1952 Topps Question

1951WheatiesPremium

Those of you who know me a little know I'm always after nice Yankees rookies that are at the intersection of well priced and eye appeal. So when I saw this card, it's price and how well it was centered, I grabbed it:

My existing copy is almost surely higher grade (PSA 5.5 now, pictured raw):

However, when I began to compare it to my existing example, something was off:
New

Existing

My question is what's up with the back of these two cards? They don't match...

wadevl

With out examining every letter,
what specifically is off, other than the coloring

1951WheatiesPremium

That’s it - the coloring.

Just don’t know why they’re different and want to make sure my ‘new’ card is legit.

JBrules

I believe there is a gray-back version that is much more rare. Check out this thread.
net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=128228

1951WheatiesPremium

@JBrules said:
I believe there is a gray-back version that is much more rare. Check out this thread.
net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=128228

What a good read. Thanks, @JBrules

Well I guess I’ll have to get it graded to find out for sure and the it’s probably best (in all likelihood) to sell it, then. I’m sure someone out there will want this and while it’s beautifully centered and a really eye pleasing rookie card for me and a fun addition to my collection for sure, it’s obviously better suited to one of the ‘52T guys who will no doubt cherish it.

I looked at the pop report and the tally is low. Only one example on the PSA/APR page; it was quite encouraging, though.

I appreciate the help I always get around here from everyone. You guys always come through.

Thanks

psychump

The born in Berkeley area of the card id smudged/marked.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

KbKards

The card is not a gray back.

1951WheatiesPremium

@KbKards said:
The card is not a gray back.

Well, I’m fine if that’s the case, too. I genuinely like it for its well centered ness.

I stumbled upon it as a guy who collects rookies, not ‘52 Topps - hence my initial question.

What accounts for the difference in appearance? Just age and poorly protected?

1951WheatiesPremium

@psychump said:
The born in Berkeley area of the card id smudged/marked.

You are correct. Without that i think it’s maybe a 6...

KbKards

The gray backs will look more like an 81-130 series cards. While looking at scans can be misleading, in hand there should be no confusion when looking at those two cards as far as being cream/white or gray. While there are some subtle differences in batches of cream/white backs, they are very susceptible to environmental toning so they will be found in a wide range of tones. But in hand there’s no comparison to what a gray looks like.

fiveniner

The stock used to print the cards often ages just like old newspaper or magazine pages do during the course of time.This is quite common on light colored card backs.

1951WheatiesPremium

Thanks guys - in hand it’s definately a white back - actually pretty clean, too. Maybe just a bad scan.

Glad I get to keep it, too - love the centering.

Again, thanks for helping out everyone one. I don’t collect the set or its variations but it’s quite the read.