1952 Topps -- Card Gallery

[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.