1972 T0PPS test set of 1953 reprints
 

I am curious as to how rare this set is. It's been reported that TOPPS issued only 300 sets in 1972.

If this is true, then these 8 cards probably rank high as one of the most scarcest post-WWII issues.

I'm wondering how many collectors on this forum have any (or all 8) of them ?

Here is my set of them....


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...nnyMize50x.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...nyMize50xb.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...Setx5cardx.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...eJRobbv59x.jpg


Hey guys....show us your cards.


TED Z
.

I have the set, and think I saw most if not all of a set on eBay recently ( offered as singles). I see them offered on eBay from time to time, not infrequently I think.

I still think there has to be more to the story behind this set where 3 of only 8 cards are mis identified. . The idea they had these 8 pictures but wanted to upgrade the set with better named players to market it on a test basis in Brooklyn hoping no one would notice seems far fetched .

Do we know of any other hobby publications that noted the issuance or release of the set ?

I've got a full set now, and at one point about 8 years ago had 3 sets.
Here's mine, I've upgraded the Newhouser shown but don't have a scan of the new one.

http://photos.imageevent.com/griffin...cons/Paige.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/griffin...inson2.psd.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/griffin...rillo1.tif.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/griffin...Rosen2.psd.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/griffin...er%202.psd.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/griffin...lough1.tif.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/griffin...owrey1.tif.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/griffin...0Mize1.psd.jpg

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img156.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img154.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img157.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...539/img157.jpg

I checked my run of Ballcard Collector and found these two:

http://i1089.photobucket.com/albums/...psvwfxpvvm.jpg
http://i1089.photobucket.com/albums/...psiezl9t6w.jpg

Good input again Howie.

When all the reports of this set clearly state they were issued in '72 how did they get to be known as a '73 set?

Scd
 

I assume because it originally was listed that way in the SCD Catalog.

On a lot of the offbeat Topps sets there has been ongoing debate about year of production, year of release, or whether they were released over a period of time.

I think this is a fascinating and mysterious set

I thought the last paragraph in the first photo Howie posted was interesting, about how age must be factored in to grading.

I'm also curious about Topps mislabeling three of the cards. If they were going to upgrade the players and hope no one would notice, I would think that they would choose a better player than Clyde McCullough.

that was my thought too- Paige and Robinson make sense, but Peanuts Lowrey? Clyde McCullough? So much of this set doesn't make any sense, they took a lot of time to design it and write up the backs, but then didn't bother getting 3 images right, and a totally random selection of players.

Howie, thanks for posting those articles.

1973
 

1973 may have made sense as a 20th anniversary tribute of some kind. Dave Hornish has speculated the annual Rookie Banquet and they did apparently have one that year, in fact every year starting in 1959 until at least 2004. Not sure after that.

And in a way, Vic Janowicz was better known than McCullough, albeit as a professional football player and former Heisman Trophy winner

And, if it was released even on a limited basis in 1973 it raises a similar question raised by the 1971 Greatest Moments, why not any wrappers, packs or boxes ( I realize a wrapper and box have surfaced for The Greatest Moments, but not enough to indicate a general or even limited retail release to me)

My pleasure to post the article/ad. As I had previously mentioned in the other thread, Bill Haber had these cards spread out on his table at the 1973 Spring ASCCA Show in NYC. There were no wrappers and I believe that was likely when these cards were first introduced to the hobby. The Card Collectors Company ads followed shortly thereafter.

Newbie question: what are you guys talking about with misidentified players? Are there backs that don't match the fronts or something?

The Player named on the front, and discussed on the back, doesn't always match-up with the player depicted. See Post 3 for PSA graded examples.

Rosen is really Fridley
McCullough is really Janowicz
Furlllo is really Antonello

It is not unusual to have a wrongly identified player or two in the older Topps base sets, but 3 of 8 must be the record

I think this set is cool. never had any idea it existed until reading this forum a while ago. The color seems to pop and has a sense of artistic expression. Kudos to those that picked these cards up. Very well done.

What surprises me is those three are correctly identified in the original 1953 set. There was one mistake in the original set (Pete Runnels' card features a portrait of Don Johnson).

I have the Furillo/Antonello only. Would have liked to add Jackie and maybe Paige, but never got around to it and now it will cost me dearly.

What doesn't surprise me about this mini-puzzle is that Furillo and McCullough were actually not on cards in the 1953 Topps set.:o
If we are speculating about the reason for the three misidentifications, how about: Topps lined up eight former players to make a public appearance in conjunction with the anniversary of the '53 set's publication, and assigned some flunky to find their cards in the set to use as ad material. That guy finally realized that Furillo and McCullough were not in the set and he could not, for some reason, come up with a Rosen card, so he simply substituted cards of other players in the same uniforms, hoping no one would notice. Slipshod indifference seems like a more plausible cause to me than a bumbling attempt to upgrade.:rolleyes:

No. of sets, and no. of cards
 

Right now, the set has a total PSA pop of 294 (across all 8 cards); if there were 300 sets, there would be 2400 total; not sure how that number of cards graded out of a total set run compares to other sets, but given its a scarce issue, my guess is 300 sets might be close.

Interesting populations

1973 Topps Reprints
Paige: pop 45
Robinson: pop 49


1953 Topps set
Paige: pop 2215
Robinson: pop 1743

Steve--- interesting theory. If only 300 were really made that would seem to be more consistent with use at an event than a test release. The event could have been the annual Rookie Banquet and or some kind of 20 year commemoration of the 53 set

Don't forget that the Card Collector's Company fire likely destroyed some of the 300 sets. Many Topps test sets became much scarcer after that terrible fire.

I had read in a hobby publication many years ago that a Topps exec made this set up for their sons birthday party...for what that's worth. :)

Mike-- makes as much sense as anything else. They invited 300 kids to the party, gave each a set, and whoever first identified the wrong players won a prize:). Or, Woody agreed to make the set for the party but attended a wine tasting party before he did the setup for the set

I guess the knee-slapping possibilities are endless. But, I can easily imagine any Topps exec in 1973 not being familiar with players in the 1953 set, so having to substitute other guys wearing the same uniform could have been the kind of face-saving, last-minute reach that would have made an amusing sitcom episode.

Very true Steve