Misprints or Design Errors?

[aleksandr]

I don't know that I would consider the multiple artwork FE cards to be variations-Alternate Art. To me, that evokes the sense of something like a promo that truly has alternate art that cannot be obtained anywhere else. The FE cards are just versions 1-4 of the same card and were always intended to be that way. (Hymm to Tourach, ver. 1, Hymm to Tourach, ver. 2, etc.)

[mystical_tutor]

This is a very interesting conversation. My thoughts: In general the magic community is too loose with it's use of the term misprint.

Strongly agree. I have had some sad miscommunication because of this latitude in identification.

I would call the FE differences versions...

That would fit my understanding of the term. Akin to King James Version or BB Korean Version. Something designed and intended to be like the original but incorporating some difference -- language or art.

Mystical_Tutor for ... his impeccable logic and language.

LOL I have NEVER been accused of that before... even while teaching philosophy for the U of Maryland. Hope no one expects me to live up to it and thanks much for the complement.

Gary

[mystical_tutor]

"Variation - Alternate Art" (Four FE versions of Hymn to Tourach), vs.
"Variation - Modified Master" (14 Arabian Knights A-B pairs), or
"Variation - Flawed Master" (Hairy Runesword)

I would like to stick to the word you use above to identify this design intended difference "version". I would include all AA in a category of version because it is design intended--either for promotional, marketing or ascetic reasons. This would include new art such as the new Demonic Tutor in Divine vs. Demonic or the massive art changes in 5th Edition i.e. the "Fifth Edition version of Air Elemental". For me, none of this would fall into the generalization of "misprint".

I am very comfortable with the AN mana symbol differences as "variations" as I would think the Jamuraan Lion has a variation in picture size. These were not intended by the designers but, are not really wrong either. To make a comparison to another hobby. In coins the 1926 Canadian 5 cent 'near 6' and 'far 6' are considered variations. The dies were obviously different but neither is "wrong" only different. Again, not qualifying as a 'misprint'.

This is different than a design error where the result is wrong i.e. Legends Blood Lust ('creatures' instead of 'creature'--I am told this is the first card in magic that had errata before it was printed).

The Runesword, to me, is a true misprint as is the Desert campfire. A printing error and not part of the design process. To elevate such to the level of variation is not logical. Every little ink spot, smudge and hick up would then need to be a variation instead of a screw up. I think variation must be reserved for the design level of the overall production process.

I am still thinking about all of this as I am not sure my logic is entirely consistent and I still have fun arguing with myself about it...LOL.

The 'miss-cut' point that mahdishain made is swimming around in my head. Not sure where it will sink to.

Thanks to each of you for pushing, prodding and shaking my ideas. I need it.

Gary

[pickle.69]

Hi it would be fantastic if we could find a general clarificaion at least so that people could look it up.
This will be one of the further future project to add this kind of categories to the web site as I think a lot of people would be interested to see different catagories of "misprints".
I would highly appriciat if member nano would also contribiut as I guess he has the second biggest misprint/error (name it as you want) collection in the world. And a fantastic homepage sadly in Japanese. http://www.nextftp.com/nano/

I would realy love to have at leaste one Example per type on this homepage too.

[hammr7]

The Runesword, to me, is a true misprint as is the Desert campfire. A printing error and not part of the design process. To elevate such to the level of variation is not logical. Every little ink spot, smudge and hick up would then need to be a variation instead of a screw up. I think variation must be reserved for the design level of the overall production process.

I am still thinking about all of this as I am not sure my logic is entirely consistent and I still have fun arguing with myself about it...LOL.

The 'miss-cut' point that mahdishain made is swimming around in my head. Not sure where it will sink to.

Thanks to each of you for pushing, prodding and shaking my ideas. I need it.

Gary

To me, an error can rise to the level of a variation if, and only if, a substantial number of exactly the same error are produced. As I stated before, it is very likely that most or all Dark sheets that held Runeswords had one copy that was the "hairy" version. By this definition you don't get a variation unless an entire print run makes them, or one of the many copies of an individual card on a master sheet is different from the others.

This differs from most "errors" such as crimps, ink spots and splotches, etc. where are each is usually a bit different. The number of different A-B Arabian Nights cards were actually quantified as to how many of each were on the sheet. Each "A" card is like all the other "A" cards of that particular card. The same for all the "B" cards.

In contrast, off-center mis-cuts are usually just one or two sheets worth, not thousands. While each card is off by the same amount, you have a minimal chance of completing an entire sheet, and virtually no chance accumulating 100 of the same card. Many errors are unique. And while they can be categorized by similarity, each is a bit different.

