1969 Topps Bob Watson: Variation or Print Defect?

charliehustle14

Hey Guys,

I'm working on a '69 Topps Baseball set and as is often the case when working on a vintage set, I have ended up with some multiples of the same cards. I noticed something about the 1969 Topps #562 Bob Watson Rookie card. On the reverse, to the left of the word "which" in the writeup and at the same height as number "562", there sometimes appears a partial oval shape with an elongated dot in the middle. I call this "the thumbnail". You will notice it on the backs of two of the cards I have scanned.





Here's a closeup of one:



The first time I noticed this on a card I purchased a couple years ago, I was thinking "Crud. I missed an ink mark on the back some kid made". As I attended shows and looked for a nice raw NM-MT example, I kept noticing that this marking appears every now and then. Based on my amateur observation, I estimate it's been on about 1/3 of the Watson Rookie cards I have seen.

Anyone have any opinions on whether this might be a legit variation, or would the prevailing opinion be that this is simply a common print flaw? I lived through the various error crazes of 1981-1989 and am not a big fan of variations, but I thought it was kind of neat to find this on a vintage card.

Todd

bishop

I would view it as a recurring print defect. But it is a "variant" in the sense it differs from his typical 69 card. Many folks think a "true" variation must be a card intentionally changed by the manufacturer. On the other hand, the 57 Bakep and 58 Herrer are unintended recurring print defects that have achieved hobby recognition as variations. But, with the great proliferation of known print defects thanks to ebay scans, my guess is that this defect would not get much hobby recognition....except among us weird variant collectors. I appreciate you pointing it out

LarkinCollector

<< <i>I would view it as a recurring print defect. But it is a "variant" in the sense it differs from his typical 69 card. Many folks think a "true" variation must be a card intentionally changed by the manufacturer. On the other hand, the 57 Bakep and 58 Herrer are unintended recurring print defects that have achieved hobby recognition as variations. But, with the great proliferation of known print defects thanks to ebay scans, my guess is that this defect would not get much hobby recognition....except among us weird variant collectors. I appreciate you pointing it out >>


Well stated. Good catch by the OP and it will be on my list of variations, whether recognized or not.

charliehustle14

Thanks guys. It's the odd little things like this in the hobby that keep me up late at night wondering.