1955 Topps All-American SP'ing

[G1911]

As a fan of Topps' oversized colorized issues, the 55 classic is one of my favorite football sets. I'm 71/100 cards into it without much effort yet, about time to start picking up the big ones now and finish it off. As I'm down to ponying up actual cash now, I've started to dig deeper into why I'm paying more for SP's.

We know from other 50's Topps sets of this physical size in this period that a sheet held 220 cards, split into the A and B sides by a splitter on the press of 110 cards each. As far as I am aware, no full 200 (earlier years) or 220 (used in 1955) card sheet survives of any of Topps 'big sized' sets.

There is, thus, some degree of SP'ing in many of the sets of this period, as a issued series usually does not align evenly. However, this does not fit with the 1955 Topps Football checklist. 110 cards on each half, 11 rows of 10 cards once each on both the A and B sheets. This would produce 80 double prints and 20 triple prints over the course of the A and B sheets in a 100 card set (or, if Topps was really lazy, 90 double prints and 10 quadruple prints if they simply DP'd the same row on each half sheet).

As I understand the hobby history, it appears that cards 93-100 were the first ones accepted as Short Prints. The list now, taken from the Standard Catalog and I believe the one generally used by the hobby, designates these as SP's
8 Cafego
11 Dodd
15 Kaw
18 Heffelfinger
21 White
25 Myslinski
26 Kelly
28 Hein
29 Nomellini
35 Harmon
36 Edwards
41 Alexander
42 Tryon
51 Purvis
54 Dooley
55 Merritt
57 Hanson
61 Brickley
65 Donchess
66 Kinard
68 Four Horsemen
77 Wyatt
83 Coy
84 Parker
86 Booth
87 Schultz
93 Heston
94 Bernard
95 Cagle
96 Hollenback
97 Hutson
98 Feathers
99 Whitmire
100 Fats

This totals 34 cards and seems to me unlikely. However many short prints there are, even if Topps made things extra complicated and used two different sheet layouts creating 4 unique 110 card half sheets, the SP's, if they exist at all, must be in multiples of 10 (or 11, if I have it reversed and it is 11 rows of 10 each).

I suspect the evidence, if it exists, would show that there are 1 or 2 rows of extra prints, but no short printing (unless one wants to be pedantic and observe that, then, 80 or 90% of the set is technically "SP"'d). If things were more complicated, the count generally stated at present does not seem likely to be correct.

I have not found any verifiable facts to support the consensus conclusion, or to ascertain what the truth is. Does anyone have an image of an uncut sheet or partial sheet? Wild miscuts showing the adjacent card?

[CW]

I could not find any images of uncut sheets, but did find another collector's analysis of the sheet layout for this set (unless this is actually your site ). He was also skeptical about the number of SPs designated in this set.

https://www.footballcardgallery.com/..._All-American/

I casually collected this set years ago but never really questioned the checklist or SPs, but your analysis makes sense. Maybe another case in the hobby where something gets noted many years ago, sometimes in error, but it just sticks and people take it as gospel.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by CW

I could not find any images of uncut sheets, but did find another collector's analysis of the sheet layout for this set (unless this is actually your site ). He was also skeptical about the number of SPs designated in this set.

https://www.footballcardgallery.com/..._All-American/

I casually collected this set years ago but never really questioned the checklist or SPs, but your analysis makes sense. Maybe another case in the hobby where something gets noted many years ago, sometimes in error, but it just sticks and people take it as gospel.

Thank you! I should have known to check here; I've used the Gallery many times. I don't know the operator of this site, but whoever he is has done a great service to the hobby with it.

This uncut partial sheet panel would strongly suggest the SP's are indeed fictitious. If there is a SP row, the Hutson row would be most likely. The others mix alleged SP's and DP's together, which is of course is not really possible, as Topps never redesigned a row in any set and almost certainly did not here.

[jefferyepayne]

That is Mike Thomas's site and he knows this stuff cold! Would agree that the SP's in checklists are not correct.

jeff