1952 Topps Collectors - new Duke Snider variation?
 

I spent nearly a year hunting for a Duke Snider for my collection, and in that time I noticed an interesting variation that kept turning up. I haven't found any mention of it in this forum, or anywhere else online, so I'm not sure it's been documented before. I'm not trying to pump and dump a card I'm hoarding, nor am I trying to make it into the next Campos or yellow tiger House, but I do think it's a legitimate variation that's worth discussing.

If you look at the bottom border there's a small white gap in the border. It's somewhat similar to the partial border Campos, albeit over a smaller space.
In my very unscientific observation of the card, it seems to appear approximately 1 in 10 cards, and I've only seen it on red back copies. Has anyone else noticed this before? Has anyone seen it on a black back version?

No but I'll check the COMC data base tomorrow and see how they look on scans

This one has been known for awhile. Only occurs on the red back, as far as I am aware.

It occurs only in the red backs. I believe we listed it in the 1952 variations thread.

There’s other similar border variants in the set for those that like the Snider. Scheib, Woodling, Coogan, Wilson, Holmes, Dorish, etc.

I obviously missed that in my searching. Thanks for tipping me off about the other examples. Does anyone know why/how the partial border Campos became a desired error, and the Snider/Scheib/Woodling/whoever is looked at as more or less an oddity?

Personal opinion - because the Campos also has a popular rare variant with the star on back. When something crops up on a card already hobby known for a variation, it gets more traction then when it's on a 'normal' card. The Campos is also more pronounced; it's missing the black in a larger area then the small indents in frames on other cards in the set.

There are quite a few variations associated with the Campos variation. Campos occured near the end of the production run. It appears as if Topps was in a hurry, damaged the masking. It is one of the more noticeable variations that happens to coincide with the red star black star variation. Both are difficult are considered scarce and gnerally most set collector's don't consider the set complete without these variations. Here is a link to the variations thread.

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=333532

I am an ungraded collector but if you had both Sniders , or all 3/4 Campos or 2/3 of the 58 Herrera, or both of the 57 Bakers, and the cards were all identical in condition, should defects like these affect the grade ? And if the variation(s) has not been formally recognized in the hobby like the majority of those in the never ending Variants thread would that matter ? Or do manufacturer defects ever affect grading, and if so when/why ?

Usually, a defect like this has no impact on the grade at all, like the 7 NM in the op. Frankly, I think PSA/SGC does not even notice most of this stuff when they supposedly apply their expertise to authenticate and grade items.

Limited manufacturing defects affect grading like a miscut/centering.

Two ex or better 1952 topps I had graded recently came back psa 3s. My guess , they would have been psa 5pd, but now they say psa 3

Great looking Duke, Sean. :)

In my personal experience with cards with print defects that PSA doesn't have a special label for they are all over the place. On the same card I have had them grade it like a normal card and give it a print defect(PD) qualifier. Yes I use the Please Submit Again philosophy on occasion.:)

Now with print defect they label as an variation I have got it graded like a normal card, got the (PD) for the error on the card, and then finally labeled correctly.

Thank you! I'm really happy with it.

PSA had told me that to grade a 'variation' there had to be 2 articles published about a card and they did not consider variations that were not intended (my interpretation). Not sure what that means as they now grade the Yellow House variation, do not grade the Campos Top Border variation and will grade the red star black star variation.

The skeptics would say it is so they can make money at a later date when they start to accept the major variations, so they can get additional grading fees.:D

A day later than I planned but I started looking at the 52 Topps Sniders with the COMC images.

As we keep learning things (or getting them brought to our attention) or seeing things, this is in line with some of the 1973 Topps printing issues we do list with gaps in the borders.

So I'll find what we have and create the new listings

A significant percent of all the cards we've received have that gap in the border. I don't think it's that rare but it's certainly just another challenge to the master set.

Rich

Way back in the day PSA would ask us at Beckett about some variations and would only use the determination if we called it a variation. Today what would quialify as 2 articles. We have things such if it reappeared as the Dingman E&V clist and your current project. To me that would qualify as 2 sources which might be a better way for PSA to add a new listing

Remember in their earlier years they just used T206 but especially after this board started saying, hey do something about the backs, they want to adding the back information to the T206 nomenclature

And I'm probably setting a record for consecutive posts in any thread but if anyone wants to guide me as to whom in 52s to separate with those Gaps, I'll break them all out for COMC

Rich

Hey Rich,

Yes I've emailed PSA numerous times about variations and getting changes to the 1952 Topps Master List registry. They do not consider N54 to be a legit published source of info. However, they do consider their own blogs as a legit source. It is just difficult to get variations recognized.

