[jacksoncoupage]

FYI, I firmly believe that not ALL 1988 Donruss cards have border variations. I busted a sealed set about a year ago, and only the Will Clark DK was different than the stack of duplicates I had at home. Now, it's possible I had 15 factory singles and no wax, but that's highly unlikely.)

I was starting to wonder about the border variations in 1988 Donruss and where they were available from. I was always under the assumption that all of the cards had a different border configuration from packs and factory sets. I busted tons of wax, cello and racks over the years (who didn't) as well as acquiring a bunch of them from a friend and I could never figure out why some of the cards had border variations and some didn't. I just chalked it up to somehow getting some factory set cards from some source mixed in. I bought a factory set about a year ago, broke it down just to make sure and still had some cards without border variations. (This is before I was aware of the back variations) I compared a few of the factory set cards to the Cubs team set I have in sealed cello packs and they have the same borders. Is it possible that not all of the cards have a border variation but do have differences in printing on the back? I think my head is going to explode with all these new variations to go look for.

The 1989-90 Dick Gilkeson Error and Variation guide says that all cards except the Puzzle card and the Ripken brothers can be found with the switched border design. I have found there to be a few mistakes in that otherwise accurate book so it's quite possible that not all cards are affected by this variation. Someone may want to try contacting the "oddball mall" website that has been dealing with these for years now.

[jacksoncoupage]

I also think the front page needs a FAQ. Any suggestions for it? Anything that you'd specifically like to see in it?

I personally think this thread should be renamed, with "Error &" removed, as it's primarily focused on variations, as opposed to errors. I also think you should make that point in the FAQ. I'm not saying that errors are unimportant, but they probably deserve their own thread, so one doesn't confuse the other. I'd say it's a variation if it can be seen in many or most cards in a set, and an error if it's only found in one or a handful. Anyone agree? Disagree?

I also think it's not a bad idea to include the UD gold holograms. Yeah, they're relatively well-known, but not everyone is aware of them. Same for the Donruss border variations. (FYI, I firmly believe that not ALL 1988 Donruss cards have border variations. I busted a sealed set about a year ago, and only the Will Clark DK was different than the stack of duplicates I had at home. Now, it's possible I had 15 factory singles and no wax, but that's highly unlikely.)

Oh, one more point on the variation v. error issue. I consider a variation to be intentional, as opposed to, well, an error (most of the time, anyway). The *, ** and INC.,INC are examples. Sure, they're different, but I'm sure there was a good reason for that, and someone at Topps or Donruss could tell us why they made the distinction. (The *denotes* and *denotes aren't the same, but affect so many cards that it makes sense to call it an error, at least in my book.)

Ramble off.

I am all for reshaping this growing thread. I am still unsure about dropping the error part right now. One collector's error question may lead to variation news for us all. Creating a separate thread for unlisted errors would be a way to go though. I'm hesitant because it may become a pain moving info back and forth from posts between the two topics. The error vs. variation issue seems sensitive enough that not every collector has such a refined POV on it. Plus, it's much easier for me to make small "asides" to you guys about a card I find that may be specific to your players and not a set-spanning variation, here in this thread.

If you guys don't mind that stuff and feel that it will help this thread then I 'm cool with reformatting it those are just my hesitations. Any specific ideas for new titles?

Error vs. Variation. I think that a looser definition is best. Creating a too-linear definition will confuse many who are new to the game. A lot of these minute differences can be confusing enough but also having to figure out the guidelines and details on what is an "acceptable" variation and isn't seems tough. As it stands our first page is a growing list of confirmed variations that affect a large portion of a set (1982 Topps Blackless) or affects a set that contains several of the BMB-collected players (1994 UD Choice White letters for example-a subset that has early cards of Jeter, Arod, Johnny Damon and Derek Lee).

I believe that anything that comes in two (or more) different ways, but was not specifically intended to should be labeled a variation. A prime example would be the 1978 Topps Dick Williams card. There are 4 different types of "boxing" around his first name on front. I call this an error as well as a variation. I guarantee that people at Topps did not want even one version to be released with a box drawn around that specific part of his name. Yet it can be found with 4 different versions. Often times, I find myself cataloging a card as an "error-variation" because it was clearly unintended by the company but exists in multiple varieties.

As for the 88 Donruss, I am doubtful every card comes in two types as well. I'd really like to look into further though. All the "gospel" on the subject seems to claim that only two cards weren't affected, but like you, I have serious doubts about this. I may have to break a couple soon.

EDIT:

I almost forgot. What do you think specifically should be addressed in the FAQ?

[bornagaincollector]

Here are few more that i consider variations...The Greenwell are night/day by back color,the front is also differant in the Blue color.The Brownes=1 is a lighter orange/red by theStadium club logo,the other is darker.

[onionring9]

Theres also a 2002 Prospect Premieres variation involving Tigers Matt Pender.

Card can be found with a black player (Granderson) or white player (Pender).

The corrected version also comes with refractor foil and UD logo.

The quads I know have the Granderson/Pender error, do you know if they issued a corrected version?

[onionring9]

Got some more fun for you guys:

In 1993 did UD use two separate holograms for the card backs? Looks to me like they did:



And for the really good one that is going to make some collectors head spin. Look what I found in my dup box. I have about 30 of each of the two on the left. I only had 1 of each on the right. These border variations should open a new can of worms. Seems the border variations weren't limited to the blue grand slammers this year! (Both were INC.)

[MattinglyStash]

And for the really good one that is going to make some collectors head spin. Look what I found in my dup box. I have about 30 of each of the two on the left. I only had 1 of each on the right. These border variations should open a new can of worms. Seems the border variations weren't limited to the blue grand slammers this year! (Both were INC.)

Waiting for my Mattingly lot to come in that has this variation as well. I'll let you know if it's an INC or INC.

[darthtampon]

bringing this thread back from the dead.

took me 7 pages to find it.

I will add to favs this time.

[ragtop12]

Hi all.. I am a big Bonds variation collector... and have one to add.

1992 Topps Kids (1 Asterick on Back)
1992 Topps Kids (2 Astericks on Back)

I am sure the whole set is this way. I also just spent an hour digging through my 1991 Upper Deck looking at those logos (eyes are whacky now). Out of 125 Bonds cards from 1991 UD, I only had one with the logo with baseballs on the back. Those must be super rare!

[darthtampon]

good find....

I can verify this one

[TNP777]

Hi all.. I am a big Bonds variation collector... and have one to add.

1992 Topps Kids (1 Asterick on Back)
1992 Topps Kids (2 Astericks on Back)

I am sure the whole set is this way. I also just spent an hour digging through my 1991 Upper Deck looking at those logos (eyes are whacky now). Out of 125 Bonds cards from 1991 UD, I only had one with the logo with baseballs on the back. Those must be super rare!

No dupe '92 Topps Kids. Gonna have to check into that one too.