Ken Kendrick's 1952 Topps Baseball Set

[Peter_Spaeth]

The differences between the two Mantles are pretty significant in my opinion, although I don't have one as to the registry. There is no way those differences were not apparent from the beginning, particularly the line either present or missing in the box, but also the stars and the alignment of the back. The missing pixels, maybe not so much.

[brian1961]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There is no way those differences were not apparent from the beginning,

Then why did it take 28 years before the differences, and the fact the three were double-printed, become general knowledge to the hobby? I well remember reading about the occasion in 1980.

Tongue in cheek, perhaps those who finally put the knowledge into the spotlight of the hobby print media wanted to "want" until they had finally gotten both versions of the three.

If this is indeed true, I can well understand and relate to their hesitance. These men were collectors first and foremost, and hobby reporters second!

---Brian Powell

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't believe people didn't recognize the differences before 1980. They are quite noticeable. Maybe there was no formal differentiation, but that's not the same thing.

[ALR-bishop]

I think Chris is right, the cost involved works against those 3.

They are true variations in my mind, with front and back differences. They were not intentional or corrected errors, but did the result from the decision to double print them with resulting differences

And the differences are no less distinctive than the 58 Herer or 57 Bakep or the 52 Campos Black Star, or 61 Fairly green smudge, Brian, all of which PSA has recognized. You mentioned Campanella. There is a recurring print defect on some of his cards, as well as several others in that set ( Snider is another). But the Mantle, Thompson and Robinson differences are not print defects.

I am not a registry guy, just a set collector. I think SCD did list them, so I had to have them

[hangman62]

I think all minor print var/ slight color tint/missing dot kind of stuff is insane and a waste of money to buy

[ALR-bishop]

But if you pursue master sets, there is not much choice, other than choosing to use the venue that has the smallest list of them as your guidepost. I use SCD, Beckett and The Registry.

Then there are all those back color differences , the ones in the 52 and 54 sets being some of the toughest. Agree it is best to collect straight sets if that works for you

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Agree it is best to collect straight sets if that works for you

But that would be like a t206 "set" missing Wagner!


Since t206s aren't numbered I guess it doesn't matter

[ALR-bishop]

In post war I would liken missing the Wagner in the t206 set to missing the Roberts, Stankey and Konstanty cards in the Topps 1951 Current All Stars. Not variations but cards that exist in extremely low numbers as compared to other cards in the set,

You can complete a 52 set with one Mantle, Robinson and Thompson, but do you
need a Wagner to have a complete t206 set, and a Roberts, Konstanty and Stankey to have a complete 1951 Topps current All Star set ? Pretty sure my set will always be short those 3 of 11

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

But that would be like a t206 "set" missing Wagner!


Since t206s aren't numbered I guess it doesn't matter

No, it would be like collecting the t206 set without Magie and Doyle N.Y. Nat'l. Jefferson Burdick and others didn't consider both Magee's necessary for the set. Sweeney no b was removed from the checklist and other printing errors were never added. Complete sets are one of every player. Master sets are every variation or error.

[Volod]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't believe people didn't recognize the differences before 1980. They are quite noticeable. Maybe there was no formal differentiation, but that's not the same thing.

I have to think you're right about that. After all, what were '52 Topps Mantles selling for in the late '70's - early '80's - a couple hundred bucks in nice condition? Experienced dealers would have known about the variation, but not made a big deal of it, as do all today. Not sure, but I think the many card variations in other 1950's sets that are well known today were also familiar to veteran dealers and collectors in the past, but not considered important enough to write about - until relatively recently.

[hcv123]

Amazing what you can assemble when money is no object!

[robsbessette]

If this set went to auction, what do you think it would fetch?