1955 Topps "Missing Numbers"

hench1

I am curious to see board opinion on the topic of the four "missing numbers" from the 1955 Topps baseball set. When the set was originally issued, four cards, #175, 186, 203 and 209 were inadvertantly omitted, just as the 1933 Goudey Lajoie was left out of that original issue. The players, Stan Musial, Whitey Ford, Bob Feller and Herb Score were intended to be included in the original issue, as evidenced by the numbers assigned to them, but were left out. At the National this year, Topps printed the missing cards and included them in the VIP package. They are clearly NOT reprints, since the cards were NEVER issued before. This is the first time they have been printed and they were printed by Topps, the original card company that produced the set.

As most collectors know, the 1933 Goudey Lajoie was intended to be included in the set, but was left out and printed a year later, being sent to those collectors who wrote in and complained that the card wasn't available.

My question is, one year later or fifty years later, if cards that were originally intended and designed to be in the set were finally issued by the original card company, should they be accepted as original cards in the set or treated as reprints? I think the 33 Goudey Lajoie set a precedent for later inclusion of original cards issued to correct an oversight.

What do the rest of you think?

FavreFan1971

I don't collect baseball but I think this is a totally different issue then the '33 card. It is 50 years later, not one year later. If Topps printed these cards in 1956 I would have no problem. The cards don't look the same (quality of printing, card stock, etc) I say they are considered inserts or a reprint. They should not be included in the set. They should be a set of their own.

Duke

I have a complete set in high grade-to include these cards is not right-I suspect someone has figured out how to profit from this guise and has a hoard of them stashed.Also what about the collector who was not a VIP and not able to attend do budget constraints.I have responded in the negative to PSA.I think these are like inserts that will sky rocket in price and then crash-it will also detract from the set quality and value-Duke

hench1

Duke, it is YOU who seem to be replying out of self-interest. I own two copies of each card, so you are wrong when you imply I'm doing it to "cash in". You make a very weak case for your point of view and seem to only be concerned with your own set. Would this threaten you Set Registry ranking? Who cares whether or not someone attended the National? I wasn't alive when tobacco cards were printed, yet still am able to collect them. You don't make any points to back up your assertion that it would detract from the set quality and value. I guess you're just interested in your own selfish interests and are unable to be open minded about it. You sound pretty hypocritical in your post. But thanks for the response, nonetheless. Just try backing it up with valid points next time.

RipublicaninMass

You my friend have already been discussed here

The lajoie was printed a year later, and was not some novelty idea printed 50 years later as mass prodeced. How many of these did you buy anyways. This is reatrded.

As far as duke being in self-interest I think you have made a ridiculous judgement. Does Duke gice a crap if you are 100% complete at a 4.0 Average grade? Do you feel 12 per card is worth justifying send 4 worthless commons to be graded. How do you know those were the exact cards to be printed, cause topps said so, and numbered them accordingly? Please read our discussion ABOUT YOU, and then fell free to comment in this thread if you'd like. Also not surprised that you weren't born when tobacco cards came out, TO ME, seems like you just fell off the turnip truck.

hench1

RepublicaninMass, I can see that you are the classic no-class, obnoxious New Englander. I started the thread with a civil post, asking for input, and a-holes like yourself seem unable to respond in a decent way. TOPPS is the one who came up with idea, not me, pal. You seem to have a problem acting like a decent human being and YOU are the jerk. Pu**ies like yourself, who talk so offensively while hiding behind a computer screen are nothing but cowards. I'd love to see if you have the sack to say these things to my face. I'd bet that you don't.

By the way, since you apparently have the reading comprehension of a six year old, I'll repeat what I've already posted. I own two copies of each card.

Now go stick it where the sun doesn't shine.

pandrews

<< <i>RepublicaninMass, I can see that you are the classic no-class, obnoxious New Englander. I started the thread with a civil post, asking for input, and a-holes like yourself seem unable to respond in a decent way. TOPPS is the one who came up with idea, not me, pal. You seem to have a problem acting like a decent human being and YOU are the jerk. Pu**ies like yourself, who talk so offensively while hiding behind a computer screen are nothing but cowards. I'd love to see if you have the sack to say these things to my face. I'd bet that you don't.

By the way, since you apparently have the reading comprehension of a six year old, I'll repeat what I've already posted. I own two copies of each card.

Now go stick it where the sun doesn't shine. >>



hench, i have nothing against you at all, and i hate interweb arguments, but i personally know that RipublicanMass is uhh.. how should i say it? a trained fighter..

my prediction, RipublicanMass by flying armbar..

hench1

Trained fighter or not, he is a coward to say those things behind a computer screen.

