1952 Topps Sheet

[Volod]

Originally Posted by steve B

The "right" thing to do is to keep it together.

If... there was a grading company that could tell, they would all grade "A"

From the look of the right border, and maybe the bottom, all the cards would have to be cut off center to be the right size, unless you lost the right column and maybe bottom row, making for only 16 cards instead of 25.

Right, Steve - but can you imagine how steely your nerves would have to be to put that thing in your local library's guillotine cutter?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Volod

Right, Steve - but can you imagine how steely your nerves would have to be to put that thing in your local library's guillotine cutter?

That's not the cutter I'd use...

[mikemb]

Originally Posted by steve B

That's not the cutter I'd use...

Maybe Bill Mastro?

Mike

[Volod]

Originally Posted by steve B

That's not the cutter I'd use...

Yeah, I know, but it will not be chopped up in any case... I was just speculating to get a thread going. Incidentally, I think actually it was a sales promo item, not part of a full printing sheet, since the top and left side borders are much wider than would be found had it been cut from a larger sheet.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Volod

Yeah, I know, but it will not be chopped up in any case... I was just speculating to get a thread going. Incidentally, I think actually it was a sales promo item, not part of a full printing sheet, since the top and left side borders are much wider than would be found had it been cut from a larger sheet.

It's interesting that the two other blocks of 25 shown in the other thread also have wide margins that are opposite of what would be expected.

A few ideas..

The sheets once had wide margins, AND wide gutters in between panels of 25 but the wide margins had been removed.
or
The sheets were set up using 4 panels of 25 cards, arranged as if they would be in number order on the complete sheet, but for the high numbers they were placed slightly out of order. maybe to make the collation more random?
or
these are slightly cut down final stage proofs of each block of 25 and not actual production cards.(and maybe used as a point of sale display or part of one?

I don't know if the 100 card sheets were doubled on the actual sheet that went through the press like the 132 card sheets were. If they were, it's possible the left and right sheets had different sequences like many 132 card sheets.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by steve B

It's interesting that the two other blocks of 25 shown in the other thread also have wide margins that are opposite of what would be expected.

....

I don't know if the 100 card sheets were doubled on the actual sheet that went through the press like the 132 card sheets were. If they were, it's possible the left and right sheets had different sequences like many 132 card sheets.

I tend to agree with this but maybe with quadrants rearranged between A and B slits vs. the rows like they did later on. The known proof sheet (with the 2 extreme left columns and one extreme right column excised after the fact) from series two shows a wide gutter between the 2 slits but not between the rows on each slit (except for the gap before the "repeat rows" and I suspect but cannot prove the attached was prepared to show the full series as proofed, vs how they ended up rolling of the presses with a portion of two consecutive sheets shown; the slits should run left to right not top to bottom when printed for real). Related question: the 3 DP's with backwards stitching-on both sheets are they arranged 1 left pointing, 1 right or one sheet with 2 left pointing and the other with 2 right?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by toppcat

I tend to agree with this but maybe with quadrants rearranged between A and B slits vs. row The known proof sheet from series one shows a wide gutter between the 2 slits but not between the rows on each slit. Related question: the 3 DP's with backwards stitching-on both sheets are they arranged 1 left pointing, 1 right or one sheet with 2 left pointing and the other with 2 right?

That's sort of what I was thinking, that one would be
AB
CD

while the other might be
BA
DC

or any of the other arrangements.

I don't know how the two different stitchings were arranged.
To me it makes sense to have both of each type together, as an indicator of what part of the sheet was being looked at if there was a problem.
Sort of like how a bunch of injection molded stuff has numbers molded in to identify which cavity of a multi cavity mold a part came from.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by steve B

That's sort of what I was thinking, that one would be
AB
CD

while the other might be
BA
DC

or any of the other arrangements.

I don't know how the two different stitchings were arranged.
To me it makes sense to have both of each type together, as an indicator of what part of the sheet was being looked at if there was a problem.
Sort of like how a bunch of injection molded stuff has numbers molded in to identify which cavity of a multi cavity mold a part came from.

Yes, possibly like the * vs ** indicators after production and packaging moved to Duryea in 1966. The asterisks were introduced at that time by Ben Solomon (who was at Topps when the 52's were printed BTW) so he knew which slit he was looking at in the proofing process.

I added the referenced proof sheet and edited my post after you responded Steve.