Has anyone here tackled the 1952 Topps set?

[ALR-bishop]

Originally Posted by Doug

The PSA list doesn't even have the six cards listed above or the Mantle, Robinson, and Thomson double prints with the stitching reversed so adding them would bring the total to 554. They also don't list the "Herrer", "Bakep", or Campos (missing border) variations/printing errors that have been mentioned in the last post which would now give us 557 and counting? Also did anyone figure out what the other possible "black star" card is?

Sorry...the Herrer is 58 and Bakep is 57. They were just examples of printing defects treated like a variation. I do have the extra Campos, but it is clearly a print defect, although not an isolated one since I have seen it 3 times now. Not sure about the Mantle, Thompson and Robinson-- print defect or variation ?---and why is the stiching on the ball on the back reversed on those 3 ? There are actually noticeable and documented front differences on the 2 different Mantles, which I have, but I would guess they will never add a second Mantle to the Master set list given the cost involved, and, if not, the Thompson and Robinson will not likely be added either.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by ALR

There are actually noticeable and documented front differences on the 2 different Mantles, which I have, but I would guess they will never add a second Mmantle to the Master set list given the cost involved, and if not, the Thompson and Robinson will not likely be added either.

I wonder if that is why the Super Set designation was given. I'm not a registry guy so that's just a WAG as I don't recall that type of designation before. As for the 545 in that set, I am not really sure Al-there doesn't seem to be master # for each and my take on the 500 card Master set is that it doesn't not have the gray backs, but then the 545 figure seems too low a there a 60 gray backs.

Too bad Dick Gilkeson isn't here!

[Doug]

I'm not a registry guy either so I don't get all of this master set/super set stuff. I would just call cards 1-407 the set and leave it at that. All of these variations/print errors would just be just that IMO as opposed to being part of some kind of invented "super set".

[ALR-bishop]

Doug---I think a lot of people feel just as you do. But, for example, what about the 1962 set in which there are 4 different cards numbered 137: two completely different poses of Reniff ( potrait and pitching) and two variations of a Ruth pose. Admitedly that situation is rare ( although it happens a couple of other times in the same 62 set), but in the 59 set Topps made deliberate changes to about a half dozen cards in latter print runs, and that is true in a number of other sets as well. Even if you exclude print error variations, what do you do about intentional Topps changes ? And then where is line drawn on what is a "variation" and what is a "print defect". It is beyond me. But I do like collectiong proofs, errors and variations anyway

[Doug]

Well if they are intentionally different cards, even with the same number, I would say they should count. I guess it's all a matter of personal opinion. For example, if I were putting together a T206 set I would consider the Demmitt and O'hara St. Louis/New York cards separate because they were intentionally updated to reflect the new teams as opposed to cards like the Magie and Doyle, NY Natl cards that were print errors and later corrected. At least the only real rule about collecting is to collect what you like, so if you like what you are doing, you are all good!

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Doug

Well if they are intentionally different cards, even with the same number, I would say they should count. I guess it's all a matter of personal opinion. For example, if I were putting together a T206 set I would consider the Demmitt and O'hara St. Louis/New York cards separate because they were intentionally updated to reflect the new teams as opposed to cards like the Magie and Doyle, NY Natl cards that were print errors and later corrected. At least the only real rule about collecting is to collect what you like, so if you like what you are doing, you are all good!

There is some anectodal evidence the 62 Green Tints were composed and printed separately, so they would fit the criteria of intentional. I like the idea of uninetnional vs intentional to determine if part of a set!

[Doug]

Originally Posted by toppcat

There is some anecdotal evidence the 62 Green Tints were composed and printed separately, so they would fit the criteria of intentional. I like the idea of unintentional vs intentional to determine if part of a set!

Thanks, I figure if a card was intentionally created it was meant to be part of the set, otherwise it was just a printing error/variation and it was never originally intended to be included. I guess some people just like an even bigger challenge and there's no "wrong" way to collect!

[ALR-bishop]

Only trouble is trying to determine when it is intentional. For example, Levi thinks the Campos black star was a correction of an error and not a print defect. Who knows. I agree with you on the 62 greenies. The pose differences occurred as I understand it when they changed their contracted printer after the poor quality of the run that had the green tints. At least that is what "I heard" . In any event i have all of them too just to be sure