Griffins

Jerry-
I think the cards should be considered reprints of the '55 Topps set, although technically and obviously not reprints of cards #175,186,203, and 209. As such I don't believe they should be included in the '55 set, and don't know of anyone (excluding, perhaps, yourself) that would consider them part of that set.
If Topps decide to print a '58 card of Ed Bouchee in 2005 I would feel the same way. Ditto with the missing '53 Topps.
IMO the '55 set is comprised of cards that were issued in 1955. Somebody printed a set of '53 Bowman Black and Whites that they called an "extension" set, including players that didn't have cards in the '53 set. I don't think anyone considers this part of the '53 set, and while I have that extension grouping (and the reprint of the extra Diamond Stars that were never issued but available as a unique uncut sheet) I don't either.
The '34 Lajoie is a different animal. '33 Goudey #106 does exist, printed in '33, as Leo Durocher. To the best of my knowledge only 1 copy of this card exists, sold in the Halper sale and at least one time since. I"ve got mixed feelings about whether Lajoie is part of the '33 set or '34, but in either case it's production was considerably more timely than that of the cards issued at this years National.
FWIW I picked up the 4 missing '55's and they went in the binder with my set, but I certainly wouldn't expect anyone pursuing this set to do the same, and strongly believe the set should be considered complete without them.
Anthony

WinPitcher

I agree with Anthony. I too have a complete 55 set. I have it mainly raw with some cards graded. I have included all 3 Sullivans in my set and would never ask PSA to include them in the set. (not saying it was you that asked psa abt the missing cards) They are simply cards printed in 05 that use numbers not issued in 55. No more no less. if you want them in your set do as Anthony has and include them.


Edited to add: The Duke is not selfish, that I can say first hand as he has helped me and others with sets. Anytime he upgrades set members get first dibbs before the cards see ebay. he has helped me more then anyone.

Steve

RipublicaninMass

<< <i>RepublicaninMass, I can see that you are the classic no-class, obnoxious New Englander. I started the thread with a civil post, asking for input, and a-holes like yourself seem unable to respond in a decent way. TOPPS is the one who came up with idea, not me, pal. You seem to have a problem acting like a decent human being and YOU are the jerk. Pu**ies like yourself, who talk so offensively while hiding behind a computer screen are nothing but cowards. I'd love to see if you have the sack to say these things to my face. I'd bet that you don't.

By the way, since you apparently have the reading comprehension of a six year old, I'll repeat what I've already posted. I own two copies of each card.

Now go stick it where the sun doesn't shine. >>



FWIW I thought your post had about 500% less class than mine did. We all want to know what "ulterior motives" you had when even asking for these cads to be incuded. It just doesn't seem like a RATIONAL person would even ASK for these to be added. If you had no ulterior motives, then OUR bad, here is OUR apology. It seems very fishy that someone who only had 2 sets of these cards would want to have them added to the registry. To me "it don't make a lick o' sense"

RipublicaninMass

P.S. as far as having the sack to say that to your face. I'll tell you this buddy, I got more sack in my F'in pinky nail, than you, your father, and grandfather ever had combined.

Throwdown

You have a nutsack on your pinky? That must look funny

RipublicaninMass

AS far as the reading comp of a 6 year old, even he would have looked at the first 5 Threads in this forum and saw "someone is trying to add something to the 55 topps baseball set". Able to leave his little microcosm, selfish and self-serving though he may be, he would have thought "I wonder if they are talking about me"

hench1

Anthony, I have absolutely no problem with a reasonable discussion of the question. You make some very good points. If you read my initial post on this thread, I posed the question, made points I felt relevant, then asked for input from other board members. I didn't come here posting garbage like RipublicaninMass, calling names and casting insults. As I posted, THE ONLY REASON I brought it up, was due to the fact that I asked a representative of PSA, in advance at the National, how the cards would be treated and was told that they would be considered original. I don't collect very much modern stuff, so I had no idea what the position of PSA would be.

I can certainly see how a case can be made either way. The members here feel it shouldn't be added, so, for PSA's registry's sake, that settles it as far as I'm concerned. But to be attacked and insulted for merely asking a question, is a little over the line, wouldn't you agree? The attitudes of some members here, would be laughable, if it weren't so pathetic.


As for you, RipublicaninMass, I just read you last posts here and will respond. You don't know me, but I'm a straight shooter. I think I have about 4 graded 55 Topps in total. Of course, I saw an opportunity for filling a niche in a set when I saw those cards at the National. I collect enough to know that sometimes opportunity presents itself in sets other than my focus. But, as I've posted, I didn't buy the cards and then DEMAND that PSA add them to the registry, as you apparently thought. Rather, I asked in advance and was told by PSA that they WOULD be treated as original. I have no problem with a registry issue being settled like this. It's not that big of a deal to me. It never would have come up if PSA had either not changed their mind or had given me the correct information the first time. I just think you WAY overreacted to my question, due probably to thinking that I had an ulterior motive that I didn't happen to have, like jumping guys in the rankings.

