1990 topps baseball "partial blackless" variation...
olb31
Posts: 2,928 ✭✭✭✭✭
I don't follow this set and just found out about this variety. My first thought is, HUH, who cares? Here are some variations that are real, that PSA won't grade. 1) 1997 Bowman, "no foil", where the name and team info are left out (this seems to be a quit obvious variation even to a non collector), 2) 1977 topps basketball, gray and green back versions (once again very obvious to see even to a non collector). I'm sure there are more. But these two sets are main sets for their year just like the 1990 Topps Baseball (for basketball it was basically the only set).
The Frank Thomas card is kind of an "icon" to the collecting world because of the variation. And that's fine with me. IF there is an obvious variation and someone wants it graded, then just grade it. I could care less about the 1990 topps variations, but if there are people who care and want it recognized, more power to them. PSA grades some variations (loop and no loop and I'm sure other variations that aren't real noticeable, but I'm not a variation guru), that most people don't obviously notice. But then disregard grading items that 2 year olds can notice the difference on.
I'm a CPA by trade and one of the areas of guidance we adhere to is consistency. If there is a variation, please PSA be consistent and just grade it. Let the public decide if it's collectible/valuable or not. Just my thoughts.
Comments
Inclusion of a variation in a catalog like SCD or Beckett is usually a prelude to PSA including it in the registry. If it is recognized in a catalog or the Registry master set and player collectors need it and the value goes up significantly with demand. But there is no standard hobby hobby definition of a variation. Some would limit it to an intentional change in a card by the manufacturer, but even that definition is not simple to apply in all situations. If you have a card you think should be recognized by the hobby as a variation it is probably best to try to convince the current editors of SCD and Beckett to include it in the next edition of their catalogs
Bowman Baseball -1948-1955
Fleer Baseball-1923, 1959-2007
Al
BIG hurdle to get over. The guides are in the business of reducing entries these days. They also haven't been relevant for oddball, error, variation, or unmarked promo items for over a decade. Forums, blogs and other individual powered sources have carried on the work of discovery and recognition since the guides stopped caring to add this info (early 90's?). The bigger problem is, PSA and BGS are still operating under the notion of "if it doesn't appear in the guide, it doesn't exist" thus making it VERY difficult to get them to recognize an uncataloged variety. I have often sent both variations of an item so that the grader can see with their own eyes that the variation exists, yet, I usually get them back saying it is ungradeable (not un-label-able!) because it doesn't register in a guide! It is truly a hassle to get any recent discovery not currently cataloged reflected on the label. Best case scenario involved emailing scans with a rep and them forwarding to another party and following up with you after some time.
Hey Junk,
First of all, I like your response. If it's an oddball set, that's one thing, the 1977 Topps Basketball Set and the 1997 Bowman Set certainly aren't oddball. PSA and Beckett are the authorities. If PSA and Beckett grade a particular set and that set contains differences/variations/errors, they should grade it. Once again, let the consumer value the card and its collectibility/investment. PSA and Beckett just need to place a grade and description on the label. Why would some guy from SCD (are they still in business?) or whatever have more clout than PSA and Beckett?
Now if PSA and Beckett do not grade any cards from a particular set, then just avoid these variations. It would be great if Joe Orlando or someone from PSA would just tell us why or what it takes it to get this done. Is PCGS this difficult on coins (I really have no idea)? My take is that some of the most valuable coins are misprints/errors/variations.
Let's also not forget that recognizing variations (no, I am not including fish eyes though I do like them) but actual, undocumented-in-guides varieties and promo cards leads to more submissions. Registry, player and error collectors (and those looking to profit off of them) will have reason to sub more items. Value and player's accomplishments should not be a factor in getting the label notation. PSA and BGS need to recognize the fact that the guides rarely add new variation info and that using their own eyes, expert opinion and other sources is required today in verifying new set discoveries.
FWIW, I've had better luck getting actual variations (not recurring print defects, missing foil, or other production errors) added on TCDB. Most recently, the 88D BB factory vs wax (front border differences on some, and different font/justification under Career Highlights) have been added and I'm working with others on there on 91D BB currently.
I've had some luck there as well. Does PSA/BGS recognize them as a "source" for legitimization?
PSA does, at least most of the time. I've included links to TCDB checklists when submitting in Comments and had good luck on getting items slabbed, and have used them to demonstrate when Beckett's checklist was incorrect to get items reholdered with correct labeling.
That's great news. It may be time to sub again.