A lot of times repro artists go either way, either gets lazy and leaves out little details, (does it right, no more/no less), or goes on to add extra ones. I think we see both here - the top being the one that "excelled". (I just notice the butt crease gone on the top one, and the worm on the second one)

What's funniest about the Rainbow difference is how effective the simple addition of a single black line can be. Mmmm, scandalous.

Could this detail have been a required omission, in the same puritanical areas that demanded add-a-ball instead of replays?

(I also notice a few other detail differences such as fuzziness in the Blue lady's face, and the shadow on the antelope leaping over her... but I'm guessing those are resolution artifacts in the scan or whatever)

Notice how her lower back on the left one is a lighter tone and fairly cleaner looking that the rest? Could be somebody tried cleaning and stopped when they noticed the black coming off. Often times the later layer of paint will come off a lot sooner than the earlier ones, which would be the black in this case. Or, it's lighter because the whole area was touched up.

All I know, and all I can offer is this -
*IF* it was done on purpose, something like that isn't new.
When I was involved in Animaniacs, there was a scene that was drawn with a little too much cleavage. After it aired the first time, they had the scene pulled, and touched up to remove the 'cleavage' line. This was in the mid-90's, as far as I can remember.

(As for the second pic .. I can't even make out what that *is*?)

Involved in Animaniacs? That's cool.

I believe it's a worm poking through the... blanket?

I ended up with a King of Diamonds repo backglass that was produced by Herb Silvers. He forgot to put the bootprint on the backside of the drunk getting turfed from the bar, pretty funny. This pic has it of course.

kod (resized).JPG

Thanks for the eagle eye on the Daisy May. Something I hadn't noticed on my game.

Enclosing similar pix.... you aren't experiencing an anomaly. The first pic is an original glass showing a worm below the paint can. The 2nd is a Shay repro...no worm.

J

DMorig. (resized).jpg

DMrepro (resized).jpg

Damn. I bought the glass just to have it, and you're saying it doesn't have the worm? I want a refund!

Yeah, I would assume that is a classic case of either mistakingly missing it, or it was too difficult for the artist to re-create so they knowingly left it out. (I would assume it could just be scanned from a nice glass though... Unless Shay somehow got real Gottlieb art and a revision before the worm was added but that seems like a stretch)

Alan,
I believe you are exactly right. Using another original backglass as reference, there is flaking by the worm. On this glass, it's not completely gone, but if a repro BG was made from one similar, it's reasonable that no one would have known about the critter.

DM backglass orig2 (resized).jpg

The paint can looks taller on the original glass too.