'52 Topps red vs. black backs

[cardsagain74]

For the '52 T experts out there:

Is there usually any difference in the cost/value of red vs. black backs? I've read that the black backs are tougher. But if it does affect things, I haven't really noticed

[Republicaninmass]

I've always thought the black backs were a little tougher, being the first release. That being said, I dont think there is enough demand from master set collectors to increase the prices for either. Sans the sain/page error in the black back series.

There does seem to be a few reds and a few different blacks which are tougher to find. I'm wondering of they changed the position or style of the sheet between the runs, making different cards short printed? It could be that the big bulk lots usually have most of the low numbers removed anyhow, skewing the data.

[ALR-bishop]

I agree with Ted. That was hard to say

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

I agree with Ted. That was hard to say

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut!

[cardsagain74]

Thanks for the input guys.

If you like, we can find something you disagree on and I'll get the popcorn

[Republicaninmass]

Just ask "error or variation"

Long standing "joke" among the, shall we say, more eccentric, 52 topps collectors

[irv]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

For the '52 T experts out there:

Is there usually any difference in the cost/value of red vs. black backs? I've read that the black backs are tougher. But if it does affect things, I haven't really noticed

There is obviously people with more experience than me when it comes to this question, but myself, personally, I've seen some black backs sell for, imo, quite a bit more than red backs occasionally.
Enos Slaughter, Warren Spahn, Al Zarilla, Marv Rickertt to name a few comes to mind and one of my recent pick ups in Dizzy Trout as well.

Not always the case, however, but it seems this way to me, and it has been going on, from what I've noticed, for quite some time now.
https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...s-black-backs/

[tedzan]

In my opinion, the red backs should warrant a higher value, as their fronts are a brighter image.
The black backs (which I collected when I was a teenager) are not as sharp and bright-looking as the red backs.
Actually, you can distinguish a red back from a black back 1952T card by just looking at its front. You do not have to flip it over.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[irv]

Originally Posted by tedzan

In my opinion, the red backs should warrant a higher value, as their fronts are a brighter image.
The black backs (which I collected when I was a teenager) are not as sharp and bright-looking as the red backs.
Actually, you can distinguish a red back from a black back 1952T card by just looking at its front. You do not have to flip it over.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

I agree with your assessment, Ted, but isn't part of the allure of black backs, the fact that they are slightly more hard to find/rare than red backs? Maybe that only applies to high end, graded 8+ type of cards?

Many articles have been written over the years about black backs and many stories here on Net54 so I am surprised by some of the responses in this thread about them.

I know when I joined the site back in 2016 and began collecting again, I didn't know anything about black backs either but through responses/info I gathered here and elsewhere, I began to take an interest in them in my quest to learn more.
Maybe things have changed with regards to them, and if so, I wasn't aware of that, but when I'm searching now to upgrade some of my lower, rougher looking cards in that series, the majority of the time I try to find the black back versions.
""Red backs are considered more common than the black backs. That makes the black back cards more valuable for the most part. Much like the rest of the 1952 Topps set, these cards were well ahead of their time. The red back and black back cards included players like Spahn, Gil Hodges, Duke Snider and Phil Rizzuto.Jun 9, 2014
https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...s-black-backs/

[cardsagain74]

Here are the latest graded Rizzuto sales:

PSA 5 $178 black

SGC 4 $62 red (mine)

PSA 3 $78 red

PSA 4.5 $160 red

PSA 1.5 $58 black

PSA 1 $30 red

BVG 4 $90 black

PSA 4 $96 red

SGC 4 $83 black

PSA 2.5 $60 red

PSA 5 $200 red

From that small sample size, there doesn't appear to be much of a difference in what people are paying for r/b. Maybe a very slight premium for black that's negligible at most

[irv]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

From that small sample size, there doesn't appear to be much of a difference in what people are paying for r/b. Maybe a very slight premium for black that's negligible at most

Maybe times have changed and the R/B cards are more equal now, I don't know?
Like in the 2 previous articles I posted above, which I didn't write, of course, this one also talks about the Blacks being more scare and worth slightly more than the reds. Keep in mind this was written in 97 so likely a lot that was written in it no longer holds true either?

https://www.psacard.com/articles/art...-ever-produced

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by irv

Maybe times have changed and the R/B cards are more equal now, I don't know?
Like in the 2 previous articles I posted above, which I didn't write, of course, this one also talks about the Blacks being more scare and worth slightly more than the reds. Keep in mind this was written in 97 so likely a lot that was written in it no longer holds true either?

https://www.psacard.com/articles/art...-ever-produced

Those articles are interesting. I wasn't trying to prove you wrong or right. Just trying to get to the bottom of the current marketplace for the different backs

A side note that's totally unrelated to this: when I was looking at the PSA pops for '52 Topps, I was very surprised to see that the high numbers have just as many graded cards as the rest of the set.

Regardless of any graded/ungraded or hoarding dynamics...with the rep that the high numbers have for being SO scarce, I would not have expected an equal number of slabbed ones to exist vs low numbers

[Republicaninmass]

This is solely because a high number in psa 1-3 is worth grading, where as commons are not.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

This is solely because a high number in psa 1-3 is worth grading, where as commons are not.

Yep that's the norm in general. But in this case, while there are a few more PSA 1 and 2 high numbers out there, it's just around 50 per card total of 1-2s (high numbers) vs about 10-20 total per card of low numbers. Everything grade 3 and above is the same.

PSA 1s and 2s are just 10% of the overall '52 T high # graded population and 3-4% of the graded low number population. That's such a small part of all the graded '52T in existence that I don't think it can pinpointed as the sole factor for any overall numbers.

Also, the higher graded pops are even more bizarre to me. At least with the lower grades, you can still delve into the whole "there seem to be many, many more ungraded beater low # commons out there vs the high numbers" side of it. But with how anything '52T that should get at least a 7 is likely to get graded (including the commons), how can there be just as many PSA 7 + first series cards as high numbers?

With how few low numbers exist in those grades, you'd think that similar grade high numbers would be that much more rare

[Republicaninmass]

Al rosen find of high numbers

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Al rosen find of high numbers

Ah. I hadn't thought of just how much that one find could skew the numbers, but tis true.