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?

Anyone here lucky enough to win this super rare Yellow Tiger Gray back Frank House card?
I assumed 5 figures when I first saw it posted but I just wasn't sure?
https://www.ebay.ca/itm/266877100790

Irv, I tapped out at 4K. Looks like three guys went hard for this. Here is a pic of my House unicorn.

Sweet card, Billy! :)

I only watched the auction as I knew ahead of time it would be a little to spendy for my blood.
It was fun watching it explode in price in the last few seconds though. :eek:

Those idiots at SGC refused to holder my yellow tiger as either a gray or yellow!

The sgc poated copy is Only the 6th I've seen. Thanks for posting billy.

Nice Billy

Not sure if I'd posted

Wrong photo


Trying to post 3 gray backs
Gray/yellow
Gray/orange gray front
Gray/orange tiger glossy front

You never cease to amaze me Ted. Just curious if you think all yellow House gray backs lack most or all of the green neck?

Have you seen any yellow House gray backs with some or all of the green neck? Is there any correlation to the glossy fronts and the lack of green necks?

The house gray is ONLY found yellow or orange. No partial red/green throat. These are 2 seperate cards placed on the sheet.


This is because after the gray stock was used
In the beginning of the run. After switching to the cream stock, someone noticed the logos were different on the same house cards on the sheet and tried to stone off the red from around the correct version to have them match. I'm guessing this was easier than trying to add a mask to get the orange logo to have red added. Eventually, the whole mask was redone to have the tiger logos matching.

To me, the yellow/gray is the key card which proves my theory of not only the grays printed first, but of the house card having both an error and a variation on the same sheet!

I don't think I've seen this here yet. Glenn Nelson with a slightly severed jugular.

Len Brown stated in various interviews on line as well as comments made directly to me regarding Topps sets made post-1959 indicate that more than one printer was used simultaneously and they did not discriminate between card stock - which could explain the same variations.

Good luck with the sale! Hopefully it brings more attention to the "key card" in the 1952 topps set

52 House Gray/Yellow Tiger
 

My card just came back from PSA where I tried to get it crossed over. They refused to give it a yellow Tiger variation. I don’t know how my card got out the door if SGC won’t grade yours. I think PSA didn’t want to mess up the registry with this new addition IMO. If it was your card Ted or Zach what would you do with the card?

Was a reason given as to why, Billy?

Psa told me I could opt for either yellow tiger or gray back. They wouldn't add both. No reason given.


Sgc told me they only distinguish red/black backs, not gray backs.


Both are true stories

Ted, this explains a lot. I did not know that.

Irv, I probably would keep it raw. If I had to make a choice between grading companies I would go with PSA and have it slabbed as a House - Yellow Tiger since that distinction over the gray back is more subjective. The gray back "yellow tiger" can't have any red on the tongue or anywhere else on the tiger, as you know and should not have a green tint on the neck. The cream back House - yellow tiger with green tint on the neck seems to be more commonly found, than without the green tint. The gray back House, yellow tiger appears to be found only without the green tint on neck - but so few exist I am not positive.

However, the standards for grading a House with yellow tiger have not been consistently applied at PSA. I have seen some House - yellow tiger cards with slight shades of red on the tongue.

Nice card Billy. Wish I had one.

Hi Mike!

I can always hope for registry purposes PSA realizes this should be added to the Super set.

Au contraire monfreir...the Absence of red on the tongue is WHY the neck appears green! if you look under a loupe, you will see the dot pattern is missing the red ink around the tiger and then up towards the neck.

The house SOLID yellow No green is an error, as it was printed this way on the sheet

The house WITH green is a variation, print defect, or man made error as ( I believe) the red was deliberately removed to match the other Tiger on the sheet. It would have been a slow process of stoning off the red mask, and this is why, over the print run, the tiger has less and less red with some (I will call it bleeding) onto his throat.

Since (IMO) the gray backs were printed first, we only have either solid yellow or perfect red. Somewhere along the lines, they decided to try and match the tigers, and it would have been too difficult to just add the red to the yellow tiger, so they starting removing the red from the other one on the sheet.

If you look at the two versions under a loupe the card with no green throat still has the red dot pattern, but the green throat version is missing the red "pixels" for lack of a better term.

I hope that early AM rant is coherent...enough

Can you imagine what the folks who produced the Topps 1952 set would think about the discussion in this thread ( or in any of the variant/variations threads) :)

Billy's card shown above (gray back House with yellow tiger) does not have the green neck tint. So gray back House cards with yellow tigers appear to exist in both cream and gray back....

Correct, but no partial red aka green throat on the gray back...ever...as of yet

As Al-R said, another mystery.