1952 Topps House yellow tiger

[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.

[SMPEP]

I liked Brian's definition of what is a variation. I think it all comes back to the printing process. If the "mistake" was intentionall corrected ... then it's a variation. If the mistake is just a one time printing error ... well ... I collect those ... but don't go crazy for them.

And Al, I respectfully disagree that there is a variant of every card. I've studied some sets very closely. There are cards that have reoccuring errors that have been corrected ... there are cards that have no reoccuring errors. The 1952 Mantle is the perfect example. That is a reoccuring difference. Jut like the House in my opinion.

But like you said Al ... everyone can make their own definitions and collect what they like. And with that said ... will you all stop collecting 1952 Topp Grey Backs - especially the Reiser!

Cheers,
Patrick

[Brianruns10]

And.....I'm now the owner of a Frank House yellow tiger! Now lets just hope for my investment's sake that it hits that master list

[SMPEP]

No clue if it's a good investment or not ... but you paid $300-$400 less than what I've seen lately.

Congrats!
Patrick

[Republicaninmass]

Congrats!