Pete Runnels worth more than Joe Nuxhall?

[irv]

Just doing some reading and trying to educate myself further, I am curious why a Pete Runnels MT-9 52 Topps card is valued at $18,000 where as a MT-9 Joe Nuxhall is only valued at $7,500?

I understand Runnels card is the #2 card in the set but Nuxhalls is the 2nd last one in the set, (same positions but different ends of the set) but Nuxhalls is a high number card.

Is it based on their careers/popularity/availability or is there something else?

https://www.psacard.com/cardfacts/ba...unnels-2/22877
https://www.psacard.com/cardfacts/ba...hall-406/23425

Just curious.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Probably a population issue also it is Runnell's rookie card. I believe he won two batting titles and was an occasional all-star.

[Republicaninmass]

Horde of High's make them easier to find in high grade. I'm not sure if you posted the black back SMR? Much tougher than reds in my experience. Also, low numbers notoriously tough in low grade. If card #1 is commonly found OC, so would card #2!

[ValKehl]

Of course, Runnels should be worth much more than Nuxhall. Not only did Runnels win the AL batting titles in 1960 & 1962 with the Red Sox, but more importantly, Runnels was my favorite player with the Senators when I was a kid, and I was totally bummed when he got traded to the Red Sox.

Shameless plug - I am always interested in scarce Runnels items.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Horde of High's make them easier to find in high grade. I'm not sure if you posted the black back SMR? Much tougher than reds in my experience. Also, low numbers notoriously tough in low grade. If card #1 is commonly found OC, so would card #2!

It could be the black back too, I never thought of that. Looking further I see the Runnels card has fewer high graded cards than what Nuxhall does so I am sure that is part of the reason as well?

Thanks for the relies, guys.

[toppcat]

The "rubber band theory" about #1 cards being exposed to the most damage in a set has been somewhat extended to the Runnels card for decades now. Some of this was probably artificial dealer inflation back in the 90's, or even late 80's but certainly the low numbers were handled for a much longer time than the highs,even though many more were printed. In addition, I believe a lot of 52 highs never circulated and were sold into the hobby by Card Collectors Company and survive today in nicer shape overall than you would ordinarily expect.

[JollyElm]

I've always had a problem with the 'rubber band theory' of first and last cards. We never put cards in numerical order, it was always by team. Complete sets were determined by actually checking the numbers off of the checklists and seeing who else you still needed. I remember trying to figure out what team certain missing players were on (Steve Foucault comes to mind). Kids have always been fanatical about baseball cards, and this fanaticism was 10 times as deep when it came to your favorite team. For me, the Mets were always on top of the pile (I had about 20 different Mets team cards virtually cut in half by rubber bands) getting screwed by the rubber bands, and the 'junk' cards (leaders, playoff/World Series, checklists, etc.) were on the bottom and got rubber banded from the rear.

[steve B]

I sorted my cards both ways. I usually did teams early, then went to number order when I got a bunch of them. By 76, I was mostly doing number order only.

Hanging out at a dealers shop in the late 70's early 80's, I got to see a bunch of collections come in, A lot of the larger ones were in number order, middle sized ones were either in teams or no particular order. A bunch of those were basically just loose in a shoebox or worse, a paper bag. Small collections were the "best" either a complete disaster, or really nice, and usually in a cigar box. I got my first 4 George C Millers from one like that. Very nice stuff in a cigar box, but all of it very worn.


The large collections in number order were really rough on first and last cards whether they had rubber bands or not. Cheeseboxes were a bit rough on the inside, so not nice to surfaces. and whether you packed tight and scuffed/creased the card or packed lose and accepted the inevitable sliding that wore down one edge and the lower corners, it wasn't good.

[Stampsfan]

In the late 60's and early 70's, as a kid, I always sorted my sets numerically.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Also issues besides POP is how rare is good centering for the specific 1952 at issue.

If POP is 40 at PSA 8 but there are only 10 or so nicely centered cards versus a POP of 30 on another card but 20 or so centered cards...than the POP 40 card may go for more....hal Rice for example is really hard to find centered.... ..

If its not a super HOF or HOF......i dont think most buyers , including myself care if one guy had 5 good years..versus someone with 3 good star years....or one was rookie of the year....... its all all about POP and 'centered POP'



I have called that 'CPOP' for years...