Possible variation T205 Nee Printers mark on card vs No printers mark

[Matt]

Andrew - isn't it just the prodduct of some being printed at the bottom of a sheet and some in the middle of the sheet? That's very different then, say, the Wilhelm suffered variations where the printing plate was changed to correct a problem with the type.

Originally Posted by Matt

Andrew - isn't it just the prodduct of some being printed at the bottom of a sheet and some in the middle of the sheet? That's very different then, say, the Wilhelm suffered variations where the printing plate was changed to correct a problem with the type.

No sir. I guess the anomaly of missing gold ink is not credible enough. It does not take a plate change to make a variation. Cycle Mathewson, the crazy doyle NY thing that was just being discussed a few days ago over a silly period and part of a letter not being printed. Wasn't that 2 more T206 variations found??

Can anyone prove to me that what I have found is inaccurate

[Matt]

Cycle Mathewson is a plate change - there was an error on the ones printed with the Cycle back that had his record at 37-1 that was fixed for the other back printings.

Okay so now there needs to be a plate change to count as a variation.

[barrysloate]

When we have these discussions there seems to be some confusion regarding exactly what a variation is. As Matt stated, there needs to be a change in the printing plate for it to be considered a true variation. The correction of "Magie", and of "Doyle, N.Y. Nat'l" are real variations. The printer caught his mistake early in the print run and made the necessary correction.

However, cards such as "Nodgrass", "Murr'y", and "Shappe" are not variations, but mere printing glitches. At some point in the print run a tiny foreign substance, perhaps a smudge of dirt or grease, got lodged in the printing plate and blocked some of the ink from adhering to the paper. That is not a true variation, although the hobby currently considers them so. Collectors pay huge premiums for these, but the jury is still out for me whether those premiums are merited.

Originally Posted by barrysloate

When we have these discussions there seems to be some confusion regarding exactly what a variation is. As Matt stated, there needs to be a change in the printing plate for it to be considered a true variation. The correction of "Magie", and of "Doyle, N.Y. Nat'l" are real variations. The printer caught his mistake early in the print run and made the necessary correction.

However, cards such as "Nodgrass", "Murr'y", and "Shappe" are not variations, but mere printing glitches. At some point in the print run a tiny foreign substance, perhaps a smudge of dirt or grease, got lodged in the printing plate and blocked some of the ink from adhering to the paper. That is not a true variation, although the hobby currently considers them so. Collectors pay huge premiums for these, but the jury is still out for me whether those premiums are merited.

Barry I can whole heartedly agree with what you said. What I want to know is wethere or not there is proof enough to distinguish that there are 2 types of Nee's printed. I have given all the info and proof I have and no one has come forward to prove this wrong othere than saying its not a "true variation." I guess the collectors have to ultimately determine wether or not its a variation.

I remember that about 3-4 yrs ago when I got back into collecting. I was buying some beater T205-T206 lot. I noticed then that there was a difference in the Doc White PB backed card. I remember calling The SCD and talking to a guy about this. He said unless the hobby accecpted it that it would never be a real variation. Well 3yrs later on this board it came out. Yes its a variation. It was printed with PB backs only and was corrected later on. I was not the first person to ever see it and question it I'm sure?


Matt are you sure there were more cards printed after the Cycle print run w/Mathewson?