1972 Topps 478 Checklist 5 (Small?, Large?, Mediumish?)

bobsbbcards

Hi,

Can someone please post side-by-side scans of card #478 from the 1972 Topps set with SMALL PRINT ON FRONT and LARGE PRINT ON FRONT. I'm 99.9% convinced that there isn't a variation. Show me that I'm wrong....please.

Thanks!

(Here's the SMALL PRINT ON FRONT from CARDFACTS and the LARGE PRINT ON FRONT from 4-Sharp-Corners on eBay)

bobsbbcards

Another two...

jay0791

To me the large print does look larger

Gemyanks10

I'm not seeing a difference, but maybe because of the scans? Would like to see side by side in person..

bobsbbcards

Card #251, Checklist 3, also has the same variation name. Here are two scans with more pronounced differences:

Clearly, the "large" in this case means "Hey, I'm running out of yellow background for all these stupid names!"

Here's a PSA mis-labeled #251:

Robby

Clearly, the "large" in this case means "Hey, I'm running out of yellow background for all these stupid names!"

Now that you said that I can see what you mean by Large and small

bishop

I want to, and I would, but currently can't

bishop

But it is fun to see Bob fretting about variations

bobsbbcards

@bishop said:
But it is fun to see Bob fretting about variations

I'm glad I brightened your day with my pain and suffering.

bishop

Upon return, my two are like the top 2 you posted. The difference in print size is indeed hard to detect. A more obvious difference ( to me anyway), I assume because of the double print, is the spacing between Wood in Action and Blasingame relative to the top and bottom borders

bobsbbcards

@bishop said:
....is the spacing between Wood in Action and Blasingame relative to the top and bottom borders

I agree that there is a TINY difference in the vertical positioning, but enough to call it a variation?

bishop

Bob knows all this, but I can't help myself.

I think Bob and I agree that a true variation should only involve a card changed intentionally by the manufacturer But historically many unintended recurring print defects have been recognized as variations, such as the 57 Bakep or 58 Herrer.

I tend to view recurring unintended print mistakes or deviations as variants....cards that differ on a recurring basis from their common counterpart. In some cases the hobby recognizes them (90 No Name Thomas ?, in others not). I collect recurring print defects, recognized or not. In many if not most cases it is virtually impossible to tell if a recurring print defect occured in initial runs and was intentionally changed.

A grey area is double prints with differences. In most cases the differences were not specifically intended ( there are exceptions such as CLs with different colors or actual corrections), but is all cases the differences result from an intentional set up process on the sheet involved. Are they variations ? In some cases they are recognized, in others not. A good extreme example are the Mantle, Thompson and Robinson DPs in the high number 52 series. They have front than back differences . Are they true variations ?

I have at least two different versions of every Topps checklist from 1960 through 1973. In some cases changes on the two versions were clearly intentional, but in most they are print or cropping differences as a result of the DP layouts
Variations, Variants or something else ?

Whatever they are, I enjoy annoying Bob about them

bobsbbcards

You had me at "Bob knows all this."

bishop

I just did not want your thread to die out