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

[SMPEP]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

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

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

[ALR-bishop]

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

[Rich Klein]

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

[ALR-bishop]

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

[Rich Klein]

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

[ALR-bishop]

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.