1952 Topps -- Card Gallery

[smellthegum]

Here's my #17 Jim Hegan red back to kick things off on Friday

[LincolnVT]

My copy. Happy Friday.

[BradW]

Ive been patiently waiting for this thread to reach the first card I have. I just started the 1952 set in November. Have only gotten 35 so far - it's a long term journey. Thank you to everyone else for showing yours off, I've really enjoyed this thread so far.

[irv]

Originally Posted by BradW

Ive been patiently waiting for this thread to reach the first card I have. I just started the 1952 set in November. Have only gotten 35 so far - it's a long term journey. Thank you to everyone else for showing yours off, I've really enjoyed this thread so far.

Good luck with your journey, Brad. It's a great set to collect, imo.
Enjoy.

My Mr. Hegan.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by BradW

Ive been patiently waiting for this thread to reach the first card I have. I just started the 1952 set in November. Have only gotten 35 so far - it's a long term journey. Thank you to everyone else for showing yours off, I've really enjoyed this thread so far.

Good luck on the set. There are often people listing cards from it on the board so you may be able to pick up some that way.

[LincolnVT]

My Combs.

[bobsbbcards]

[jayshum]

I'm beginning to think that Bob's set may be a little nicer than mine, but that's ok.

[smellthegum]

My #18

[BradW]

Two in a row for me.

[irv]

Originally Posted by jayshum

I'm beginning to think that Bob's set may be a little nicer than mine, but that's ok.

I'm thinking the same.

Here's mine.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by irv

I'm thinking the same.

Here's mine.

It looks like most of your set is also nicer than mine, but I already knew that. I'm perfectly happy with what I have since if I spent more on my 52 Topps, I wouldn't have been able to buy some of the other cards in my collection.

[LincolnVT]

Having a complete 52 set in any numeric grade is a huge accomplishment in my opinion.

Originally Posted by jayshum

It looks like most of your set is also nicer than mine, but I already knew that. I'm perfectly happy with what I have since if I spent more on my 52 Topps, I wouldn't have been able to buy some of the other cards in my collection.

[irv]

Originally Posted by jayshum

It looks like most of your set is also nicer than mine, but I already knew that. I'm perfectly happy with what I have since if I spent more on my 52 Topps, I wouldn't have been able to buy some of the other cards in my collection.

Don't forget, (if you knew?) I was given 148 Topps cards to begin with, including my Mantle, Mays and Robinson, so it's not like I began from scratch. I definitely had an advantage over others as I had some equity/value built up before I even began on my own.

Based on the cards I collected outside of those 148, I tried to collect cards that fit the condition of those the best I could. Some are nicer, some are worse, but most are around the 2-4 range with a few 5's here and there thrown in.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by irv

Don't forget, (if you knew?) I was given 148 Topps cards to begin with, including my Mantle, Mays and Robinson, so it's not like I began from scratch. I definitely had an advantage over others as I had some equity/value built up before I even began on my own.

Based on the cards I collected outside of those 148, I tried to collect cards that fit the condition of those the best I could. Some are nicer, some are worse, but most are around the 2-4 range with a few 5's here and there thrown in.

I remember you telling me you got a decent size lot to start your set.

I don't think I have any regrets about any cards I have purchased. I have always looked for cards with decent eye appeal with certain criteria - no rips, pinholes, paper loss or writing (front or back), and no part of another card visible. Many of my cards have creases, corner wear, etc, but I always try to buy a card that I am happy with instead of buying to fill a hole and then planning to upgrade later. That never seems to work out well so once I buy something, I'm usually planning on keeping it.

Lately, I have more regrets about cards I didn't buy because trying to buy them now is going to cost a lot more than it would have when I had the chance before.

[irv]

Originally Posted by jayshum

I remember you telling me you got a decent size lot to start your set.

I don't think I have any regrets about any cards I have purchased. I have always looked for cards with decent eye appeal with certain criteria - no rips, pinholes, paper loss or writing (front or back), and no part of another card visible. Many of my cards have creases, corner wear, etc, but I always try to buy a card that I am happy with instead of buying to fill a hole and then planning to upgrade later. That never seems to work out well so once I buy something, I'm usually planning on keeping it.

Lately, I have more regrets about cards I didn't buy because trying to buy them now is going to cost a lot more than it would have when I had the chance before.

Back in 16, when I began collecting again, I went at a feverish pace collecting as many 52's as I could so centering, etc, wasn't as important to me as it is now.
I regretted that decision not long ago as I wished I had of taken more time to be a bit more choosy, but at the same time, in retrospect, if I had of done that, I likely wouldn't be as far ahead as I currently am and it definitely would have been more expensive then and especially now.

