Need Information on a 1952 Topps Frank House "Yellow' Tigers Logo Variation Card
 

I was on eBay today and came across this: http://www.ebay.com/itm/290703339823...84.m1423.l2649

I bought the same card a few weeks ago at a show, but obviously neither I nor the dealer knew it was a variation card, I just paid the normal price for a 52 common. I checked the card today and compared it to other 52 Topps Tigers that I have and sure enough...the Frank House has the "Yellow" Tigers Logo.

The card has 4 sharp corners, no creases, and the centering is not too bad. I haven't decided to keep it or sell it yet, but I would really like to get an opinion of whether I should submit it to PSA or keep it Raw. I don't see the card getting less than a PSA 6 grade. Also I was wondering how rare this card is?

[IMG]<a href="http://s1148.photobucket.com/albums/o568/cardboard1717/?action=view&amp;current=FrankHouseYellowFront.jpg " target="_blank"><img src="http://i1148.photobucket.com/albums/o568/cardboard1717/FrankHouseYellowFront.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>[/IMG]
[IMG]<a href="http://s1148.photobucket.com/albums/o568/cardboard1717/?action=view&amp;current=FrankHouseYellowBack.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1148.photobucket.com/albums/o568/cardboard1717/FrankHouseYellowBack.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>[/IMG]

Looks fairly rare, based on a quick check of ebay.

It will never have any real value (like the 1958 Herrer) unless it were to get added to the catalog, which won't happen.

Different, but similar, is the 1958 blue background Aaron.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ght=blue+aaron

You should keep it.

But if you sell it, let us all know,
Doug

52 House
 

The 52 yellow lion House was discussed by Bob Lemke in an SCD article just before he retired. As I recall Bob tended to view it as a true variation rather than a printing defect based on the other colors on both versions of the card. After the article the prices for the yellow lion version shot up on ebay, with even poor specimens going for a substantial premium over the regular card. I think as a result of the article a nice specimen like this would draw interest, particularly if graded highly.

However, I am not sure whether based on the SCD article and resulting hobby recognition so far PSA or another grading company would label it as a variation since it is not in SCD's catalog. Not sure about Beckett. But if you can run the article down on the internet and submit it with the card maybe you can get them to do something.

But even if it is graded as a regular House card with a high grade, it will draw interest among those familiar with it, especially master set types who speculate it will eventually get wider hobby recognition. I'm glad I have mine already just in case

And Doug you need to get one too and quite worrying about that blue Aaron

By the way, in a related SCD article Bob noted that versions of the 52 Woodling and Scheib cards could be found with border irregularities but he concluded that they were just print defects. Still those cards, which can be found more easily that the yellow lion House card on ebay, also began selling at a premium, although much less so than the House. And yes Doug, you need them too....you know you do

Thank you both for your insight.

Al, I saw your reply at the other site too. I will print the article and try to contact PSA before I submit. Someone else mentioned it could possibly be a Canadien Grey back? When I get more information I will let you know.

Gray Backs
 

Cards 131 to 190 in the 1952 set can be found with with cream or gray backs. The gray backs, sometimes referred to as Canadians as the possible point of distribution, are much more scarce and in themselves can bring a big premium for even common cards as they are highly sought after by master set collectors.

I have a gray back House, but the front is an orange lion. My yellow lion has a cream back. If your yellow is a gray back it may be a double bonus for you among collectors seeking both the front variant and also collecting gray backs

First of all, the logo is a tiger not a lion. Secondly it is not the yellow logo variation. Thirdly, it might be a gray back but can't really tell by a scan. I left a more detailed response on the pre war side where this thread was first posted. Aloha, Dave.

52 House
 

David---good info, thanks, and congrats on your discovery. Did you see the Lemke article on it. It is on his Blog. From what you know does the variation as you understand it appear only on white/cream back cards. If will have to check my yellow TIGER again ( apologies to Detroit fans, I am a Cardinals guy), which has a white back, to see if it meets your criteria. The Tiger is definitely yellow rather than orange and the card is not otherwise faded as I recall

It is hard to tell from the scan but the one here does appear to have a gray back, and if it is, in it's apparent condition, it may have more value in that category.

It would be odd if the yellow "variation" existed in both gray and white/cream backs since their origin ( grays v whites) seems to have been separate

There are several "variations" of this card. They run from the full color logo to the yellow/black logo. In between there are variations where the orange and red gradually disappear until all the is left is the yellow and black logo.

I would be surprised if there is a gray back version, since it would imply that the card stock was changed during the color depletion, or that the exact same depletion occurred during a separate run.

IMHO

52 House
 

I agree with you flkersn that it would be unlikely for the same defect to show up in what were likely different print runs, maybe by different printers since the fronts of the grays are also different from the regular cards. And, I think the original poster finally decided that his card is not a gray back

I'm pretty sure Topps only used one printer for the 52's-Lord Baltimore Printing, of Baltimore, MD.

