1952 Topps complete set

[flkersn]

Bill---I have seen the partial black star but do not have one...missing link you think ?

I have heard there are gradations of the House...does this mean it is a printing defect rather than a variation ?

The partial black star may be a "missing link". But, I am not sure how that would work in the printing process.

I believe the House is a printing defect. It looks like the ink was gradually running out, until it disappeared altogether.

Bill

[SMPEP]

I forget who did it ... but someone on this board (? the main board?) posted a message about the partial black star. As I recall, the story was essentially, the black star was noticed, someone went to the printing plate and tried to remove it ... and in the first attempt they only partially removed it.

The partial black star was speculated to be rarer than the regular black star due to the printing production process ... but no one knows for sure.

As for the yellow tiger ... I disagree slightly with the comments to date. I think there are only three variations of the House. There is the regular house (which is very common), a fully yellow tiger (which is the rarest) and a yellow tiger with red tongue (which is pretty rare but not as rare as the full yellow tiger in my opinion).

Cheers,
Patrick

Ps - There are MANY differences that result from print registry errrors (and I think the Feller is only a print regsitry error - I have never seen anyone show me the same "error" card when I ask them what they have - frankly, I don't really believe it's an error - just the lines disappear a bit because the print registry is a bit offset top-to-bottom) and as mentioned above there are many cards that have a richer printing color. 225 Baumholtz is pretty plentiful (and obvious). Others are harder to spot.

[ALR-bishop]

Patrick---appreciate the feedback on the House. Do you think the yellow and yellow/red are variations or print deficiencies of varying degrees ? This is not meant to be argumentative, I collect both variations and interesting print defects.

I agree with you on the Feller...and still have not seen a really different Crandall.

I think Republicaninmass posted the partial balck star with his theory on it's relationship to the full black star

[SMPEP]

Hi Al,

My opinion is that the House yellow and yellow/red are both variations. I have seen numerous of both ... and in my opinion ... if there are mutlipe copies of the same exact variation it is legit. If the cards does not have a repeating error I deem those print flaws. (and I collect both too.)

On the Crandall, I think the variation is hard to spot ... but in my opinion it is real (I have one that I consider the variation). Rather than red and orange backgrounds though (the variation there is somewhat subtle in my opinion - although when you hold the two cards next to each other you can see some difference) what I think is more pronounced is the difference in Crandall's face.

Cheers,
Patrick

[ALR-bishop]

Everyone has their own definition of a variation as opposed to a print defect, and in my view no one is wrong or right. I tend to view variations as changes intentionally made to a card, for example the 59 Spahn DOBs or the 59 Trade/Option cards. But I would also include the 52 Mantle, Thompson and Robinson, because while the differences may not have been specifically planned, they were intentionally double printed and that was where the differences originated.

I have the 58 Herrer, the 57 Bakep and the 52 Campos card "variations" but view them all really as recurring print defects. They got early hobby recognition, but even more dramatic recurring print defects exist in virtually every Topps set.

I think the Schieb and Woodling border breaks are just recurring unintentional print defects. Border breaks are abundant in every Topps set.

The House is less clear to me. I currently think of them ( say 3 different) as a transitional print defect, but it is a gray area for me. They are definitely different, but every recurring print defect is as well.

PSA recently recognized a 1961 Ron Fairly with an errant green smudge in the bottom of the baseball on the back as a variation and added it to the PSA master 1961 checklist. I was amazed. I have it, but think it is a minor, uninteresting defect, yet the prices for it have shy rocketed.

The prices for the House, Scheib and Woodling have all gone up since the SCD articles, while some of the other variants in the 52 set mentioned here have as yet no hobby recognition or additional value.

With Bob Lemke retired I guess the PSA registry list becomes the surest way to garner hobby interest, although SCD articles still have some impact.

The value is not what drives me. It is only a hobby for me. I like the pursuit of new finds that folks in places like this point out. And I now have some new variants to search out

[toppcat]

So has anyone ever checked the low number double prints to see if the stitches go both ways on those?

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by toppcat

So has anyone ever checked the low number double prints to see if the stitches go both ways on those?

I have, and on all of mine, the stitches go the same direction on all variations of a given card number.

Doug