Do Diamond Star prices accurately reflect their relative scarcity?

[SAllen2556]

I know this isn’t a super popular set - it’s not even my favorite, but I finished the low number set and was thinking of starting in on the variations and the high numbers. For a Tiger fan it’s a neat set because it’s got a lot of players that were in the 34-35 World Series, and the backs mention the ’34 series. Anyways, as I was looking at prices vs. relative scarcity I came across a few things that don’t really make sense.

Some cards, of course, have two versions, and some even have three. When I put the set together it seemed like the 1934 cards (1 through 24) were tougher to find, especially in good condition, while the green-back 1935 and blue back 1936 cards (up through #96) seemed more abundant and were easier to find in better condition. The blue-back ’36’s especially seemed to be readily available in higher grades. My set, therefore, has very few ’34 variations.

I don’t think the prices accurately reflect the scarcity or the difficulty of the 1934 cards. I took a look at card target and went through all the previous sales of a few cards that had different versions. The 1934 versions were, indeed, generally scarcer and more difficult to find in good condition than the other variations.

#1 Lefty Grove (2 variations available)
Total sales of 1934 green back: 43 Average grade for 1934 card: 2.6
Total sales of 1935 green back: 102 Average grade for 1935 card: 3.5

#8 Joe Vosmik
Total sales of 1934 green back: 15
Total sales of 1935 green back: 37
Total sales of 1936 blue back: 38
I didn’t do the grades on Vosmik because so many were raw.

#9 Mickey Cochrane (3 variations available)
Total sales 1934: 33 Average grade: 3.1
Total sales 1935: 78 Average grade: 4.3
Total sales 1936: 33 Average grade: 4.7

#16 Lloyd Waner (3 variations)
Total sales 1934: 43 Average grade: 2.7
Total sales 1935: 51 Average grade: 4.3
Total sales 1936: 41 Average grade: 5.0

The prices on even mid-grade versions of the 1934 cards do not seem to reflect these difficulties, and the Standard Catalog of Vintage Baseball Cards also does not reflect this. They generally price the 1936 versions the same or higher than the 1934 and 1935 versions, despite the fact that they’re easier to find and generally in better condition. It seems like the only truly rare ’36 cards are the high numbers (97-108), and that is accurately reflected in their prices.

In other words, a PSA 5 1934 Mickey Cochrane variation should probably run about 2 to 3 times higher than the price of the 1935 variation due to scarcity and condition, but it doesn’t.
A 1934 Lefty Grove should probably be priced at least double a ’35 card in similar condition, but, again, it’s not, or am I wrong?

Has anyone else who collects this set had trouble with the '34 variations?

[drcy]

Scarcity, as opposed to rarity which deals only with supply or population, is a measure of supply versus demand, so yes.

[brianp-beme]

When I was working on the 1-96 'complete' set around 20 years ago I did so without consideration of the backs. Which by the way is what almost everyone did, and I imagine the majority of current collectors as well. They were almost universally sold without any indication of what 'year' back it had (sometimes blue or green back was mentioned). Because it is not nearly as popular a set as the 1933 or 1934 Goudeys, I believe the pricing of the year variations has never been too much of a factor.

So the fact that in my basic Diamond Stars collection I only have 3 1934 versions of the 24 cards issued in 1934 (#'s 1 through 24) is a fun bit of information. Perhaps an indication that they are tougher to come by, but also that not much attention or premium has historically been placed on these cards, and that this situation persists to this day. I know I didn't care back then, but as the hobby matures I imagine interest in this scarcity will slowly increase.

Brian

[ajquigs]

I agree with this comment. Last year I collected the HOFers from this set and I didn't concern myself with the year of issue and, as you suggest, I didn't notice real price differences based on year.
I ended up with four 1934s.

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

When I was working on the 1-96 'complete' set around 20 years ago I did so without consideration of the backs. Which by the way is what almost everyone did, and I imagine the majority of current collectors as well. They were almost universally sold without any indication of what 'year' back it had (sometimes blue or green back was mentioned). Because it is not nearly as popular a set as the 1933 or 1934 Goudeys, I believe the pricing of the year variations has never been too much of a factor.

So the fact that in my basic Diamond Stars collection I only have 3 1934 versions of the 24 cards issued in 1934 (#'s 1 through 24) is a fun bit of information. Perhaps an indication that they are tougher to come by, but also that not much attention or premium has historically been placed on these cards, and that this situation persists to this day. I know I didn't care back then, but as the hobby matures I imagine interest in this scarcity will slowly increase.

Brian

Definitely agree. Great set. I like cards that reflect their period ... great art deco design on the DS and the 1955 Bowmans on - WOW - "Color TV." Two of my favorite sets and more affordable than most. My next project will likely be completing the Bowman HOFers.

Originally Posted by keating3620

Since the set does not have Ruth or Gehrig it does not have the same popularity as Goudey but I still think it is a great set with the art deco design and high % of HOF's.

[SAllen2556]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

When I was working on the 1-96 'complete' set around 20 years ago I did so without consideration of the backs. Which by the way is what almost everyone did, and I imagine the majority of current collectors as well. They were almost universally sold without any indication of what 'year' back it had (sometimes blue or green back was mentioned). Because it is not nearly as popular a set as the 1933 or 1934 Goudeys, I believe the pricing of the year variations has never been too much of a factor.

So the fact that in my basic Diamond Stars collection I only have 3 1934 versions of the 24 cards issued in 1934 (#'s 1 through 24) is a fun bit of information. Perhaps an indication that they are tougher to come by, but also that not much attention or premium has historically been placed on these cards, and that this situation persists to this day. I know I didn't care back then, but as the hobby matures I imagine interest in this scarcity will slowly increase.

Brian

I agree. I also didn't care about the backs when I was working on the set, except for Al Simmons, who I wanted in the '36 version because he had been traded to Detroit. I just bought the nicest card for the money, which is why I have very few '34's.

The reality is, you just can't find nice '34 versions. They are few and far between. And it just seems odd to me that the blue back versions are actually priced higher in the price guide. Someone way back when somehow decided that those were rarer. I'd agree that the high numbers are, but not the others. Maybe because the high numbers are rarer, someone decided that all the blue-backed cards must also be rarer. But it's a pretty bad mistake, especially when you compare cards in similar condition. A 1934 Diamond Star in PSA 5 or better condition is much rarer than a 1935 or '36 variation.

I challenge anyone to find one of those first 24 cards from 1934 in PSA 5 condition or higher. I think they're extremely rare in that condition. Right now on eBay there are two Frankie Frisch #17 cards for sale. There is actually a '34 version in PSA 7 priced for $750 while a 1935 version in PSA 7 is priced at $850. The '34 version, in my opinion, is extremely rare (I found no other low-number '34's even close) and is probably underpriced while the '35 version is way overpriced.

[keating3620]

I have a complete 1-108 set. I did not make a difference between '34 vs '35.

I agree with the previous comment that scarcity doesn't always relate to value. There are only a handful of people completing the master set, with all year variations, which would increase demand.

Since the set does not have Ruth or Gehrig it does not have the same popularity as Goudey but I still think it is a great set with the art deco design and high % of HOF's.