Top 100 Errors / Variations and the state of collections these cards prior to 1985

[richtree]

The reason I chose "impact" is that being rare or valuable had less meaning to me.

Its really more around "having meaning".


For example, the Ripken card is not rare, its not that valuable but it has more meaning than even some really great players on older, rare errors/variations.


That was my headspace. Like the Pancho card has a lot of meaning to me as well because it has been around so long, and thought of as a valuable piece to own, even the the randomness of the A missing seems no different that the 87-91 print defects......but the meaning separates it from them;..


Best I could come up with so far --- but trying to refine that in this process as well...

Lots of help here so far., its been very valuable to those that have replied....sorry I didn't thank you each individually so far...


rt

[BobC]

Originally Posted by richtree

The reason I chose "impact" is that being rare or valuable had less meaning to me.

Its really more around "having meaning".


For example, the Ripken card is not rare, its not that valuable but it has more meaning than even some really great players on older, rare errors/variations.


That was my headspace. Like the Pancho card has a lot of meaning to me as well because it has been around so long, and thought of as a valuable piece to own, even the the randomness of the A missing seems no different that the 87-91 print defects......but the meaning separates it from them;..

Best I could come up with so far --- but trying to refine that in this process as well...

Lots of help here so far., its been very valuable to those that have replied....sorry I didn't thank you each individually so far...


rt

Cool, that is so good of you to chime in and better explain where you are coming from. And I like where you are going with this because it is not all just about value then.

So as previously mentioned, along with the 1958 Pancho Herrera/Herrer error/variation, I think you have to include the 1957 Gene Baker/Bakep error on your list somewhere as well. Those two errors have been well known and listed in pretty much all the price/listing guides, going back as far as I remember.

And since you are including variations and not just errors on your list, I would also suggest/nominate the two 1952 Topps #311 Mickey Mantle card variations as well. Being one of the most well-known and collected sets of all-time, and the #311 Mantle being arguably the most iconic and valuable card post-war, it would be hard for such a well-known variation to not be included in a top list of all-time E&V cards. Actually, kind of surprised and shocked no one else had mentioned it yet.

There are many other well-known variations out there, including those that cover more than just one card. So as another possible question, when looking to list as an E&V, are you going to include say all the yellow team 1958 Topps variation cards as one total E&V item on your list(s), or will you simply pick say one of the more/most significant cards that are included in that variation group and just include a single card from that group (think 1958 Topps Aaron yellow team card) on your list(s)?

Same thing would go for the 1962 Topps green tint variation cards. All 86 cards in the entire second series (1962 Topps cards #110 - #196) can be found either with or without the green tint. Are all the green tint cards to be considered as just one single E&V for your list(s), or are you going to pick just what you think is/are the most significant/valuable green tint card(s) and list it/them separately? The green tint variation cards include the 10-card Babe Ruth subset (#135 - #144), Tim McCarver's rookie card (#167), and Ron Santo's 2nd year card (#170), as what are think are probably the most important/valuable green tint cards. So, there are several to choose from if you want to have just one represent this very-well known and desired variation subset, or several that you may choose from among that may deserve to be separately listed on your top list(s) if you feel any one or more of them has enough hobby impact to deserve such a spot(s). And for info purposes, I believe the green tint Ruth-Gehrig card (#140) from the Ruth subset is often considered the most valuable of the green tint cards, if that helps.

Another question for you, are you including uncorrected errors on this E&V list of yours? Technically, if a card is not corrected, is it actually a variation? And as previously mentioned/asked, cards that supposedly feature pictures/images of different people are somewhat akin to uncorrected errors. If the card isn't also printed with the changed and corrected image, are you including it as a legit E&V for your list(s)?

I guess the same can be asked for cards that are simply reversed negative images, unless they were at some point corrected and also printed with a non-reversed image. If they were never corrected, is it really an E or V, and if not, do they really have a place on your E&V list(s) then?

And along with the T206 Magie/Magee error, I think you have to include the T206 Joe Doyle N.Y. Nat'l variation card(s) as one of the top E&Vs on your list(s) as well. Kind of hard to include one of the two E&Vs that make up part of the Big Four of the most iconic set in the hobby on your list of most impactful E&V cards in the hobby, without also including the other. Don't you think? And if you're putting the Magie/Magee at #1 on one of your lists, how is Doyle not at least in the top 5 also?

The 1954 Bowman Ted Williams/Jimmy Piersall card #66 variation is another that is well known and legendary in the hobby. As is the Johnny Sain/Joe Page error/variation cards that are also part of the 1952 Topps set. These E&Vs have been around for so long, and are so well known and have been listed by the major card price guides/publications forever. For these not to be part of your "Top" lists is almost unconscionable.

