Posted By:
CyAdam,
I think you have a good thought on why rookie cards are more/less valuable. But I think your methodology is wrong.
I believe that the rookie card is more valuable because when a rookie's card first came out (pre-1960) no one knew who this player was and didn't keep his card because he wasn't a star. Later on, people knew who the star was and started to save his card. The last card isn't as scarce, but it is a cool card to keep, because by that time everyone knew that this player was a star and wanted to have the card.
Now to compare the number of Aparicio rookies with commons that are graded doesn't appear to me to be a good comparison. People are grading the Aparicio rookie card because it has a higher book value and figure that a graded card will help on the return. Whereas a graded common really isn't going to yield a higher return whether it is graded or not.
To try this experiement, do it with a mega-star. Do it with Mickey Mantle. People will have his cards graded no matter what year it is. So take a couple of years, say 1959, 1961 and 1968 (I just picked these years at random) and compare the number of these cards graded with the number of 1951 Bowman and 1952 Topps cards and I bet you will find a large discrepancy in the number of cards.
I haven't done this but I would guess that the number of 1959 cards or 1968 cards are much greater than the number of 1951 cards.
Cy