One card that I received in a recent card package didn't show up on the blog until now because I don't consider it a need in my collection.
The sender -- Mike -- said that it is a variation, one of those 1991 Topps back differences where the Topps logo superimposed onto the stats is darker than usual.
I just can't get myself to consider this a variation.
I believe the collectors who say they are. But it just looks like someone put extra ink on the roller to me. Is that enough to consider something a variation?
This is what I like in my variations:
Now that is a MFing variation. It's on the front, not the back, and it knocks you over with its obvious difference.
This was known as an "error card" back in the day but it's also a variation. (These days we have to differentiate between our variations and errors because so many variations are intentional).
So, like I said here, I like my errors and variations obvious. None of this subtle stuff. There seems to be a lot of subtle variations in early 1990s sets and I can't get interested in it. 1991 Topps is big on subtle variations.
That's just a sampling. It's just a little bit crazy that people thought the absence of a ® was a reason to collect an additional card.
Differences in stats, errors in stats, I understand.
This I understand, too. Pretty cool.
But like I said, a variation needs to knock me over the head with its awesomeness and the difference between a tiny E or an F symbol on the bottom of the card back, I'm just stunned that someone discovered a difference and then thought it was worth noting.
But that's the many flavors of collectors out there. Some of y'all study your cards A LOT.
Just for the heck of it, I looked at the 1991 Topps Dodgers in my binder to see if I had any of the dark Topps logo "variations."
Almost all were like this:
Very light (with a gum stain included).
I did notice what seemed to be a Topps logo halfway between the usual light ones and the one I received from Mike.
What is this? A third variation?