General Forum

Interesting article on these color variations. Compelling reasons why they should be listed as Error/Variations.

https://junkwaxgems.wordpress.com/tag/1985-topps-color-variations/

Since we do list sorted variations of this nature. Wondering about your thoughts?????

.....or How about this example from 1986 Topps.

https://junkwaxgems.wordpress.com/tag/1986-topps-variation/

The 1986 example is just a recurring print defect, there are a few others, most notably for Clemens and Seaver, though I've seen some others impacted also like Curt Wilkerson. 

The example shown for 1985 makes it look like a print error also, but I think there was a change to coloration on the Phillies.  I'll have to dig up a better sample than what is shown there when I get around to my 85s.

That happens all the time when you start and stop a press. Or if the ink is thick or thin or running out. It's just the way it is. If we had them all listed separately every single card would have its own listing. Like a numbers card 1/100000000....... Then split another hair and bring in bad cuts. Complete madness. If you really take a good look at all your extra cards, you will see no two cards are truly the same.

RJ- I understand your thinking, BUT then any variation or error is truly not the same as any other card. I feel and have felt that the fine line between ERR/VARs and correct "cards" is a gray fine line. We seem to opt on what we want to consider it. Some are oked yet others are not, but with the same deciding criteria in question. As time goes by I will continue to flash other examples for the membership to see, not that I'm expecting any changes. Bad cuts, miscuts, wrong backs, blank backs are all clearly described. These types of ERR/VARs are not.

Ink differences, printing defects (splotches, drips, etc.), and problems in the printing process are not listable here.

Changes in the type-setting, printing process, or design layout (such as movement of graphic elements) are listable here.

Sorry Dan, but that is not entirely correct. We do have "many so-called not listables" listed. I guess Admin makes that decision, his site and he's the boss whether a card is listable or non- listable. Why is 1989 Stan Jefferson listed, while other so-called inking variations are not? I think my link on the 1985 Phillies walks a really tight line and with the proper mindset could possibly be listed. My point, 1 man's vision vs. an entire membership. How many out there would consider the '85 "Black Box Phillies a candidate for variation and listability?

If it's a survey you seek, I vote that it is NOT a variation or an error. One is printed lighter than the other. It happens, and I don't care one whit. I shall not even go check which "version" I have.

I have spoken.

v3

The Phillies one is clearly an example of the entire card being inked lighter (or darker). The Jefferson variation is actually a difference in what Topps was trying to do with a faulty image (presumably), where they changed what they were using to mask the area. That's why the Jefferson is listed.

This matches my thoughts as well.

To me it would be a varifiable variation if the manufacturer came out and said they changed colors midway through the printing process to better represent team colors. 

Topps just didn't have a very refined process in the 80s / early 90s. At one point I had a ton of blurry 88 Topps. Not sure how they happened but they gave me a headache to look at. I always chalked it up to bad print processes.