The N54 1952 Topps Rolling Variations thread does not officially state what constitutes a variation - just that certain anomalies from the standard printing exist.

On another note, I have never seen a red stripe variation, but the old timers recognize a variation if 10 or more exist. The red strip variations at one time were collected. And I am not sure I have ever seen a red strip variation - but they are out there

Someone should be appointed or elected to officially define a variation.
:):):):)
And should we be upset that Net 54 is not a legitimate source of reliable
published information ? What can we do to turn this around ?

I personally think the 61 Ron Fairly with a green smudge in the baseball on the back of the card recognized as a variant by PSA should be the hobby standard. If we could just define it. :)

I propose we define a variation as a card I have acquired all the different copies of. An unofficial variant is a card I have not yet acquired all the versions of, and nobody should care about them :)

Frank house has a variation and a ln error!


If you think the psa registry has a ways to go. Glance at the weights for the signed set.


They just copies the weights from the set. No regard for when the players died, signing habits, population...etc


Good grief

The only way around the "not viewing N54" as a legit source of information which PSA recognizes - is for someone to publish an article based upon our collective findings. As Ted has suggested previously, if enough people contact PSA about a variation, we have a better chance of it being included (in the old days) - maybe not now.

A print error variation, imho, should be a subest of the overall Variation category. A Variation "should" include variations in printing or design, intentional or not, that occurs more than a set # of times. A variation that we can find 10 copies of seems to be a reasonable dividing line between a common variation and the ridiculous occurences Al-R was referring to earlier where only 1 copy exists. Thoughts?

Consider this a proposal we can chime in and vote on......if other alternatives exist, please propose.

I collect any variants that are recurring and involve a difference from the regular issued card. Probably most of what I collect would pass the 10 rule, a few not. :):)
I tend to view a variation and a card intentionally changed by the manufacturer, but that would include intentional additions or subtractions from the card, clean up of printing errors, and DP differences. But it is virtually impossible to tell if a printing error was intentionally changed or just ran its course, so like most definitions it is often hard to apply.

And yes I know the hobby has haphazardly recognized many recurring unintentional print defects as variations. There are so many of them out there with 10 or more examples it would be hard to know where to start or how to
prioritize.. other than starting with the ones Greg has :-)

Thanks Al :)

and don't forget...
 

...the myriad of print defects within the gray backs subset.

Also, we best not let the Registry set collectors know that we are plotting to expand their checklists to include a bunch of weird variants

That surprises me considering what a premium that card commands and the fact the black star, on the back no less, does.

Yes, kind of surprising since it screws up the price tracking sites if you can't distinguish between the 2 cards. However, I guess..as Al-R has said numerous times, is how do we define a variation?

Even the Huggins & Scott auction listing the 579 card "Master Set" most would say was not complete. The old timers included 700 cards in their master set.

The Campos partial top border variation is probably the variation with the largest price difference between the 2 versions in the 1952 Topps set and at some point you have to wonder when PSA will start tracking it. The standards for classifying variations don't make a lot of sense to me.

I agree, Zach.

The standards for classifying variations don't make a lot of sense to me.[/QUOTE]

"If you ever reach total enlightenment on what constitutes a true variation while drinking a beer, I bet it makes the beer shoot out of your nose"....Jack Handey ( with a minor adjustment)

Barring the house yellow with gray back, I'd agree. Have only seen 3 in my years of collecting

Nope, that record is held by Archive, who just can't shut up sometimes. ;)

I think it would be cool if somebody does an error and variation and print defect rundown for each year. Start a thread with each year set and lists all for each year in order. That would make it 10 times eaiser for everybody to see each year in order

We are going to sue!

Didn’t open for me

This project headed by Mike Cady builds on the work of Nozaki, Gilkeson and others. Thomas here is a big contributor. Of course you have to convince Mike to list something but being on such a list might have weight with graders


http://baseballcardvariationsguidebo...wordpress.com/

Great link, Al. I've been looking for/asking about hockey card errors info for a while but I guess I was looking in the wrong places as most info seemed either difficult to find or many weren't willing to share it?

Thanks. :)