1951 Topps Red Backs Baseball Forum

The 1st major baseball card set by Topps consisted of two different series of 52 cards each for a total of 104 cards in the complete set.  Series "A" actually included two additional Traded/Update cards (Gus Zernial #A-36 and Tommy Holmes #A-52) bringing the total number in series "A" up to 54 cards--or 106 cards overall for '51T.  

Packs of 1951 Topps sold for 1 cent for 2 cards in either series.  The 2" x 2-5/8" card size was somewhat standard for its era, which was nearly identical to the size of the 1948, 1949, and 1950 Bowman cards.  All four sets fit nicely into 12-pocket pages.  Bowman actually increased its card size for the 1951 set.  

I'd eventually like to see both series of the 1951 Topps set get combined on the database, as well as in price guides someday.  We don't see series 1 and series 2 of 2016 Topps get separated into two different sets.  I don't understand why series "A" and series "B" of the 1951 set gets separated?  Well, actually I do know.  Both series were numbered from #1-52, which probably made it easier for price guides to list them separately as two different set--but they are not.  My suggestion would be to number the 1951 Topps set from #A-1 to #A-52, and then from #B-1 to #B-52.  Take a look at the numbering for the 1936 Goudey Premium set, which looks very similar.  The two variations can be numbered #A-36a and #A-36b, or #A-52a and #A-52b.  There's your 104-106 card set.    

Also, can this set get a little more respect on the Trading Card Database?  At the time of this posting, the rating stands at 6.5 points.  I guess that's just unbelievable to me.    

I think one of the reasons it doesn't get more respect is because in essence, they are single-sided cards. If they were more like the Bowman efforts of the previous few years, with some stats or a write up about the player, they would get higher ratings. As it is, there are plenty of collectors (at least back when I first started collecting, in the Stone Age) that didn't even acknowledge this set as Topps first set - they considered 1952 to be the first "real" Topps set. I didn't agree then, and don't now, but they viewed the set as more of gaming cards than trading cards and not a legitimate baseball card set.

Personally, I would love to get the Phillies cards in the set (any or all), but currently don't own any cards at all from this set.

I am one card away (#36 Gus Zernial) from having a "set" of the red backs. I put set in quotes as I really don't care what version I acquire, as I only have one version of the other variant. I do raw cards so finding one readily available (and resonably priced when you factor in being in Canada any in the states immediately doubles the price with ridculous shipping. Seriously $30 for a single card?) is tricky, and I don't go searching daily.

Odd I've always thought of these sets as "Blue" and "Red". Most collectors know these sets by the back colors. Red backs being set A and Blue backs being set B.

I see your idea, it is like the Red Man sets from the 1950s (52-55) that were separated by American League and National League and each numbered separately 1-26 but are in the database as "one" set with all the AL cards listed then the NL cards listed. My beef about the Red Man sets in the database is that the "cut" versions without the tabs are shown as the main images and has no apparent indications that they originally had a tab although the images of some of the backs look like the full version with tab. By the way the tab has the card number on it on the front. The backs are all one big ad that includes how to get the cap or whatever bonus item by sending in 50 tabs (they call "stubs") and a measly shipping cost.