Thanks Irv.

According to many sources #162 Del Crandall is supposed to have an "orange" variation and a red variation. eBay scans are notoriously difficult to pin colors down exactly and some cards off of eBay appear to have varying degrees of red/orange.

Can anyone post a Del Crandall "orange" variation they own alongside a normal red variation?

#295 Cavarretta, red splotch. Thanks Al-R

There is currently a "near" master set up for auction at Heritage and they claim, in order to finish it, one needs the Red back Page/Sain bio and the Red back Sain/Page bio cards.
Is this just a typo/error where they meant to type black back instead of red back? If not, this is the 1st time I've ever heard of these wrong bio cards being printed on red back cards.
https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball-c...umbnail-071515

Wow, I just received the Heritage catalog and was looking through it and saw the same thing which led me to the same question as you. I checked my set and I don't have the red back versions of the wrong bios. The Heritage listing for the set definitely indicates that the Sain BB (Page Bio) and Page BB (Sain Bio) are included so doesn't seem like a typo.

The red back variations with the wrong bios aren't listed on the PSA Master Set checklist. However, on the population report for the 1952 Topps set, there are 2 separate entries for Page with Sain Bio and Page with Sain Bio Black Back (and likewise for Sain with Page Bio and Sain with Page Bio Blacj Back) so that seems to indicate they do exist unless there were cards graded before they started labeling them for different back colors.

If anyone has an example of the Sain or Page red backs with the wrong bios, please post pics of them.

Impossible if the black back had an error, then was corrected...since reds were printed after blacks

Ted is correct, Jay, and if anyone, (besides a few others like Zach, Toppcat, etc) would know, it would be Ted.
Like I mentioned in my above post, I was pretty sure this was a typo as it was the first time I had ever heard of any red backs containing the wrong bios. But, with that being said and with seeing numerous red backed graded/slabbed Page and Sain's with "correct bio" written on the front, it made me wonder. (There is no need to write that on the front of red backed Page and Sain graded cards)

Also, like in this article, (it has been written many times) the backs were corrected when Sy decided to go from black to red backs.

"Two of the more valuable cards from Series 1 are the Joe Page and Johnny Sain errors. Some of Page’s cards (#48) were printed with Sain’s information on the back, while the same fate impacted a small percentage of Sain’s cards (#49), with Page’s information appearing on the reverse. It’s important to note that these error cards can only be found with black backs since they were corrected in time for the red back print run. For Master set builders, these two errors rank near the top of the set in terms of elusiveness".
This is a great read. Try not to look at the cards, however, as they will likely make you cry like they did me. :D
https://www.psacard.com/articles/art...ic-postwar-age

I guess I would say the Heritage listing contains a mistake not a typo then. It says there are 490 cards and needs those 2 to complete the master set, but the checklist for the master set has 491 cards listed. From looking at what is listed, I think the only card missing to really complete the master set is the Frank House yellow tiger variation since there is no mention of that card in the Heritage listing. It's surprising that they would make a mistake like that with this set.

I have only seen it in black back. This set will drive you nuts. Take for example this #43 Scarborough background variation.

Collecting all the variations - even the recognized major variations - will drive one nuts. Which is one reason I started this thread

You could sort of tell this thread was started by someone driven nuts :)

If Lord Baltimore Press in 1952 operated like the textile plant I worked in during the summer of 1979, then the color mixing was done by hand using a "recipe" for each. Color variations could easily result then and I suspect in 1952.

Green spot in eyebrow

Did you just grab that one up, Al?

#77 Kennedy No Bottom Border
 

How could this have gone undiscovered for so long? #77 Bob Kennedy - partial Bottom Border variation. Have only seen this in red back.

I have only seen a few of these, so I suspect they are rare.

In addition, as a follow up to the gray back discussion, I don't think the production of mi-series gray backs is uniform.

That's a great discovery, Zach. I believe when I received my 52 Topps cards from my father, Bob was one of them so I never looked for any of his cards while trying to collect the others, but wish I had of now.
Like we've mentioned, new variations/anomalies pop up all the time with this set it seems, which, of course, at least to me, makes it all that much more fun to collect.
This one, Tommy Glaviano, with the white logo front/black back arrived today. Real happy with it as I believe GM under graded it? Tougher card to find centered, especially in a black back, so I'm glad I was able to win it. :)
(Red back shown also just to show the different logo colors)

I was researching some of the old posts in other forums regarding 1952 Topps variations. I was shocked to run across an article (thanks Patrick - link above) listing 22 "Red Stripe" variations that I had never seen or run across.

Pics posted below - all of this research and pics are credited to SMPEP, who was a regular poster, but has not posted on N54 in a while. Thanks Patrick.

I was also surprised to see a post from one of the employees that worked for a contract printer for Topps. They were reminiscing about their dad's experience printing cards for Topps and how their firm printed the "gray backs". I always suspected gray backs were a result of 2 firms that printed cards for Topps and one used different print stock.

Pics for most of the Red Strip cards are below with 2 cards (#216 Ashburn & #195 Minoso) suspected to exist but never seen.

Additional pics

And more...

Fascinating. I only have a couple of these and had no idea they were related or that there were so many. Great work by Patrick. I remember his posts in some of the past 52 Topps threads. But I given up on pursuing a 52 “master” set. Too old for more 😊

My Campy too:

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...anella%202.jpg

Good one. Not rare but expensive anyway 😊

Adam,

Nice Campy! Jealous....

Can you link to this post? I'm not sure I've seen it before. TY.

Toppcat,

It was a comment in your Topps Archive thread regarding Zabel of Contents, dated August 14, 2010 (link is below) in Bill K's response. I found the posts by Zabel employees particularly informative.

Link to Toppcat's Topps Archive blog is below, a snip of the first few posts is added below as well.

https://www.thetoppsarchives.com/201...-contents.html

Great job researching and writing those Topps Archive posts. I have had a lot of fun reading them, particularly the posts regarding 1952 Topps.

.

AH, OK I though there was a separate one posted here that I missed. TY. Appreciate the compliment as well!

I don't ever recall seeing or hearing about these cards before?
It's the set that just keeps on giving! :)

It looks like Fowler #210 has 2 facial tone variations. I will post side by side pics later. If anyone has them feel free to post.

I am proposing we call variations to be intentional print or design changes in a card and other "variations" that are recurring variation in the way a card is printed as "printing differences". I am in the process of classifying all of the different versions of the cards listed in the first post as either Variations or Print Differences. I know this is a slippery slope...

It is difficult to classify some variations as intentional design changes...and some "print differences" are viewed as true variations to most collectors. I believe we should classify these as true variations for the purposes of making a list of a Master Set as well (i.e. Campos partial top border - as depicted above). Maybe the grading companies will start to use this classification and historical prices for each variation will then be accurate.

Let's get some community input on what should be classified as a true variation and therefore included in the Master List of Variations and what is classified as a print difference and won't be included in the Master List until the printing difference becomes commonly accepted in the collecting community.

Thoughts anyone?