Can anyone solve the mystery of the five players who were not included in the 1952 Topps reprint set

Estil

Most all of you are familiar with the 1952 Topps reprint set released in 1983 (which incredibly will make the reprint set now just as old as the original set was at the time of the reprint set's release!). For one reason or another, Topps could not get these five player's legal blessing to be included:

020 Billy Loes (Brooklyn Dodgers)
022 Dom DiMaggio (Boston Red Sox)
159 Saul Rogovin (Chicago White Sox)
196 Solly Hemus (St. Louis Cardinals)
289 Tommy Holmes (Boston Braves)

Does anyone know why? That is, did these players intentionally choose not to be included, or did they mean to be included but didn't send in their "permission slip" to Topps in time?

After all, you guys helped me solve the mystery of why card #145 was not included in the 1958 Topps set (rather disturbing and sad reason to be sure!), so maybe we can solve this one too!

PS: I also read somewhere that Topps allegedly only made 10,000 of these sets...can this be confirmed one way or the other? No wonder they went for $200-$300ish back in the day...

mlbfan2

Topps offered Billy Loes $250, but he wanted more than that. He then declined $500 for the 1953 reprint set.
link

Estil

What a cheapskate! I hope the other four weren't like that too! Doesn't he know how lucky he was to be a part of baseball card immortality? Just like the Chris Houliman guy who got to be in the SNES Zelda game for winning a contest...no matter what else he did with his life since then he will forever be a part of video game lore.

bishop

I believe with some of them it was the fact they were dead and Topps could not get satisfactory oks or releases from the relatives or estates .

By the way, in the early years Topps and Bowman paid players very little for the use of their images to sell their gum, which to them was the primary product; and Topps' leverage only increased after they bought out Bowman . If you were not a star, you took what they offered or got left out. As it was, because of Bowman, the Topps 52 iconic set is full on managers, coaches and players who hardly played at the ML level. Loes may have had reason to stiff Topps when they came back to him

Topps continued to run roughshod over the players until 1968 and 1969 when Marvin Miller and the players association turned things around on Topps...which is why you find such old photos, head shots, capless shots and airbrushed shots in the 68 and 69 sets up the the 5th series in 69 when Topps made peace with Miller and the players association by agreeing to more lucrative payments to the players and the association

msassin

All 5 were living at the time, so I would assume the pulled a Loes and wanted more money.

I have heard 10,000 sets as well.

Estil

<< <i>All 5 were living at the time, so I would assume the pulled a Loes and wanted more money.

I have heard 10,000 sets as well. >>



That might explain why this "reprint" set traditionally went for at least a couple hundred. Normally reprint sets aren't supposed to have any real monetary value (the idea just being an alternative for those who can't afford the originals) but I guess when Topps makes a nice official set in Tiffany style packaging it's a little different.

mikeschmidt

<< <i>What a cheapskate! I hope the other four weren't like that too! Doesn't he know how lucky he was to be a part of baseball card immortality? Just like the Chris Houliman guy who got to be in the SNES Zelda game for winning a contest...no matter what else he did with his life since then he will forever be a part of video game lore. >>



Cheapskate, really? He once had a contract for $12,000 for the 1954 season. In 2013, the average MLB salary was double that per game! You begrudge a great player from the ability to say no? Really no upside for him to be in the set -- he was already in the set once, and $250- isn't much to really warrant a re-issue. At least in his opinion.


m

mlbfan2

<< <i>Really no upside for him to be in the set -- he was already in the set once, and $250- isn't much to really warrant a re-issue. >>



No upside? $250 is an upside. A small one, but there is no downside at all. He said no because he was trying to get more than $250 from them.

jrboles

I'm no Billy Loes as my fastball never hit the 80s. Still, I could use $250.

Is Kevin McReynolds a similar story? I don't recall seeing him in a Topps set until 1987.

Estil

<< <i>

<< <i>What a cheapskate! I hope the other four weren't like that too! Doesn't he know how lucky he was to be a part of baseball card immortality? Just like the Chris Houliman guy who got to be in the SNES Zelda game for winning a contest...no matter what else he did with his life since then he will forever be a part of video game lore. >>



Cheapskate, really? He once had a contract for $12,000 for the 1954 season. In 2013, the average MLB salary was double that per game! You begrudge a great player from the ability to say no? Really no upside for him to be in the set -- he was already in the set once, and $250- isn't much to really warrant a re-issue. At least in his opinion.


m >>



Actually that's about $104,000 in today's money. Still that's only about half minimum wage for MLB.