1982 Topps Baseball Forum

Hey all,

I came across 2 of these RCs, and noticed a bigger and smaller size letter (I) in the "Smith" on the front. I did some searching (on eBay) for different photos of the cards and it does seem like there's 2 different versions....Is this enough to warrant a VAR title?

Looks like there's just a bit of extra ink on the "I" so that would just be a printing flaw and not a variation.

I’ll go with you opinion on it, definitely an ink smudge. Those presses were much different than they are now with neon colors.

The usual suspects here will reject this as a  "print flaw" despite the fact that it is well-known and documented since the 1980s and despite the fact that 1/2 of the entire print run has this misprint with ZERO deviation in size or placement. Interestingly enough, these same folks approved the Tom Seaver #346 print flaw, go figure!

Anyone who has collected this set or variations long enough knows this is a genuine variation, albeit, not a rare or valuable one.

Anyone that has been around vintage cards as long as I have knows that print flaws are just part of the business.  These "variations" that you chase are just a way for you to try to get a higher value for a common card.  More power to you, but that doesn't mean that the rest of the industry has to follow your flawed logic. 

Give it a rest against the members that are trying their best to uphold the FAQ.  I, for one, am getting tired of the accusations against the usual suspects.  Try helping the site more than just foolish forum posts.

It is very difficult these days to uphold the values in the FAQ, as much as it is to uphold other values that were regarded for years as wholesome that are now considered "antiquated".

Admin has very strict rules for what is considered to be a variation for this site. What is odd about a lot of what gets pushed here is how other supposedly reputable hobby sites ALSO don't recognize these print-flaw variations.

Keep fighting the good fight for TCDB, guys. Despite the names and accusations slung our way.

I'm all for VAR and as many types as possible to help create more collectibility but I also agree I would guess it is a printing flaw from the image shown. 

To put another, hopefully less controversial, way:

It is a variation that variation collectors like myself have sought. The strict rules of the site, which I am not questioning (you have to draw the line SOMEWHERE) do not allow for it to be catalogued here.  I have noted in my own collection that I have two versions of the Smith card, and in the notes section I noted that one has the elongated "I" in Smith.

The card represents just about 50% of the print run, not any rarer than the "correct" card, nobody is expecting a value increase on this card. It is recognized by most of the older generation of Topps set builders as a "recurring print defect" type of variation and has been for decades. You seem to be making an argument against those claiming any stray dot or fish eye as variation (which this specific card is not), which I couldnt agree more with and do not believe should be added to any checklist.

It takes years and years of documentation and study of these sets to really understand the difference. 

EDIT:

Just in case that last paragraph is a dig at me, please pay closer attention to my posts here as they are entirely focused on assisting with these sets/topics. You can review them for yourself. Just like much of the info this site uses for their checklists, my research and documentation over the last 15 years is regularly applied to collector's questions about odd, unusual or little-known items right here in these forums. This is help in its truest form, I do not benefit from sharing this information whatsoever.

FiresNBeers wrote:

Anyone that has been around vintage cards as long as I have knows that print flaws are just part of the business.  These "variations" that you chase are just a way for you to try to get a higher value for a common card.  More power to you, but that doesn't mean that the rest of the industry has to follow your flawed logic. 

Give it a rest against the members that are trying their best to uphold the FAQ.  I, for one, am getting tired of the accusations against the usual suspects.  Try helping the site more than just foolish forum posts.

RE: Just in case that last paragraph is a dig at me, please pay closer attention to my posts here as they are entirely focused on assisting with these sets/topics. You can review them for yourself. Just like much of the info this site uses for their checklists, my research and documentation over the last 15 years is regularly applied to collector's questions about odd, unusual or little-known items right here in these forums. This is help in its truest form, I do not benefit from sharing this information whatsoever.

I don't know fully what Brian's intention was, however I do know that adding "The usual suspects here will reject this..." to every post regarding actual print flaws does not seem very helpful at all, and in fact, seems downright inflammatory. So, if you wish to truly help here, please understand what Admin has instructed us to include as a VAR and what he doesn't allow and post accordingly. That would be MOST helpful. Thank you.