RIDICULOUS NEW VARIATIONS IN 1973 TOPPS

MintMoondog

Okay this is getting ridiculous. There are two new variations added for the 1973 topps. First of all, whomever pushed for these changes is a first grade (*&(*&hole. Honestly, the actual "variation" is a tiny gap either on the right side or the left side of the #20 Bahnsen and the #31 Bell black border. Really? This is just a freaking printing defect! I understand the logic of the orange versus natural (brown) background change as a legitimate variation even though it is irritating. The different backgrounds were intentional. But a small gap in the black border? Do we really believe that topps did this intentionally? I am asking for advice on how I can fight this change, or is it a done deal?

JustinsShoebox

Been in your position a few times. It usually happened with a card that was next to impossible to find. Every time I've fought to either have the variation removed or to combine the variation with the other card that it relates to, I've been shot down. Hopefully you'll have better results with your protest.

Justin

LochNESS

Sounds to me like the big company trying to keep you one step away from completing your set. Think, what motive do they have to diminish the number of varietals in the set?

GB5HOF

I blame Obama...

RonBurgundy

Prayers sent

Bosox1976

Bell seems like 50/50 to me - I've got a bunch with the gap and about the same without. Never noticed Bahnsen.

Agree that it seems frivolous. Not quite a NNOF deal...

DetroitSquirreL

Sounds like 'the man' is bringing you down, fight the power!

thunderdan

<< <i>I blame Obama... >>



Plus all other amateur Marxists.

jeffcbay

<< <i>I blame Obama... >>



I also blame him for the sub-par weather we're having this summer. Thanks Obama

bishop

I think the Bahnsen and Bell were listed earlier in the SCD Standard Catalog as variations but that Bob Lemke removed them from later editions because as mentioned here they are just print defects that occur in many Topps sets, and his definition of what constitutes a true variation narrowed over time.

On the other hand several legendary variations, such as the 57 Bakep, the 58 Herrer and 52 Campos are also just print defects , and PSA just added the 61 Ron Fairly with a green smudge in the baseball on the back to it's master Registry list, even though that defects occurs a lot in 61 cards.

A friend of mine refers to cards that differ from one another in any respect, for whatever reason, even print defects, as variants. He would say a variation is a card where the difference was intended by the manufacturer . But whatever he or I or anyone else thinks, what gives a variant card any value over a regular card is general hobby recognition.

jbox

<< <i>Prayers sent >>



Bravo sir. I don't lol at posts often, but this one just cracked me up since it's on every other FB post I see.

jbox

Nathaniel1960

I found a card a few days ago with the white ball on the back in yellow. I actually have two different cards with that variation.

Any info on those would be appreciated. One might be Dave Cash, I can't remember.

PaulMaul

Just curious...do '73 master set collectors care about the 1973 2nd series cards that have the 1st series Wacky Packages checklist on the back? Every 2nd series card can be found this way.

bishop

As far as I know, wrong backs and blank backs have not made it into any Catalog checklists or master set lists,. There are some listings for blank back proof cards

Nathan--ant chance you could post a scan of the Cash ?

AUPT

I just got $12.84 on eBay for a Good 1973 Topps with Hal McRae on front and Lou Brock on back.

bishop

Speaking of why some variations are in a catalog or not.... ....straight from the horse himself

KbKards

The 52 Campos is not a print defect. It is a complete and perfect black star printed on top of a complete and perfect red star. It was printed there by Topps and later noticed and corrected. It's a legitimate variation and there's no logic behind dismissing it as just a random print defect. It wasn't caused by random overinking like the 57 Bakep and many others from the same set, and it's not a print defect caused by debris like the 58 Herrera.

Juggs

<< <i>Prayers sent >>

Prayers? Not on Obama's watch.

GB5HOF

Keep em' to yourself...I guarantee he'll never know...

GIVE ME BACK MY COUNTRY!

Nathaniel1960

I will look through my 73's for the yellow back "variations" tonight.

bishop

KB---was not trying to denigrate the Campos variant. I have it, and the partial missing front border defect as well. I also have what looks like a partial black star and hence my view it may be a print defect. But whatever I think, the hobby clearly treats it, and the Herrer and Bakep, all of which I also have, as variations. I collect variants of any nature, intentional or not,

How would you categorize the 52 Mantle, Thompson and Robinson DPs with back and front differences ? Or the 62 greenies ( not the pose changes), or the 58 Yellows or 69
whites ? I tend to view them as variations, not necessarily in all cases specifically intended , but resulting from intentional changes in the printing process itself

