Here's one thread though it is not the one I was looking for. This one does show the 1980 Topps cards that my opinion is that they are just low print quality, but anyway... The other thread had things such as the 1958 Topps variations scanned in, among others. Still looking.
FWIW, in my opinion, "error" cards are something like when they use the wrong picture such as Bonds vs. Ray, and then correct the photo; "variations" are something more like using different ink for lettering on front which is not at all to be confused with just a lack of one layer of color, and another category would be something that probably should not be added into SCD that is more of a print quality issue than a variation. There is a TON of gray area between these and it would often be hard to place a card in one vs. another category though.
With some of the more frivolous variations being officially recognized by SCD in some cases, I am kind of surprised no one has pushed to get 1st printing 1979 OPC hockey assigned variant nomenclature, as in, Gretzky RC w/ and w/o blue print lines on back, etc.
I would have said an error card is one where a mistake is made, as you said, where somemething like the wrong player is pictured or a wrong name is associated with a player. The error maybe uncorrected ( which is how the SCD Standard Catalog lists them). If the error is corrected, I would call it a variation...and intentional change in the card to correct an error. That could include airbrushing out a logo on a traded player.
To my way of thinking, some errors result from unintentional print defects, like the 58 Herrer or 57 Bakep. But these are treatd as variations by the hobby from an historical standpoint. I agree the 80 print defects you mention-- the yellow names, faulty banners, no name Pryor---are all unintentional print defects, but like the Fairly, the Herrer and Bakep, PSA treats some as variations. Sometimes it is hard to tell if a print defect was noticed and corrected, or just occurred on certain runs and then went away. The 82 Topps Blackless may be an example of that
I use the term variant to refer to a card which differs in some respect from other cards like it, whether by design or as a result of an unintentional print defect. I would say a card is a true variation if it was intentionally changed by the manufacturer for some reason. But everyone is certainly entitled to whatever view they want and I do not think there is one standard accepted definition in the hobby for any of these terms. To each his own.
But, the value of a variant is determined by hobby recognition, usually by publication in some catalog or listing in the registry
All of the Future Star subset cards have a variation where the image is cropped differently. In the later printed versions the head of the player is always set higher and nearer to the Future Star banner. Earlier printed versions were set lower.
Was showing this to my kids to see if they could find the difference ala the puzzle they always put in People magazine (where you have to identify all the ways the image was manipulated).
My daughter said "in this one they moved the picture to block out the ad for Coke and Marlboro.
The "corrected" version of this card blocks the Marlboro ad in the spirit of the 1989 Fleer correction for Randy Johnson. Thought that was interesting and likely done intentionally. I wonder if all the Future Star cards got adjusted this little bit up so that the design stayed consistent with the Searcy that needed fixing? Or maybe there is another 1989 Topps card that shows a Marlboro ad?
Always looking for 1993-1999 Baseball Finest Refractors and1994 Football Finest Refractors. saucywombat@hotmail.com
I don't think ALL of the "errors" will ever be completely found. Not for 1989 Topps, and not for any junk wax era issued card. They printed billions of them (literally). When it comes to print defects like missing ink, dots, etc. you just never know if a sheet here or there slipped through, and haven't even been opened yet. I've bought collections that had runs of the same player with the same defect, and never saw it anywhere else except for the 20-30 copies of the card I purchased.
The question is, what do you consider an error or variation? I had several Canseco cards with different print defects but only collected them if they were "recognized". In other words, if I thought it was a one off, I didn't care much for it. If it was something I saw frequently (like the 1988 Topps Canseco with pink dot on the border) I would deem it "worthy" of collecting.
@saucywombat I never knew about the '89 Future Stars. That's cool! Do any of them command a premium over another?
Tanner Jones, Author of Confessions of a Baseball Card Addict - Now Available on Amazon!
@saucywombat I never knew about the '89 Future Stars. That's cool! Do any of them command a premium over another?
One of those things that no one noticed until the internet era, well after their release, so not any premium being paid for the earlier versions. Probably 10 to 1 ratio of "corrected" to earlier, so not exceptionally rare but a definite variation.
Always looking for 1993-1999 Baseball Finest Refractors and1994 Football Finest Refractors. saucywombat@hotmail.com
Comments
With some of the more frivolous variations being officially recognized by SCD in some cases, I am kind of surprised no one has pushed to get 1st printing 1979 OPC hockey assigned variant nomenclature, as in, Gretzky RC w/ and w/o blue print lines on back, etc.
To my way of thinking, some errors result from unintentional print defects, like the 58 Herrer or 57 Bakep. But these are treatd as variations by the hobby from an historical standpoint. I agree the 80 print defects you mention-- the yellow names, faulty banners, no name Pryor---are all unintentional print defects, but like the Fairly, the Herrer and Bakep, PSA treats some as variations. Sometimes it is hard to tell if a print defect was noticed and corrected, or just occurred on certain runs and then went away. The 82 Topps Blackless may be an example of that
I use the term variant to refer to a card which differs in some respect from other cards like it, whether by design or as a result of an unintentional print defect. I would say a card is a true variation if it was intentionally changed by the manufacturer for some reason. But everyone is certainly entitled to whatever view they want and I do not think there is one standard accepted definition in the hobby for any of these terms. To each his own.
But, the value of a variant is determined by hobby recognition, usually by publication in some catalog or listing in the registry
Bowman Baseball -1948-1955
Fleer Baseball-1923, 1959-2007
Al
All of the Future Star subset cards have a variation where the image is cropped differently. In the later printed versions the head of the player is always set higher and nearer to the Future Star banner. Earlier printed versions were set lower.
Was showing this to my kids to see if they could find the difference ala the puzzle they always put in People magazine (where you have to identify all the ways the image was manipulated).
My daughter said "in this one they moved the picture to block out the ad for Coke and Marlboro.
The "corrected" version of this card blocks the Marlboro ad in the spirit of the 1989 Fleer correction for Randy Johnson. Thought that was interesting and likely done intentionally. I wonder if all the Future Star cards got adjusted this little bit up so that the design stayed consistent with the Searcy that needed fixing? Or maybe there is another 1989 Topps card that shows a Marlboro ad?
saucywombat@hotmail.com
I don't think ALL of the "errors" will ever be completely found. Not for 1989 Topps, and not for any junk wax era issued card. They printed billions of them (literally). When it comes to print defects like missing ink, dots, etc. you just never know if a sheet here or there slipped through, and haven't even been opened yet. I've bought collections that had runs of the same player with the same defect, and never saw it anywhere else except for the 20-30 copies of the card I purchased.
The question is, what do you consider an error or variation? I had several Canseco cards with different print defects but only collected them if they were "recognized". In other words, if I thought it was a one off, I didn't care much for it. If it was something I saw frequently (like the 1988 Topps Canseco with pink dot on the border) I would deem it "worthy" of collecting.
@saucywombat I never knew about the '89 Future Stars. That's cool! Do any of them command a premium over another?
Old thread, but here are some variation or errors...
https://www.tradingcarddb.com/Errors.cfm/sid/134/1989-Topps
Nic
Guides Authored - Graded Card Scanning Guide PDF | History of the PSA Label PDF
^ Wow, great find!
Andy
One of those things that no one noticed until the internet era, well after their release, so not any premium being paid for the earlier versions. Probably 10 to 1 ratio of "corrected" to earlier, so not exceptionally rare but a definite variation.
saucywombat@hotmail.com