[mystical_tutor]

To me, an error can rise to the level of a variation if, and only if, a substantial number of exactly the same error are produced.

I honestly do understand where you are coming from but there are three reasons I feel that that understanding should not influence categorization of Magic card irregularities.
1) A printing mistake is still just that and should be recognized as such. To take a misprint and call it something else just because there was a large volume of them dilutes the clarity of the definitions used and thus can lead to confusion.
2) It would be difficult, if not impossible, to standardize how many is enough to raise the level. An example of this dilemma is the Wyvern backed FE cards. If there were a few sheets or a few booster boxes, it is a printing error. If there was a pallet full did it then become a variation? Or would it take ten pallets? Your answer to that may well be different than mine. Worse yet, nobody knows (or at least isn't telling) how many were produced and in such cases we don't know what to call it until we find out--if we ever do.
3) It is probably wise for us to follow the standard dictionary definitions for version and variation.

Because we are seeking clarity in definition we need to avoid ambiguity whenever possible. That is one advantage in using the "cause" of an irregularity as the focus for its definition.

If we once settle on "design" and "printing (processing?)", or whatever terms the community is comfortable with, as the two basic sources of error, all the subcategories of each are more easily defined and more easily understood.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Gary

[mystical_tutor]

Hi it would be fantastic if we could find a general clarificaion at least so that people could look it up.
This will be one of the further future project to add this kind of categories to the web site as I think a lot of people would be interested to see different catagories of "misprints".
I would highly appriciat if member nano would also contribiut as I guess he has the second biggest misprint/error (name it as you want) collection in the world. And a fantastic homepage sadly in Japanese. http://www.nextftp.com/nano/

I would realy love to have at leaste one Example per type on this homepage too.

Amen! I would like more from other board members.

[aleksandr]

I'll take a bit of a stab at this:

1. Error Card, Uncorrected--An error introduced in the design process which was never corrected in later printings of that sheet. For example, Portal 2nd Age Extinguish.

2. Error Card, Corrected--An error introduced in the design process which was later corrected in a subsequent printing. For example, the Odyssey Cephalid Looter with the "Wizard" creature type. By its very nature, an Error Card, Corrected will have at least 2 versions--corrected and uncorrected.

3. Misprint--An error introduced in the printing process such as blotches, splotches, color differences, albinos, etc.

4. Miscut--An error introduced in the process of cutting sheets into individual cards. Self-explanatory.

5. Crimps and other packaging errors--An error introduced in the packaging of individual cards into booster packs. Self-explanatory.

What do you think?

[mystical_tutor]

1. Error Card, Uncorrected--An error introduced in the design process which was never corrected in later printings of that sheet. For example, Portal 2nd Age Extinguish.

Were there later printings of P2 or are we thinking about p3k? I was of the impression that all P2 Extinguish have that same error.

2. Error Card, Corrected--An error introduced in the design process which was later corrected in a subsequent printing. For example, the Odyssey Cephalid Looter with the "Wizard" creature type. By its very nature, an Error Card, Corrected will have at least 2 versions--corrected and uncorrected.

Certainly a worthy "stab".

I am not at all knowledgeable of the Cephalid Looter error-other than reading in Squt's list that it exists. What happened with this card anyway? Is this a matter of one of the common cards on a print sheet being wrong or was the whole plate wrong and the printing process stopped in order to introduce a corrected print sheet, like alpha-beta?

For me the term version only applies at the highest level of design. Again, like the UL version of the BL or the S-Chinese version of Portal. Compared to the Krieghoff version or the DWM version of German Luger pistols or the Standing Liberty version of US gold pieces. These are not mistakes and would not be accidently thought of a misprints.

Variations, as in your presentation of the Cephalid Looter, are the result of error in the design process, either correct or incorrect, enter Squt's favorite Serra Angel/time Elemental. These, most often, are design errors (in this case easily understandable given how MTG card pictures were put together in those days) and very commonly called misprints (though not done by or preventable by the printer).

Gary

[aleksandr]

Were there later printings of P2 or are we thinking about p3k? I was of the impression that all P2 Extinguish have that same error.

Yes, they all have the same error. Hence the classification "Error Card, Uncorrected" :)

[dragsamou]

I am not at all knowledgeable of the Cephalid Looter error-other than reading in Squt's list that it exists. What happened with this card anyway?

Hi Gary

For example, Portal 2nd Age Extinguish.
Were there later printings of P2 or are we thinking about p3k? I was of the impression that all P2 Extinguish have that same error.