Roger Neufeldt has/had both varieties at the Dallas Card Show this weekend. He showed me 3 copies of the "tougher" variety

Rich

I bought a full baseball subset of the Topps Push Pulls from Roger at one of the last decent shows in San Antonio years back. Great guy.

I am still not clear on how many versions of the House card are possible given the gray back version and different transition cards.

Dave was Lord Baltimore the same guy who helped track down Butch and The Kid ?

I'll go out on a limb here.

3 versions to make it easy

Partial red or no red with red "pixels" missing under loupe- cream

No red, no missing "pixels"-cream

No red, no missing "pixels"-gray

I think Lemke was wrong. In my opinion, the Woodling and Scheib (and many other errors) are A sheet versus B sheet issues. The cards were not changed by the printer ... they were just different to begin with on the two different sheets.

The House on the other had ... IS a variation ... but I think it's a printing variation versus an intentional change (like the page/sain). Over the course of the print run ... something happened and some of the cards (on either the A or B sheet - but not both) got messed up.

I categorize thing in these three basic catagories: A sheet/B sheet variations, Print variation, and intentional variation (like the 1979 Bump Wills for example).

Cheers,
Patrick

Patrick -- into which category foo you put the 52 Mantle, Thompson and Robison cards ? Into which category would you put the 62 green tint no pose difference cards ?

I tend to view variations, as opposed to recurring print defects , as differences in cards specifically intended by the manufacturer OR differences not specifically intended but specifically resulting from intentional decisions in the printing process itself, such as DPs.

I realize there is no hobby wide accepted definition, but I like your 3 categories

I will tell you way back in the day when I was still at Beckett I remember discussing the 1952 Mantle variations with Andy Broome. BGS had just received both versions and I think there was no issue they were two distinct variations.

I remember when we were discussing the 52 Mantles the nomenclature Ralph Nozaki (Rick O'Dell if you are a Chicago Radio fan) used was the best way to describe the 2 variations.

Having seen both versions of the card in person at the great Roger Neufeldt's table this weekend and the customer reactions -- I have no problem calling those Frank House card variations

Rich

There is no doubt the two Mantles are different but I doubt the differences were intentional. Still the decision to DP those cards was intentional and resulted in the differences. That differs from recurring print defects. However in some cases I think it impossible to tell if a print defect in an early run was discovered and intentionally corrected. It is a conundrum, but fun and interesting to me :)

I do kind of like Patrick's 3 categories

I think and who knows if my theorem is any better than yours that there was nothing deliberate about Mantle being a DP.

What I think is Topps intended the last series to be 100 cards. Look, every other series had a print run of 80, 50, 60, 60 and 60. 100 cards was a full sheet and would have fit in with what Topps was doing in 1952.

I would wager they ran into contractual issues with 3 people intended to be in the 52 set and thus just printed more of the 1st three cards. Of course, since the first 3 were all big name players, that could be the other option of let's get more of those into the young collector's hands.

Rich

I think we do not disagree Rich. I think your theory may be right. To me it does not matter how it came to be a DP, only that the printer ultimately made a decision ( intended) that the affected card would be a DP and that the 2nd version differs in some way from the first, intended to not.

I adopted that view, for myself, after reading George Vrechek's article in SCD on the 13 or so 1963 Topps DPs with various differences, and the fact at least 2 versions can be found of all the checklists in the 60s and early 70s set.

I am chiming in rather late here but I generally agree with Ted's position.

I have been looking at the mid-series print run for quite a while and I believe numerous cards were printed and slightly re-positioned on the sheet in successive stages. This led to the pattern noticed above.

My feeling is that there were several print runs for each series in the set. Some series in the set had the master sheets re-done to correct for various printing issues. I believe Topps had a timing issue with the mid-series cards and quickly produced this series. This led to a high proportion of miscuts as the spacing between a number of cards was consistently "off". Just a guess here as I stopped tracking this a while ago, but most of the miscuts in this set come from this series.

You can also see from the quarter panels (100 card series was printed in 4 - 50 card panels in an A & B sheet) card fronts/backs and spacing between cards are not consistent. However, you can tell somewhere along the line adjustments were made as the black borders rimming the pictures are different.

I believe the borders are different because the cards were "re-positioned" to make the spacing between cards more consistent to cut down on the miscut cards. I suspect, they cleaned up the borders of several cards at the same time. The most noticeable border change occurred in the #307 Campos card which has several variations.

Z

It's possible Topps had "A slits" and B' slits" in '52, i.e two 100 card half sheets making up a full master sheet. I've never seen proof of it but it would not surprise me.

Cutting of different print runs or portions of runs could have an effect on centering of the same number in a series.

The gray backs are a possible anomaly to what is admittedly an unproven theory. They seem very miscut even by Topps' loose standards, especially the backs.

Is the rare House variation available on both types of gray back (glossy and flat)?

I have seen three gray back/yellow logo Houses cards. All are gray/flat front, but it is a very small sample.

Bill