bishop]

Good analysis Steve. The intentional change definition sounds simple but can be complicated in practice. It Topps adds a option or traded line that is easy, but it is often impossible to tell if a defect was discovered and intentionally changed or not

Another good example are DPs. In the last printed Standard Catalog Lemke listed variations for the 52 Mantle, Thompson and Robinson. PSA does not recognize them. The differences can be found on the front and back. The differences were likely not intended but did result from an intentional decision to DP those 3 cards

George Vrecheck has written articles on DP differences in the 63 and 55 (56?) sets. Green tint non pose differences from 62 are another example. Probably not intended but did result from an intentional change in the printing process. Variations ?

Bet a lot of 52 Master collectors are praying PSA does not adopt the 52 Mantle as a variation

It would be tough to come up with a hobby definition that all would buy into or that would cover all past and future official variations

[brightair]

Folks,
Things being as they are, with time on my hands, I have been listing on eBay lots of cards from my many boxes piled in my closet. Some are print errors, variations, blank backs, color shifts and other oddities that some of you may have interest in. I have titled all of these "Variation" somewhere in the listing titles, my eBay seller's name is brightair. If you do a search you can find these. Many more will be listed over the coming weeks and months as I get to various boxes and binders. Furthermore, my zeal for compiling lists of variations has waned and I haven't been keeping them up-to-date, as I'm sure some of you have noticed. Others have been taking over this labor of love and will continue it into the future with even more thoroughness and depth than I was able. I am grateful to them for what they are doing and will accomplish, and look forward to their achievements. Meantime, may everyone be safe and well until we meet again in the flesh.
All the best!
Richard Dingman

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by brightair

Folks,
Things being as they are, with time on my hands, I have been listing on eBay lots of cards from my many boxes piled in my closet. Some are print errors, variations, blank backs, color shifts and other oddities that some of you may have interest in. I have titled all of these "Variation" somewhere in the listing titles, my eBay seller's name is brightair. If you do a search you can find these. Many more will be listed over the coming weeks and months as I get to various boxes and binders. Furthermore, my zeal for compiling lists of variations has waned and I haven't been keeping them up-to-date, as I'm sure some of you have noticed. Others have been taking over this labor of love and will continue it into the future with even more thoroughness and depth than I was able. I am grateful to them for what they are doing and will accomplish, and look forward to their achievements. Meantime, may everyone be safe and well until we meet again in the flesh.
All the best!
Richard Dingman

I love your description of the 1971 Topps Frank Reberger ink blob card, a sky
donut .

[ALR-bishop]

Greatly appreciate all your work Richard

[steve B]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Good analysis Steve. The intentional change definition sounds simple but can be complicated in practice. It Topps adds a option or traded line that is easy, but it is often impossible to tell if a defect was discovered and intentionally changed or not

Another good example are DPs. In the last printed Standard Catalog Lemke listed variations for the 52 Mantle, Thompson and Robinson. PSA does not recognize them. The differences can be found on the front and back. The differences were likely not intended but did result from an intentional decision to DP those 3 cards

George Vrecheck has written articles on DP differences in the 63 and 55 (56?) sets. Green tint non pose differences from 62 are another example. Probably not intended but did result from an intentional change in the printing process. Variations ?

Bet a lot of 52 Master collectors are praying PSA does not adopt the 52 Mantle as a variation

It would be tough to come up with a hobby definition that all would buy into or that would cover all past and future official variations

PSA really should recognize those. If I remember it correctly, Nozaki listed the Mantle, Thompson and Robinson in his book. I've known about the different ones since maybe 78, and would have learned it there.

The dealer I hung out at had a copy they'd let me read on slow days. One time I borrowed it, photocopied the whole thing and thought I brought it back. I went through some old stuff of mine and found it like 30+years later.
Either that, or I bought it on one of their auctions and forgot I did.