Night Owl Cards

  Normally I disregard such things, but yesterday I was plowing through updating some of those insane back variations for my 1989 Donruss Dodgers.   You know the kind -- "this one has a period but just one asterisk, this one has a period but two asterisks, and this one has two asterisks, but no period!" Fascinating stuff.   I decided to strain my eyes for the sake of checking boxes because I was sent several of the variations from reader and noted collector Bill K. (He's been mentioned a couple times recently on Johnny's Trading Spot). He sent more than just those -- a lot more that you'll see in a couple days. If someone is going to go through the effort of sending those, I'll see it to its conclusion.   So I was squinting away wondering the whole time, "who in the world figured out the differences and why does anyone care?" I'll never understand that. But while I was updating, for some reason, the 1970s children's TV special "Free To B...

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. Like so: 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 t...