I've upgraded a few cards here and there but for the most part, I have backed way off lately and have mainly focused on hockey cards. With the exchange rate, shipping, duty, etc, it just became too expensive to carry on doing that but I haven't given up entirely.
These are 2 new additions. The Irv Dusak card is one I thought I had but I must have gotten him confused with Erv Palica? My low number run is now officially officially done as I jumped the gun before thinking it was.
The regular Frank House card is also one I didn't have but I do own a Yellow Tiger copy.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by irv

Back in 16, when I began collecting again, I went at a feverish pace collecting as many 52's as I could so centering, etc, wasn't as important to me as it is now.
I regretted that decision not long ago as I wished I had of taken more time to be a bit more choosy, but at the same time, in retrospect, if I had of done that, I likely wouldn't be as far ahead as I currently am and it definitely would have been more expensive then and especially now.

I've upgraded a few cards here and there but for the most part, I have backed way off lately and have mainly focused on hockey cards. With the exchange rate, shipping, duty, etc, it just became too expensive to carry on doing that but I haven't given up entirely.
These are 2 new additions. The Irv Dusak card is one I thought I had but I must have gotten him confused with Erv Palica? My low number run is now officially officially done as I jumped the gun before thinking it was.
The regular Frank House card is also one I didn't have but I do own a Yellow Tiger copy.

Congrats on finishing the low numbers again.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by irv

I've upgraded a few cards here and there but for the most part, I have backed way off lately and have mainly focused on hockey cards. With the exchange rate, shipping, duty, etc, it just became too expensive to carry on doing that but I haven't given up entirely.

Maybe we can set up a "vault" for you in the US to ship your cards to instead of shipping them to Canada. Then you can stop by and pick them up the next time you are in the country, assuming they ever re-open the borders.

[LincolnVT]

Nice card.

Originally Posted by BradW

Two in a row for me.

[irv]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Maybe we can set up a "vault" for you in the US to ship your cards to instead of shipping them to Canada. Then you can stop by and pick them up the next time you are in the country, assuming they ever re-open the borders.

That is something I likely should have done a few years ago. I was told that by more than a few members here but I never did follow through. The closest border to me is a 2 hour drive one way so its not exactly, imo, a much better option.

Here's my Johnny Bucha. A card that I've definitely thought of upgrading for a while now.

[jayshum]

Looks like I'm going first second today with Bucha. I was first when I started creating the post.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by irv

That is something I likely should have done a few years ago. I was told that by more than a few members here but I never did follow through. The closest border to me is a 2 hour drive one way so its not exactly, imo, a much better option.

You mean someone had the idea before PWCC actually created one in Oregon to help avoid sales tax?

[irv]

Originally Posted by jayshum

you mean someone had the idea before pwcc actually created one in oregon to help avoid sales tax?

lol. :d

[LincolnVT]

My copy.

[smellthegum]

Here's mine

[ALR-bishop]

Because of the contract wars with Bowman the 52 set has many guys like Bucha who did not play in the majors in 52. He was up with the Cardinals in 48 and 50 and with Detroit in 53. It would be interesting to do a count sometime of how many of those pictured in the 52 set were not in the majors that year, or were there as coaches or managers. Maybe someone here knows

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Maybe someone here knows

Hi Al!


Bucha
Page
Rickert
Wellman

Off the top of my head

[tedzan]

TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[LincolnVT]

Great looking examples Ted! Here is my copy. I love how bold this card is.

[ALR-bishop]

A factoid about Loes. He is one of 5 players in the 52 set who does not appear in the 1983 Topps Reprint of the 52 set. The others are D Dimagio, S Rogovin, S Hemus and T Holmes. Presumably Topps was unable to get sufficient approval from the player or his family, or from it’s original contract to reuse the player’s likeness

[smellthegum]

My poorly centered BB Loes

[ALR-bishop]

In post 102 I provided a link to the checklist for what Huggins & Scott called the Topps 1952 Super Set of 579, which contains 29 cards more then the PSA Registry Master set of 550. Most of the additional cards they include are really just recurring print defects.

One involves the Loes card, which it says can be found in black back with a border irregularity in the lower left front border. I have not found one. If anyone here has one can they please post it. In looking for it I did come across this one, also a black back. This defect is scarce but does recur in different sizes

[LincolnVT]

Looks like the Black Backs posted above do have a border irregularity when compared to the red backs. Interesting.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

In post 102 I provided a link to the checklist for what Huggins & Scott called the Topps 1952 Super Set of 579, which contains 29 cards more then the PSA Registry Master set of 550. Most of the additional cards they include are really just recurring print defects.

