More on 69 Topps and Variations in general

Grubb

I am I the only one that regards variations on the fronts of the cards differently from the backs.

For instance. the 1971 Kelloggs cards (which I am attempting to find) have loads of statistical and logo variations on the back of the card but the fronts are all the same. As far as I am concerned, these are minor variations and PSA should not consider them a part of the Registry.

However, the 1969 Topps variations are (from what I know about the set--I own one but I've never had any graded) on the fronts of the cards. I think the white letters and the Dalrymple card are distinct cards and should be considered cards for the registry. Same thing for 1962 and all the Hal Reniff cards. This makes sense to me. Anyone else?

gemint

What about a blank front? If PSA grades a 1 of 1 blank front Reggie Jackson RC, does it automatically become a requirement for completing the set? Just wondering what everyone's opinion is as we move into the gray areas of variations. Why would variations to the backs of cards not be considered requirements for the set if variations to the fronts are considered?

The white letter variations were errors from the factory where they printed the names without color. Similar to blank front cards with the only difference being Topps printed multiple copies of the white letter variations. Though there may also be several blank fronts of a particular vintage card that escaped quality control.

Grubb

You make some good points. I guess my first reaction is that PSA shouldn't be grading a blank front. A blank front is a massive mis-print as far as I'm concerned. But I think your main point is that there's bound to be a bunch of 'grey' areas like those we pointed out. I stand by what I wrote but I don't know if anyone could ever weed through all the 'grey' areas to satisfy a majority of collectors. As for 69, I think the variations should be on the registry even if they have to list a regular set and a master set.

brucemo

I have suggested the front variation versus back variation idea, and I think that it is usually a sensible dividing line between important and trivial. Some sets are even collected like this, like T-206. They all have different backs, but a set comprises one of each front.

The blank front "variation" doesn't wreck this idea. These cards are just freaks, not real recognized variations. They don't belong as part of any set, for the same reason that nobody has to collect extremely off-center mint error pennies in order to do a set of pennies.

Possible front variations to exclude may very well include printing errors such as the '69 white letters. If those are just very common *printing* errors, rather than intended variations, maybe they don't belong in a set, and perhaps not even a master set.

By this standard, the '74 Topps "Washington" cards are real variations. I think the '52 Topps wrong back errors (Page and Sain) should be considered as real variations too, because unless I am mistaken that was a printing plate problem, that was fixed. Those errors are back variations, but they are well-known and major.

I don't know if the '58 Topps yellow letters are printing errors or distinct variations. The "wrong picture" errors that were corrected somewhere in the print runs would be real variations. The 62T Reniff card is a real variation too, is it not? '54B Williams and the card that replaced are also real variations.

If this is done right, it might not be necessary to break the set into base set and master set. It may be possible to think of a sensible way to handle both in one go. I think this might be desirable because it would be a drag to have several different ways of viewing the same Topps set. It's more elegant if there could be one set that covers all of the "looks" that the set can give you.

bruce

gaspipe26

gemint,
There are back variations on the 69 set. The sliced 4 on the #214 CL, the Red and White circle on the back of the 7th CL. The reason Blank fronts or backs arent considered variations are because there isnt enough of them to be considered variations or really there errors. I will quote from Dick Gilkesons book on Variations, I think he says it best. "Printing press setup errors, such as blank backs caused when 2 sheets stick together and are guided through the press on top of each other, or miscuts caused by poor placement during cutting are generally not considered variations. Other errors, including misspellings, incorrect stats, photos or statistics of persons other than those named on the cards, do surface occasionally, however, unless they have been corrected, I do not consider them variations".

RayBShotz

Bob - Just a side note to this post; I have looked high and low for Gilkesons book on variations and have been so far unable to track one down. I've got quite a few different books on card collecting but this one eludes me. Any chance you might photocopy that info on 69's variations and send it along to me?
RayB69Topps

Mitochondria

Bob,

I have had problems finding the book as well. Could you possibly bring a photocopy of the 1969 section with you to the national?

Ron

gaspipe26

I'll bring the one I have with me. I'll also see if the place I bought mine from has anymore. If so I'll buy them and bring them to the National. Ray I'll mail one to you.