1952 Topps House yellow tiger

[ALR-bishop]

I am not a graded guy, but if Ted is right that it will eventually be added to the registry I think it would after that go for more than $ 500.

So Ted, if it really does exist in gray back as seemingly indicated in a prior thread, do you think that would be separately listed

[SMPEP]

It absolutely exists in the grey back variation. There are at least 3 known to exist.

But the partial yellow tiger is not known in the grey backs - at least not yet.

As for the value ... many have sold lately in the $900-$1,200 lately. (I think that's high ... there are definitely a few others that I think are more valuable.)

Cheers,
Patrick

[Brianruns10]

Thanks all. I feel confident this variety will be recognized, and I find it to be more interested of a variety than the Campos black star. I think it has real potential for the future, so I may give this one a shot.

Thanks all!

[Republicaninmass]

Al, I can prove that the yellow tiger is caused by some sort of masking error and the red ink. Would that make it qualify as an error, or variation? The red is absent from the yellow tiger, and make the appearance of his throat green on some cards, but the red tiger logo on his cap is still present. Also, some yellow tigers have a spot of red on the tongue, I'm guessing before the mask covered the tiger and throat entirely during the red ink process.

IMO it is only a matter of time before PSA recognizes this as prices are dictating there is two distinct cards. Where partial yellow, red tongue and the rest lie pricing wise, will be up to collectors.

I think this is as rare, and a much more interesting variation than the Campos as well as being clearly visible on the front of the card. I assume the number of the print run are close to the same, or slightly less for the House.



When the yellow tiger is listed with PSA, I don't believe they will add the Yellow gray back. There simply cannot be enough examples to prove the case for addition to the registry. However die hard collectors will regret not bidding higher when the last one came for sale on ebay. I decided against going after it as one of my comrades set a nuclear bid, and sometimes it isnt "right" to outbid certain someones. Morals, amazing I know!

As far as pricing, once it is added, it should be close to where the campos has settled, maybe with an initial spike. Many collectors have been scooping them up, but registry guys will always need the card for their "supersets", either raw or graded (Al)




Here is a close up of the splotchy red, on an orange tiger, most likely just before whatever happened... happened.



Here is an example of a lower grade one where the throat is green, more likely in the 500 range. Every once in a while one comes up on ebay and the biddig is strong, but if it isnt mentioned in the title, once in a while a deal can be had in the 300 range.

[SMPEP]

I agree that the last House Yellow Tiger grey back went too cheaply. Way too cheaply. There are 3 known to exist. There are 2,000 Mantles known to exist. Some day I think the market will recognize that the grey back yellow tiger is the holy grail in this set.

Not sure how PSA can deny that it exists. If you recognize the mainstream one, and you know that 3 of the 25 known grey back House's have the same variety, I'm not sure how you can recognize one and not the other. But that's just my opinion.

Wait ... you knew someone set a nuclear bid ... and you didn't bid them through the roof! I thought you were a card collector! You know that isn't done.

Cheers,
Patrick

[ALR-bishop]

Sometimes folks seem to get offended in this debate. But as far as I know there is no recognized hobby definition of a variation, and so from my standpoint everyone is entitled to their own view. I personally view variations as cards changed intentionally in the printing process. I stretch that to include DP variants like the 52 Mantle, since while the differences were not specifically intended, it was intended the card would be a DP and that resulted in the difference. Same for all the CL differences in all of the 60s and 70s sets, and for the 13 DP card cropping differences in the 1963 set discussed by George Vrechek in his SCD article

I use the term variant for cards that are different from their counterparts due to some recurring unintended print defect.

I collect both, and some cards that I think of as variants get hobby recognition as a variation, such a s the 58 Herrer and 57 Bakep and 61 Fairly. Obviously if the card gets recognized by PSA or Beckett or SCD as a variation, master set or player collectors will have to have it and the value will soar

Some folks have told me they think the Campos black star is a variation. I tend to view it as a variant, since there are some partial black stars. But what matters more is how the hobby views it

I like front more than back variations, and so agree with you that the House is more interesting than the black star. But if it ever gets recognized, I think the Campos missing front border, a print defect from my standpoint, will be harder to get and more valuable than the "normal" yellow House. If the gray back House gets recognized, that may be rarer still.

As to whether the House is a variation or print defect, I have heard it argued both ways but people who know more than me about the print process have told me they think it qualifies as a variation. Whatever it is, if PSA, Beckett or SCD recognizes it, that is that

I am mystified by the recognition process, is it a science or a whim...I lean to the latter

I have come to really believe that if you take any Topps card from the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and early 90s ( as far as I have looked so far), and you look long enough and hard enough, you will find some variant ( difference) resulting from some fault or defect during the printing process

[Brianruns10]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

But as far as I know there is no recognized hobby definition of a variation, and so from my standpoint everyone is entitled to their own view.

For what it's worth, to me a variant or variation comes down to one thing: Repetition. If it only occurs once, or each occurrence is unique in its own way (like a missing dye layer or mis-registration or a miscut) then it is an error. But if the occurrence is reproducible, like the black star or the yellow tiger, then it is a variant or variation. Same goes for transitions as well.

I used to collect coins, and in the Lincoln series there was a similarly controversial issue: The 1922 Plain cent. In that year only the Denver mint issued cents, and so they were dated 1922-D. But a few coins turned up with the D missing. Turned out the dies made to create the coins were overused to make up for the lack of production from the other two mints, and the D was worn away, as proven by coins that also emerged with partial Ds. Then to further muddy the waters, the no-D cents had two reverses, one that was very weak and worn and one that was crisp and brand new, evidence that late in the run a worker swapped out the old reverse die for a fresh one, but did not bother for the Obverse. So you wind up with four distinct variations for the 1922-D.

And so while even though this cent was created in error (as was the black star and the yellow tiger) it was nevertheless reproducible, and with a definite set of characteristics that they all shared. The prices reflected the desirability of the stages . The partial Ds go for hardly any more than a normal example, because they are transitional. The No-D weak reverse, slightly more, but again, it is seen as a transition. But the final stage, with no D and the strong reverse, is highly prized as a variation in the set, because it was now distinct.

So what we might see shake out with the Yellow tiger are similar prices being fetched for transitional copies that have partial red/orange on the tiger, and then the final ones that are absent any yellow.