1955 Topps All-American SP'ing

[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