One was $5g's the other $500. Why?

[irv]

Just noticed these saved in my watch list and was wondering why there was such a huge price difference?
Both are PSA 7's and both backs looked the same, or very clean like the fronts.

Guess which one, (only if you don't know already) which one was $5000.00 and which one was $553.00.

I'm confused.

[rsdill2]

The $5k one was a gray back. Cards 131-180 are almost always cream backs but are also available in gray backs. There's lots of posts in this forum about the gray backs if you're curious.

[swarmee]

Just from viewing the front images, I would have gone with the right card, as it has almost perfect centering. But that wouldn't account for a 10:1 price difference.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by irv

Just noticed these saved in my watch list and was wondering why there was such a huge price difference?
Both are PSA 7's and both backs looked the same, or very clean like the fronts.

Guess which one, (only if you don't know already) which one was $5000.00 and which one was $553.00.

I'm confused.

If you are going to ask this type of question you can't ignore the backs and just say they look clean, because that is where the answer was found.

Originally Posted by rsdill2

The $5k one was a gray back. Cards 131-180 are almost always cream backs but are also available in gray backs. There's lots of posts in this forum about the gray backs if you're curious.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Is it my eyes, or is there surface wear on the back of the WB copy? If so, definitely not "clean" or expected on anything 3.5 or more.

[Republicaninmass]

Glossy front gray back, highest graded, wrong label

[swarmee]

Looks like paper loss or print loss, but maybe it's sticker residue on the slab?

[Bestdj777]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

If you are going to ask this type of question you can't ignore the backs and just say they look clean, because that is where the answer was found.

In Irv's defense, he likely didn't realize there were different color backs as that wasn't listed on the flip and there really isn't a huge color difference on the 52s like there are on other issues....

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Looks like paper loss or print loss, but maybe it's sticker residue on the slab?

Looks like a factory print defect to me, missing ink. Hard to tell from scan for sure.

[swarmee]

http://www.psacard.com/pop/baseball-...52/topps/49722

Cream backs or unknown*: 894 graded by PSA, 2 PSA 9s highest on pop report
Gray backs: 18 graded by PSA, 2 PSA 6s highest on pop report

So once this gets reholdered, it will be the highest graded gray back as mentioned above. That would account for the additional sales price. Gotta figure the consignor may not have known either, or he would have resubmitted to PSA beforehand.

*: This variation was added after they had graded at least a few hundred, and there could still be gray backs hidden among them.

[irv]

Originally Posted by rsdill2

The $5k one was a gray back. Cards 131-180 are almost always cream backs but are also available in gray backs. There's lots of posts in this forum about the gray backs if you're curious.

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

If you are going to ask this type of question you can't ignore the backs and just say they look clean, because that is where the answer was found.

Originally Posted by Bestdj777

In Irv's defense, he likely didn't realize there were different color backs as that wasn't listed on the flip and there really isn't a huge color difference on the 52s like there are on other issues....

Thread failure on my part!

Not reading the info that likely stated/talked about the grey back and just looking at the pictures, wasn't very smart of me.

In my defense/ignorance, I always believed the fronts also looked different or creamy/grey looking like the backs, but I guess that is not the case with all these grey backed cards?

I am going to have to have another look at my cards, more carefully, as most of my cards, even those outside the 131-180 numbers, look like that grey backed copy.

[irv]

Originally Posted by swarmee

http://www.psacard.com/pop/baseball-...52/topps/49722

Cream backs or unknown*: 894 graded by PSA, 2 PSA 9s highest on pop report
Gray backs: 18 graded by PSA, 2 PSA 6s highest on pop report

So once this gets reholdered, it will be the highest graded gray back as mentioned above. That would account for the additional sales price. Gotta figure the consignor may not have known either, or he would have resubmitted to PSA beforehand.

*: This variation was added after they had graded at least a few hundred, and there could still be gray backs hidden among them.

I agree.

Not seeing it mentioned on the flip like, Bestdj777 wrote, threw me for a loop. (Thanks Best! )

[Republicaninmass]

Very difficult card, and the big star in the gray back run.

And yes, that had the glossy front, not the grayish front, making it even tougher

And it's 131-190, not 180

[irv]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Very difficult card, and the big star in the gray back run.

And yes, that had the glossy front, not the grayish front, making it even tougher

And it's 131-190, not 180

Correct.

Thanks Ted.

"Description: This showcase contains cards from the 1952 Topps 3rd series (card numbers 131-190) that have Gray Backs. I am attempting to find variations of the Gray Backs that have the white borders."