Quote:
Originally Posted by Avardan
Awesome responses folks! I expected to arouse some very strong comments and I was not disappointed!
So, here's my take. We have in this particular Topps distribution a lot of assumption and predisposition to observations that were made long ago (most specifically The Find by Al Rosen). When he tallied up the contents of the case, the COUNT(1) of distribution was interesting...some had double the numbers!
But my friends, ONLY one case? And we base the entire "rarity" on this! I submit that PSA/SGC numbers are more representative and concrete.
Here's a question: what if the case contents varied by region? Perhaps Mr. Rosen was only looking at part of the puzzle. As good analysts, we should strive to eliminate region as an independent variable.
Another Q: If the first three series 6 cards were "double printed", wouldn't it be fair to accept that besides 311, 312, 313, there might have been others? Say 314, 315 that would complete the "double printed" row, just like in Series 1? I daresay that the printing sheets are detrimental to this analysis.
But alas, I was only able to find two examples for Series 6 online. Perhaps if someone in this community had additional - I postulate there were 8 different sheets for Series 6. Also, if you have pictures of any Series 3 and 4 better analyses could be conducted.
I completely agree with sentiment though, finding Series 6 cards is difficult. Same with Series 5 - in my collection (sample size one lol) I have 25 Series 5 and ... 26 Series 6.
So, with theories that have persisted for so long, I expect that there will be mass resistance to any other theory (even if backed by data) that calls them into question, and perhaps worthy of a re-look.
And to my fellow collector who doubts my data analysis skills/experience, I doubt them as well. I've been in the business several years in determining ROI for online marketing and have lots to learn still, but this is (honestly) a very simple distribution analysis and I didn't get into crazy detail.
The bottom line is this: Is our long-held theory backed by actual numbers like my discussion? An honest answer may be difficult...
|
You leave completely unaddressed the actual issue raised - your obviously false assumption that the PSA pop report is an unbiased and nearly complete sample. Instead you choose to argue people won’t listen to a new theory, presumably because that’s a lot easier than dealing with the actual glaring logic problem. I have debunked hobby lore numerous times, what the hobby says is often wrong. You prove this via actual research however, not pretending all cards are graded equally. Data analysis that ignores the ignores the nature of the dataset is not useful data analysis, it’s fiction. The issue isn’t ‘mass resistance’ to your genius groundbreaking work, it’s that it’s built on a series of blatantly obvious false assumptions.
There were 8 different sheet layouts for series 6? Based on what? It would be a lot of extra work to accomplish absolutely nothing. It does not make sense that 314-315 are DP’d like 311-313, how are you going to fit 102 cards on a Topps sheet? This is ridiculous and groundless, to put it lightly. You can believe whatever you want, but nobody else is going to buy into this fantasy when you’ve just completely made it up.