One involves the Loes card, which it says can be found in black back with a border irregularity in the lower left front border. I have not found one. If anyone here has one can they please post it. In looking for it I did come across this one, also a black back. This defect is scarce but does recur in different sizes

It looks like the black border just under the left end of the box where his name is has a little bit missing compared to the same spot on the red back card. Is that the irregularity you are talking about or is it something else?

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

A factoid about Loes. He is one of 5 players in the 52 set who does not appear in the 1983 Topps Reprint of the 52 set. The others are D Dimagio, S Rogovin, S Hemus and T Holmes. Presumably Topps was unable to get sufficient approval from the player or his family, or from it’s original contract to reuse the player’s likeness

Hi Al! When I met Ralph Branca, we spoke about this. Apparently Branca was asked to talk to Loes about signing off. Loes was not in as good of a financial position as branca and was holding out for more money. Branca said " billy, they are paying just as much as they did the first time around, for the same thing". Loes never signed.

[ALR-bishop]

Jay, as usual I am not sure what I am talking about. The H&S checklist just says his BB can be found with a "frame break in lower left one third". I see what you are pointing out, but for there to be 3 versions of the Loes card as suggested by the H&S checklist the BB Loes has to also exist without that irregularity as well.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Jay, as usual I am not sure what I am talking about. The H&S checklist just says his BB can be found with a "frame break in lower left one third". I see what you are pointing out, but for there to be 3 versions of the Loes card as suggested by the H&S checklist the BB Loes has to also exist without that irregularity as well.

If so, then without is apparently the rarer version since all the cards posted so far are the same, as you indicated.

[ALR-bishop]

Agreed, if that is the "frame break in lower left one third" I was always looking in the lower part of the left border, but guess it could refer to bottom border, left 1/3 portion . Thanks for input

Edit---there are BBs on ebay without the defect, so think you nailed it. Thanks

[irv]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

A factoid about Loes. He is one of 5 players in the 52 set who does not appear in the 1983 Topps Reprint of the 52 set. The others are D Dimagio, S Rogovin, S Hemus and T Holmes. Presumably Topps was unable to get sufficient approval from the player or his family, or from it’s original contract to reuse the player’s likeness

Thanks for sharing, Al.
No, is likely the the answer, but were any players added to the reprint set that weren't in the original set?

Here is my Mr. Loes.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Agreed, if that is the "frame break in lower left one third" I was always looking in the lower part of the left border, but guess it could refer to bottom border, left 1/3 portion . Thanks for input

Edit---there are BBs on ebay without the defect, so think you nailed it. Thanks

Here's a picture of a Loes black back from an eBay listing (Greg Morris) with the border complete so looks like that is what the variation is talking about. For me, it's not worth chasing variations like this, but I know some people like to.

[ALR-bishop]

Agree with you Jay that such minor print defects are not of much interest to most collectors. Only if a minor print defect like the 58 Herrer, 57 Bakep, 61 Fairly, or 52 Campos black star get formal hobby recognition do they become popular with collectors or must haves for master set collectors

I was interested in the Loes because of it’s listing in the H&S set but not sure what it was. Now I know, thanks

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Agree with you Jay that such minor print defects are not of much interest to most collectors. Only if a minor print defect like the 58 Herrer, 57 Bakep, 61 Fairly, or 52 Campos black star get formal hobby recognition do they become popular with collectors or must haves for master set collectors

I was interested in the Loes because of it’s listing in the H&S set but not sure what it was. Now I know, thanks

Aside from seeing everyone's cards, it is things like this that have made the thread interesting since it is information about the 52 set that I was not previously aware of. I haven't looked at the rest of the H&S set list to see what else is on it, but maybe there is something that I would decide was different enough to want to look for.

[LincolnVT]

I've been thumbing through this each day that the thread has been going. Great book if you don't yet have it.

[ALR-bishop]

Ethan---that book is a great resource


Jay---I have most and will post as we go through them. Others likely will as well

[irv]

Originally Posted by LincolnVT

I've been thumbing through this each day that the thread has been going. Great book if you don't yet have it.

I just received a copy a couple weeks ago from a CDN seller, thankfully, as I was unable to receive a copy when it first came out from the sellers.

I agree, great book.

[LincolnVT]

Just wish my cards were as nice as the ones in the book! 😊

[jayshum]

I just ordered myself a copy of the book. There were also books about the T206 set and the 1914 and 1915 Cracker Jack sets by the same author so I bought them as well. I don't own any cards from those sets, but maybe some day...

[bobsbbcards]

[LincolnVT]

Beautiful Bob!

Originally Posted by bobsbbcards

[LincolnVT]

My copy.