Only The English and Italian have that error, and was never corrected.The French, German, Japanese, Simplified Chinese, Spanish and Traditional Chinese versions are normal.

[magicdude]

I am not at all knowledgeable of the Cephalid Looter error-other than reading in Squt's list that it exists. What happened with this card anyway?

Hi Gary

For example, Portal 2nd Age Extinguish.
Were there later printings of P2 or are we thinking about p3k? I was of the impression that all P2 Extinguish have that same error.

Only The English and Italian have that error, and was never corrected.The French, German, Japanese, Simplified Chinese, Spanish and Traditional Chinese versions are normal.

The Cephalid Wizard version was only available from Prerelease Starters. You'll never find one in a booster, and I don't think you can tell an unopened Prerelease Starter from an unopened 'normal' Starter (maybe someone else can verify this?).
I always keep my prerelease pools seperate from cards I obtain through drafts(*), and found my first one in my Odyssey prerelease pool (which I subsequently sold for quite a hefty amount (since it was the only one I had ever seen at that point), 60 guilders if I remember correctly, which is about € 27,27, not counting inflation). Since then I always wanted to get one back (at a lot lower price). I found one a few years ago in a commons box (slightly played) for € 0,10 (or so...). Less than a year ago I bought a NM/Mint version for € 10,00. I have been checking every Cephalid Looter I have ever seen since the prerelease, and have only (personally) seen these three! Therefor I personally assume that only a fraction of Prerelease Starters contained the error version, and that most Prerelease Starters must have contained the corrected version as well! But that is my own PERSONAL assumption, NOT a PROVEN fact!

(*) to try and build a better deck from my pool later on (after the tournament), and to ask other players to do the same thing... Amazing what you can learn from that...

[berkumps]

A miscut, while it is a mistake in the printing process, is not a misprint.

I agree with this, however I think the definition of a miscut needs to be clarified. For example, if both the front and back are equally "off-center" (maybe more than one card is visible), then I would certainly consider this a miscut. But what then, would a card that has only its front (or back) off-center be considered? A misprint, or miscut? I would lean towards misprint, however due to the nature of how the cards are made, it isn't really caused by an error in the actual printing of the ink on the cards, rather a misalignment of the back and front sheets before gluing, cutting/packaging. This, then, would lead me to believe it is a misalignment error, and not a misprint or miscut. How many error categories could there be?

[mystical_tutor]

A miscut, while it is a mistake in the printing process, is not a misprint.

I agree with this, however I think the definition of a miscut needs to be clarified. For example, if both the front and back are equally "off-center" (maybe more than one card is visible), then I would certainly consider this a miscut. But what then, would a card that has only its front (or back) off-center be considered? A misprint, or miscut? I would lean towards misprint, however due to the nature of how the cards are made, it isn't really caused by an error in the actual printing of the ink on the cards, rather a misalignment of the back and front sheets before gluing, cutting/packaging. This, then, would lead me to believe it is a misalignment error, and not a misprint or miscut. How many error categories could there be?

LOL... Interesting point. I have never actually seen such a “misprint”. That might be due to my lack of attention to detail and I would really like to see such. In the overall picture, though, they would certainly be part of the “misprint” or producer caused errors. By using such a general category one could easily sub-categorize miscuts, inking errors, alignment errors, etc.
This brought up an interesting question to me on the mechanics of printing (sure wish I could find that TV program Hammr7 mentioned). I wonder if the card stock is made then printed on both sides—maybe even at the same time—or if each side is printed and then glued to the other side? I would presume the first method as it would seem so much easier—fewer steps I would think. If so it would be a matter of alignment of the plates I guess.

[mystical_tutor]

On Hammr 7's position about quantity making a difference (I have thought about this a couple times and consider it a worthy consideration--just one I can not agree with). Would the quantity of an error be better related to something like rarity in classification? I almost hate to open this can of worms but it keeps bugging me when I see WotC and Librarities assigning rarity classifications to unique cards that have no relation to that assignment (truely a topic for a different thread--so I will start one).

At our present topic though, I think it would be most appropriate to assign rarity to either misprints or design errors if we know what their rarity is. Agreement could probably be reached that the Desert campfire or the Runesword hair are common misprints--even though we may not know the exact number. Cards off cut by on half surely are much more rare--specially if we are considering just that one card name and that degree of miscut--it may be unique and more rare than Proposal. To me that would be a better way to handle quantity differenced than seperate categories.

Gary