1952 Topps #131-190 Gray Backs

[Doug]

Here's a SGC 80 Bob Rush labeled "1952 Topps Canadian" for what it's worth: http://cgi.ebay.com/1952-TOPPS-CANAD...-/380271655875 On the back it almost seems to have a glue stain, possibly from being glued to the bottom of a tissue box?

[tedzan]

I have have not seen any evidence to confirm that these cards are a "Canadian" issue. Sure, there are rumors to this effect, but where is
the proof ?

Just because Grading Co. label these cards as such, does not prove it is so.

For example, they label the 1949 LEAF BB cards as...."1948 Leaf". But, this has been proven to be an incorrect issue date for these cards.


TED Z

[Doug]

I wasn't necessarily suggesting they are Canadian because SGC calls them that, I was wondering if they did have some knowledge of them actually being Canadian as the reason for labeling them as such. It would make more sense (in my opinion) just to label them as gray backs instead of Canadian unless they actually knew for sure.

[tedzan]

I agree with you....they should label them "Grayback variation".

Perhaps, I will call SGC tomorrow to see if they have any valid information regarding these 1952 Topps cards.

And, thanks for reviving this topic. Maybe this time we will find out something about these mysterious cards.


Regards,

TED Z

[toppcat]

Interesting-I have never heard that Doeskin theory before with the 52 BB. Might be worth a post on the old Net54 Non Sport board. Todd Riley might know and I believe I have seen scans of an unopened Doeskin pack over there.

Ted-is that right there are never gum stains on these?

[Doug]

Originally Posted by tedzan

I agree with you....they should label them "Grayback variation".

Perhaps, I will call SGC tomorrow to see if they have any valid information regarding these 1952 Topps cards.

And, thanks for reviving this topic. Maybe this time we will find out something about these mysterious cards.


Regards,

TED Z

Hopefully they will be able to give some insight. It would be interesting to actually find the source of these cards.

[tedzan]

In my hunt to complete this series, I have seen quite a few of these Graybacks in the past 25 years, and no gum stains.

On the other hand, I have had several regular 1952 Topps cards with gum stains or impressions on their fronts.

The most notable one was a Bobby Thomson with a full impression of a Topps slab of gum across the front of this card.


TED Z

[toppcat]

I just blogged on the Non-Sport Doeskin cards and after doing so I am skeptical the 52 Baseball cards were issued with Doeskin. I'm about to spoil my next blog post but so be it as I think there are three reason the 52 grays are not Doeskins.

1) It seems Doeskin was rebranding or relaunching around 1955 (the doe logo on the packs was trademarked Feb. '55) and I don't think they ran a set promotion in 1952 even though the Wings cards are from the 52/53 era. For the reason in #2 below I don't think they would have been issued in the smaller tissue packs. Wings and Rails & Sails are extant (a wink to JVB!) in unopened tissue packs with the doe logo trademarked in 1955, so the dating is solidly early 1955 or after.

2) The Doeskin Wings and Rails & Sails cards were elongated to make a perfect fit inside a purse sized tissue pack. The 52 grays are regular sized cards.

3) Doeskin cards are just that. They have "Doeskin" on the reverse where "T.C.G." appeared on the originals. The '52 grays have the "T.C.G." indicia.

Could they have been distributed in a different Doeskin (or other brand) product? Yes but I think they could have been the result of high demand necessitating an additional printer pump out an experimental run for vending-type machine or something similar. First series 52's went through at least three printings and flew off the shelves. Demand must have been insane in some areas so finding an alternate source of printing may have been a natural reaction by Topps.

Here is my link: http://toppsarchives.blogspot.com/20...e-ah-choo.html