1952 topps Torn/ripped Baritrome ebay $2249

[1952boyntoncollector]

I think this a net54 members card.with a print error..already 7 watchers! the way to go is to list the card at no reserve auction...

its not my card..just interesting to see what the card sells for...I picked up 3 raw ones at a local card show and sent them off to PSA...trying to sell them before the pyramid scheme collapses...

maybe its like jeans...jeans with no holes in them are $30..jeans with 4 holes and a big tear over the knee are $100 ...maybe it goes with cards....

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-Topps-332-Tony-Bartirome-One-of-a-kind-print-error-/191794782058?hash=item2ca7dc1f6a:g:iQoAAOSwFMZWq9h M

there was Good/VG baritrome bought right here on net54 on b/s/t a few weeks ago for 90 bucks that's currently bid to 200 bucks..not to shabby

[ALR-bishop]

Another card to add to the master checklist ;)

[1952boyntoncollector]

Another card to add to the master checklist ;)

Im going to put spectacles on one of my raw ones..and say it may or may not be real...maybe it can compete with that mantle card....

[SMPEP]

No, Al. This doesn't belong on the master set list. It's a one-time printing mistake. Not a recurring defect. Otherwise, every set would need to include every blank backed card, wrong back card, every card with a missing run of ink (on front or on back), etc. Stick with the Page/Sain errors as items for the master set list. Leave this one off it.

And there are 4 or 5 known high numbers with this same printing defect, which means there should have been at least 100 (probably 200) of them. Which also suggests the survival rate of 1952 high numbers is about 10% (probably a bit lower) of those originally printed. That would suggest ... there were 18,000 Mantle RCs that were destroyed. Think those folks are bummed about that?

Cheers,
Patrick

[ALR-bishop]

I was kidding Patrick, but in the end it does not matter what I think...or you think. There is no real hobby recognized definition of a master set or a variation.

And what is a super set ? How does it differ from a master set ? Should master sets include only true variations where an intentional change was made in the card ? Should recurring unintended print defects be included in a master set ? In a super set ? How many times must a defect occur before it is recurring ? Who decides all this anyway ? Does each person have the right to define the set they collect the way they want. ? How many have to agree with something for it to be a hobby norm ? :confused:

While some may concentrate on the 52 set or another particular set or sets, I try to collect these things across sets from 1951 to 2015. It's okay by me for you to be the arbiter of the master set list for 1952. :)

[egri]

I'm wondering if it's possible he's begun selling off his Bartiromes? If I was trying to go full Hunt Brothers on a card, with the prices at their current massively inflated level, I'd start heading for the exits now before the bubble pops.

[Zach Wheat]

I was kidding Patrick, but in the end it does not matter what I think...or you think. There is no real hobby recognized definition of a master set or a variation.

And what is a super set ? How does it differ from a master set ? Should master sets include only true variations where an intentional change was made in the card ? Should recurring unintended print defects be included in a master set ? In a super set ? How many times must a defect occur before it is recurring ? Who decides all this anyway ? Does each person have the right to define the set they collect the way they want. ? How many have to agree with something for it to be a hobby norm ? :confused:

While some may concentrate on the 52 set or another particular set or sets, I try to collect these things across sets from 1951 to 2015. It's okay by me for you to be the arbiter of the master set list for 1952. :)

Interesting points Al. I would agree that this probably doesnt belong as a recognized variation. The latest Super Set definition, with some modifications seems to make the most sense to me. However, Patrick that would put your glossy front variations out of the Super Set listing.☺

[SMPEP]

I HOPE the glossys are out of the Master/Super/Whatever you want to call it set! I find my eyes are not good enough to spot most of them. I have seen many where I can't tell if it's an abused glossy or one of the dull ones. Granted a few are obvious. But those are few and far between. So I'm all in favor of keeping them off the list! (Although in truth they belong on the list - IF we ever figure out the versions exist. There are only so many players that I can absolutely confirm. )

Cheers,
Patrick

[ALR-bishop]

My view is if I have an odd card it should definitely be included :)