To come out firing like you did, with the name calling and such, I think was out of line. But if you are sincere about your apology, I will accept it and offer mine as well for firing back. I was pretty ticked to be attacked like that for just asking a question (and if you can put yourself in my place and believe that that was all there was to it, then you might understand how I felt). I don't read these boards all that often and I had no idea that a thread had been started in my honor, thus I DIDN'T see your other thread until you linked it. I guess I'll have to start checking for more threads about me in the future. It's nice to know that I'm such a popular guy.

Either way, this is over as far as I'm concerned.


Jerry

Griffins

Jerry-
Hopefully I responded to your question.
In my experience I've recieved information from PSA representatives at shows that was contrary to what I'd previously read or been told, and that new information turned out to be erroneous. I suspect this was the case when you asked about these cards, as I would find it hard to believe that they would consider including these as part of the '55 set. But stranger things have happened.

Throwdown

The 1955 set was issued in 1955, I believe. These new cards are issued in 2005, I believe.

Someone explain why this is even a discussion.

Throwdown

Remember in 1994 when Topps issued a 1954 Mantle "card that never was" through Upper Deck (because UD had an exclusive with him)?

Maybe someone should try to add that to the '54 set. Wonder how long it would take for PSA to ask what kind of drugs they're on.

bishop

There are at least 5 different Sulllivans

bishop

...and 3 Elliott's ( 137)

hench1

Anthony, yes, you answered the question. That's all there was to it.

Throwdown, so do you consider the 33 Goudey Lajoie to be a 1933 or 1934?

Throwdown

The Lajoie shouldn't be part of the Basic set, since it wasn't distributed in packs during the 1933 season. If you want to add it to the Master set, fine.

I have mixed feelings on adding intentionally short printed cards - such as the T206 Wagner, the Maple Crispette Cleghorn (hockey), and the 1933 George C Miller Andrews - being added to Basic sets. PSA is inconsistent in this debate. The Wagner is part of the T206, but the Ivy Andrews is optional. They were, in effect, the same thing - "chase" cards. So why require one while allowing the other to be an option?

But allowing cards issued 50 years after the initial set was released is stupid. The fact that people are even bringing it up is stupid. They aren't 1955 cards any more than 2001 Heritage are 1952 cards.

Machodoc

Last year I asked BJ about creating a 1933 Goudey Basic set w/o the LaJoie, and a Master with it. They declined. Since I own one I don't really care but their reasoning was that enough of them are available to collectors to not justify a bifurcated set. Personally however I don't consider the LaJoie to be a true part of the 1933 set. While all of this has been hashed out before, it wasn't printed that year, it wasn't distributed that year, and it doesn't even look like a 1933 card - it looks like a 1934 Goudey. As a marketing ploy it probably helped however - kids didn't have a lot of extra nickels to spend on cards in the middle of the Depression.

SW

Griffins

I wonder if the omission of #106 was intentional- while George C Miller and US Caramel did this in their sets Goudey never did. Originally #106 was Durocher, and he got changed. With one of the Ruths being a DP I wonder if they just missed it, then reconfigured the high number '34 sheets to fit it in and fill requests.

Mantlefan

"Fantasy cards" have no place in previously produced sets. Allowing these cards in the 55 set would set a dangerous precedent for other sets.

Onlypsahockey

<< I can see that you are the classic no-class, obnoxious New Englander. >>

Hench, for someone who wanted to have a civil discussion you wasted little time insulting the entire population of six states!

As a New Englander I'm offended by your juvenile remark.

Bob

NickM

They are original, but they're not reprints. They are fantasies. They are cards that never existed until 2005, and should not be part of a 1955 set.

I'm with Machodoc on the Lajoie, not that that card should be considered much of a precedent for anything (i.e., it has a well-accepted hobby status for decades).


Imagine what could be done with the '48 and '49 Leaf sets to fill in the missing numbers nowadays.


Nick

Machodoc

Not to mention the 1953 Topps, which I think is missing 3 numbers.

SW

calleocho

I dont think it was a stupid idea ...just not a practical one.

Like others said , it would set a bad example for other sets

hench1

Onlypsahockey, the insult(s) were returned in kind after an unprovoked attack. I travel alot and New England holds BOTH some of the rudest, most obnoxious people as well as some of the warmest, friendliest people I've ever met. Seems to be a region of extremes. If the insult didn't fit you, then please disregard. As I posted later, I withdrew it anyway.


See comment like calleocho's for a model of how to post dissent without insult.


I actually have enjoyed seeing the examples of other sets with missing cards. As primarily a tobacco collector, I wasn't aware that it had happened so often.

pandrews

<< <i> I travel alot and New England holds BOTH some of the rudest, most obnoxious people as well as some of the warmest, friendliest people I've ever met. >>



sounds like MOST places in the world, huh?..

yawie99

Heck, sounds like my family.