1952 Topps Baseball - Perspectives

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

This makes me wonder if the same thing happened to the mid-series gray backs (#131-190) where you frequently see some cards, but rarely see others. You would think they were all printed in equal quantity - but that does not appear to be the case.

Per a previous thread, Post 42 makes the suggestion that the 3rd series sheet was 10x10 layout with #131-170 double-printed on the sheet, while #171-190 rows were single-printed.
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=128228

Looking at the 1952 Topps Pop Report, you would likely see lower average numbers of the cards graded in 171-190 (excepting the HOF/star cards). I would also expect to see a lower average grade for those cards, because people need any condition to complete the set, but will only send better conditioned cards for those are plentiful.

https://www.psacard.com/pop/baseball...52/topps/49722

What's with the #180 Charley Maxwell card? 940 or so graded, in nearly any condition. Just because he's a Red Sox player? Or was this considered a SP somewhere down the line which led to some mystique about the card?

Here's my counts by theoretical single-prints and double-prints.

131-170	Count	660.2	Grade	5.924067314	Stars:	House		

171-190	Count	604.55	Grade	5.798411596	Stars: 	Reiser	B Martin	Maxwell

Seems to be backed up by the numbers. Lower average count, lower average grade (although I left the stars in the averages). Billy Martin has 2 times the number of cards graded otherwise in the 171-190 range.

Even though if that sheet layout is correct, the cards in the middle rows of the sheet are the double-prints, giving them a better shot at being centered.

[G1911]

I have no idea why Maxwell is popular, he was the last card I got building the white series because he carries a premium. He does not appear to be any scarcer.

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Per a previous thread, Post 42 makes the suggestion that the 3rd series sheet was 10x10 layout with #131-170 double-printed on the sheet, while #171-190 rows were single-printed.

This could be but there are general trends within the presumed single and double prints. I have been searching for cards between 171-190 for quite a while. Five of these cards appear to show up frequently, while the others do not. The same general trend appears in cards #131-170. Some gray backs like Judson, Dubiel and Rojek are found frequently, while others are not seen as often. This makes me think there is something else affecting the pop counts as well.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

This could be but there are general trends within the presumed single and double prints. I have been searching for cards between 171-190 for quite a while. Five of these cards appear to show up frequently, while the others do not. The same general trend appears in cards #131-170. Some gray backs like Judson, Dubiel and Rojek are found frequently, while others are not seen as often. This makes me think there is something else affecting the pop counts as well.

It's weird because 189 gray is tough. But 190 is more plentiful. I know the 177 and 181 are also some of the lowest graded among the gray backs. I assume they didn't change the sheet set up.

Maybe it's 171-179 and 181-189?

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

It's weird because 189 gray is tough. But 190 is more plentiful. I know the 177 and 181 are also some of the lowest graded among the gray backs. I assume they didn't change the sheet set up.

Maybe it's 171-179 and 181-189?

And if you look at some of the known variations in the non-gray back mid-series, you don't find them in the gray backs. #181 Swift PP is but one example. So this implies there were several times they stopped and corrected imperfections.

Maybe they also changed the single & double prints.....

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

And if you look at some of the known variations in the non-gray back mid-series, you don't find them in the gray backs. #181 Swift PP is but one example. So this implies there were several times they stopped and corrected imperfections.



Maybe they also changed the single & double prints.....

Steveb could elaborate, but I think just fixing the small errors would be easier than retaking the whole sheet (photo?). That being said, I think they may have had to change the whole sheet to add the yellow on the pale yellow (no green throat) house card.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Steveb could elaborate, but I think just fixing the small errors would be easier than retaking the whole sheet (photo?). That being said, I think they may have had to change the whole sheet to add the yellow on the pale yellow (no green throat) house card.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

That seems to make sense. However, if each mid-series gray back were double and single printed in equal quantities, how do we explain the rarity of certain cards like the Reiser gray back? There are several others that are quite scarce as well.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

That seems to make sense. However, if each mid-series gray back were double and single printed in equal quantities, how do we explain the rarity of certain cards like the Reiser gray back? There are several others that are quite scarce as well.

OK OK..
From memory tough ones
131
140
171
180
181
189


I can't make heads or tails out of it!


Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Steveb could elaborate, but I think just fixing the small errors would be easier than retaking the whole sheet (photo?). That being said, I think they may have had to change the whole sheet to add the yellow on the pale yellow (no green throat) house card.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

It would depend on the error, and where in the process it hapened.

Errors on the original art would require reshooting at least one color to make a corrected mask.

Errors on the mask might be easily fixed, might not. Most are, but would require making a new plate for that color.

Errors that happened in platemaking would just require making a new plate. Or if it was super simple like a random spot it could just be stoned off the plate.


Most of the 1952 varieties seem like small stuff that slipped in while the plates were being made. It's fairly well known that they were done on 100 card sheets. What's not really known is if for say the first series 1-80 they did multiple sheets with different layouts, or if it was 80 plus 20 double prints.
The errors in that series are major, and probably from the mask being wrong, so they at least had to redo that for all four colors.

The gray backs are a 60 card series, so the simplest layout would be 60 plus 40 double prints, leaving 20 more difficult ones.
Unless they had a reason to play around with which ones were tougher, I can't see a reason to make new masks. That would be a fairly substantial expense.
Depending on timing, they probably made new plates, and errors that happen in that process would be different.

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by steve B

It would depend on the error, and where in the process it hapened.

Errors on the original art would require reshooting at least one color to make a corrected mask.

Errors on the mask might be easily fixed, might not. Most are, but would require making a new plate for that color.

Errors that happened in platemaking would just require making a new plate. Or if it was super simple like a random spot it could just be stoned off the plate.


Most of the 1952 varieties seem like small stuff that slipped in while the plates were being made. It's fairly well known that they were done on 100 card sheets. What's not really known is if for say the first series 1-80 they did multiple sheets with different layouts, or if it was 80 plus 20 double prints.
The errors in that series are major, and probably from the mask being wrong, so they at least had to redo that for all four colors.

The gray backs are a 60 card series, so the simplest layout would be 60 plus 40 double prints, leaving 20 more difficult ones.
Unless they had a reason to play around with which ones were tougher, I can't see a reason to make new masks. That would be a fairly substantial expense.
Depending on timing, they probably made new plates, and errors that happen in that process would be different.

Steve,

Do you have any insight into whether a job like pre-production salesmen's samples would be shopped out to a smaller printer or whether Topps would print these in-house? The reason I ask is that the '52 Topps salesmen samples appear to be printed on the same gray paper stock and appear to have the most common type of fronts as most gray backs (dull grayish/brown hue).

I have always thought that the reason for different paper types i.e gray backs was due to contracting out a portion of the printing to another source, due to higher than anticipated demand.