As someone else already suggested, you simply need to go back and find and reference some of the old Beckett and other price guides, along with the Krause/SCD catalogs, and look for the various E&Vs that were initially and prominently being listed in them for decades. These are the E&Vs that are going to have had the most overall exposure, and thus most likely the most impact, in the hobby. That is where I would start.

Good luck, keep us posted on what you think and come up with. I think it is a cool project.

[ALR-bishop]

The 2011 version of the SCD Standard Catalog listed the 52 Mantle, Robinson and Thompson as variations. The front and back differences are obvious, and although not likely intentional, did result from a decision to double print them.

Can you imagine the anguish if PSA ever includes them in it's master 52 list causing a need to have two of each for a master set . Since I have them I am ok with that .

I bet it would be hard to get full agreement here on what should constitute the definition of a variation. And no matter what definition were adopted applying it in all cases would not be easy.

Anyone interested in post war variations might want to look at this project

http://baseballcardvariationsguidebo...wordpress.com/t

[BobC]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

The 2011 version of the SCD Standard Catalog listed the 52 Mantle, Robinson and Thompson as variations. The front and back differences are obvious, and although not likely intentional, did result from a decision to double print them.

Can you imagine the anguish if PSA ever includes them in it's master 52 list causing a need to have two of each for a master set . Since I have them Topps I am ok with that .

I bet it would be hard to get full agreement here on what should constitute the definition of a variation. And no matter what definition were adopted applying it in all cases would not be easy.

Anyone interested in post war variations might want to look at this project

http://baseballcardvariationsguidebo...wordpress.com/t

Thanks, good one(s) Al, I forgot about the 1952 Topps Robinson and Thompson card variations as well. The Mantle definitely belongs as a well-known variation, and most likely the Robinson card as well. Many people will likely put the Thompson card variation much farther down such E&V lists as he is not as well-known and impactful to the hobby overall as are Mantle and Robinson.

[Exhibitman]

I think we need to refine our terms.

An error is a mistake, either corrected or not. The flipped image 1989 UD Murphy is an error. The 1969 Topps Aurelio Rodriguez 'batboy' card is an uncorrected error. The 1952 Topps Paige-Sain screw up is a corrected error as is the 81 Fleer Craig Nettles.

A variation is a change not made to correct a mistake but to change the card. The Nettles loop is a variation. The Kaline "boo boo" is a variation. The myriad FF Ripkens are variations.

The 1952 DPs are not variations, they are two different cards of each player.

A printing freak is an unintended production process failure. The "Bakep" and "Herrer" cards are print freaks. The 'finger' Fleer cards are freaks. All of the really fun mistakes (IMO) are freaks. They carry premiums because guys like me collect them.

[ALR-bishop]

I like your definitions Adam but disagree on DPs. For me two different cards of the same player with the same # are variations. And if they are two different cards of the same player in the same set it would seems to me you would need both for a master set. But the fact there are a whole bunch of DP card differences in most old Topps sets likely makes your definition more manageable and sensible

[steve B]

For stuff like the double prints I like the term Varieties.
It's used in one of my other hobbies to describe an item that's not a correction, but typically a constant error that's a difference in the plate at a particular spot.

There are then specific terms for exactly what the heck went wrong.... Double transfer, Foreign entry, plate scratch, Rust hole, erasure, plate crack, (and that's just for the engraved ones.. typographed and lithographed have their own list of problems.

Collectability depends on how rare or spectacular that variety is, rare AND showy = expensive.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I think we need to refine our terms.

An error is a mistake, either corrected or not. The flipped image 1989 UD Murphy is an error. The 1969 Topps Aurelio Rodriguez 'batboy' card is an uncorrected error. The 1952 Topps Paige-Sain screw up is a corrected error as is the 81 Fleer Craig Nettles.

A variation is a change not made to correct a mistake but to change the card. The Nettles loop is a variation. The Kaline "boo boo" is a variation. The myriad FF Ripkens are variations.

The 1952 DPs are not variations, they are two different cards of each player.

A printing freak is an unintended production process failure. The "Bakep" and "Herrer" cards are print freaks. The 'finger' Fleer cards are freaks. All of the really fun mistakes (IMO) are freaks. They carry premiums because guys like me collect them.

Actually the 1952 HI # Double Prints are variations, there are 5 ways to tell the difference with the most noticeable one being the way the baseball on the front stitching is facing. Yep, it's really different in those 2. I remember discussing that with Andy Broome way back in the day when two of those popped into BGS on the same day

[G1911]

The 52’s are variations and long recognized as such. I’ve never heard of a DP exemption before. This would be new terminology.