Not seeking an argument. I always enjoy a good discussion on variations, errors, variants , or whatever one chooses to call them

hammered

PSA needs to recognize intentional print variations and not simple print defects that were later corrected.
If they were consistent in recognizing this type of "variation" it would become a nightmare.
A good example is 77 Garvey, half of those have a stray black line in the left border.
84 Donruss Dave Concepcion from wax packs have significant black dots/smudges on the top border, later corrected in factory sets.
I could mention many more examples.
I've always felt that the '80 topps yellow letter variation is just a corrected ink problem and not a variation at all.
So I agree with you, Henry, a variation should be an intentional, material change to a card and not a correction to a printing flaw.

bishop

I have the 80s yellow name cards and the Pryor no name from that set. I view them as print defect variants. The 82 Topps Blackless set is listed separately in SCD from the regular 82 Topps set. The Blackless set is 396 cards, half the regular set, that involve cards from the A, B and C sheets where the blank ink ran out. Just print defect variants but they sell at a premium because of hobby recognition








And what about these Section I's ? :-)





And does it matter if a variation is created to fix a mistake , error or defect, like the 59 trade/option or not and Spahn DOBs, or if it is intentionally created just for the sake of making a variation

gemint

I've been hoarding cards with heavy print snow for the day when they become recognized as valuable variations. If miscuts ever become variations, Barfvader will be a very wealthy man!

MintMoondog

thanks for your thoughtful and funny posts...indeed it made me feel better to blame Obama.
I received this message from Joe
" I will forward this to our specs department. In the future, this is a question for the registry staff (to make sure the checklists are appropriate)."

I am not sure whether "specs department" is his term for "deleted items" box

IMO PSA and related industry leaders should be very circumspect before making determinations on minor "variations" versus variants willy nillly. Bishop is right as is Matt - there should be some form of intentionality to fix something beyond a simple print defect. So airbrushing a huge blob (1971 Nash) or removing an extra star (1952 Campy) might clear the hurdle. Fixing a tiny gap in the black border surrounding the pic (1973 Bell) probably does not regardless if it was an intentional fix or not.
The distinction between variant and variation is very useful to me personally.

avi29

Hello all- I posted this in another thread but then discovered this thread, vso I thought I'd repost here.

I was hoping somebody could explain something to me about the PSA review service. I have collected a 73 Topps master set (currently #3 in registry) but periodically PSA changes the set composition to include "new variations". For example most recently I had the only 100% complete 73 master set in the registry, but then PSA recognized two variations for #504 Earl Williams: "with gap in border" and "without gap". This rendered my PSA 9 (which was labeled without either variation) as ineligible for either of the two slots in the master set, thereby all of a sudden leaving me missing two cards from the set.

I would like to submit my existing #504 Williams for relabeling under the PSA review service, so that it can be relabeled as "without gap" and thereby filling one of my two missing slots in the registry. My question is as follows: Is there any way for me to do this without submitting a minimum of 10 cards for review, and paying $23 in shipping for one card? I only have this one card to submit and it seems unfair that I would have to submit a minimum of 10 cards because PSA implemented this change.

Is there possibly a third party service that submits cards to PSA on behalf of others in situations like this (or even when you have less than 10 cards for regular grading), and charges a small markup for doing so?

Many thanks for your thoughts!

gemint

<< <i>Hello all- I posted this in another thread but then discovered this thread, vso I thought I'd repost here.

I was hoping somebody could explain something to me about the PSA review service. I have collected a 73 Topps master set (currently #3 in registry) but periodically PSA changes the set composition to include "new variations". For example most recently I had the only 100% complete 73 master set in the registry, but then PSA recognized two variations for #504 Earl Williams: "with gap in border" and "without gap". This rendered my PSA 9 (which was labeled without either variation) as ineligible for either of the two slots in the master set, thereby all of a sudden leaving me missing two cards from the set.

I would like to submit my existing #504 Williams for relabeling under the PSA review service, so that it can be relabeled as "without gap" and thereby filling one of my two missing slots in the registry. My question is as follows: Is there any way for me to do this without submitting a minimum of 10 cards for review, and paying $23 in shipping for one card? I only have this one card to submit and it seems unfair that I would have to submit a minimum of 10 cards because PSA implemented this change.

Is there possibly a third party service that submits cards to PSA on behalf of others in situations like this (or even when you have less than 10 cards for regular grading), and charges a small markup for doing so?

Many thanks for your thoughts! >>



Unless your heart is set on having it relabeled to state 'no gap', I'd send a scan of the card to the registry dept and explain the issue. They should be able to program the cert number to register as the no gap version. I have several 1969 YL cards that were graded years ago and have no indicator about which variation they are. They either register as YL or WL depending on how the cert number was keyed in at the time. So they definitely can force a cert number into a set if they program it to do so. That would save you having to send it back in.

miwlvrn

Just include it with an order full of mech. errors you send back for correction and you should be good to go.

CDsNuts

I just popped a PSA 9 Buddy Bell w/gap and PSA 8 Bahnsen w/gap. They are currently listed on ebay for way too much but I can come down some if anybody on the boards needs them.

Lee