Thursday, March 15, 2012
Is This Really a Variation?
A couple of weeks ago, Condition Sensitive posted about a 1971 Topps Mickey Lolich card variation. I checked my box of '71's and sure enough had one of each. I scanned both cards and a couple of details. I'm still not sure if this is a true variation (airbrushing?) or just an illusion caused by a normal variation in the printing process. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This was a major issue I had when starting the '71 variation project, I don't think there is a definitive answer if this is a print error or a true variation. To me it looks like the photo was intentionally altered making it a variation, but that's just my opinion, the more discussion there is on questionable things like this the better.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if its an "official" variation, to me it looks like it could be just the difference between two different print runs. In my opinion it is just a bit too much nit-picking.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't until I saw your close-ups that I could see what "variation" you were talking aobut. Then I looked at "Conditoin Sensitive"s post(s) and although the situation is perplexing I still think its just a bit too much nit-picking. To any collectors who look for this sort of variation I'm sorry I don't agree with your definition of "variation".
I often look for variations but the more obvious ones. There is one Ebay seller who often has variations listed. I forget who, but the next time I see one of his auctions I'll try to remember to make a note of it.
I really don't care if it's a variation or not. I do see a difference, though. I'm curious as to the reason. Still hoping someone has a true explanation.
DeleteThat should be "about" not "aobut" Sorry if I offended anyone with an "ao" butt. LOL
ReplyDelete