Scarcity vs. Condition

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

As was indicated by Burdick, when he was collecting, the phrase “Id rather have a hole in my card, than a hole in my collection”; was true then, and for many, remains true today. But not for all.

There exists those who seek the best of the best condition-wise, and in doing so, obtain cards which have condition scarcity.

But condition scarcity is only one type of scarcity. Lets take for example a current thread (which I chose to not further hijack with my ramblings) in which the author states “I own both an orange borders - lajoie SGC20, and a 21' Oxford Ruth SGC10, and as a type collector purchased both examples because of their rarity”

What types of scarcity do we have here? Well these cards come from sets understood to be relatively uncommon. But the players selected will be among those likely to be preserved from the sets in the highest density, and the card conditions do not yield much grade scarcity. So the sets are scarce. The actual cards less scarce, and the condition of the cards are common.

In my opinion, the scarcity of the set in this example is of comparatively little consequence, since the players selected probably put the actual card scarcity in a league of somewhat more common sets.

If my objective was to “as a type collector purchased both examples because of their rarity” then that would be better achieved, I think, by selecting a somewhat obscure player, and obtaining it in as high a grade as my budget would allow. Thereby achieving set scarcity, card scarcity and condition scarcity.

Certainly this empirical analysis is fraught with potential errors since actual data regarding the population of the sets and the individual cards in these sets is not available. And I offer only a speculation of these populations. But the intent of my offering is to propose an alternate path to achieve the stated objectives and by the comments hopefully generated, provide insight for me on the actual range of considerations involved here.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

If a set is rare, I'd rather have a HOFer than a scrub, condition notwithstanding. I've tried it the other way and I just don't care for it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

No, this stuff is my hobby. Thinking about it is fun. Wat? You want me to have less fun?

But I tried to view a type collector's collection in my mind. The cards are the game, not the players. Why not nicer examples?

Plus you can get players who bring an interesting baseball triviality (for conversation - to keep anyone you've talked into looking at this stuff less bored) for the same price as your "scrubs".

I mean - you can get Bill Bergen!!

And Cy Williams - the guy the (Ted) Williams shift was first tried out on.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

"But the intent of my offering is to propose an alternate path to achieve the stated objectives and by the comments hopefully generated, provide insight for me on the actual range of considerations involved here."

I didn't even read this...




"The cards are the game, not the players. Why not nicer examples?"

Now this makes sense...

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason

Gil,
The logic sounds right, and how independent is it from considerations of value and demand concerns?

Condition scarcity for cards of common ballplayers actually sounds like an interesting pursuit...

quite the catch-22: high quality cards of common ballplayers are inexpensive because they are not in demand, and therefore discarded, and yet, this resulting scarcity is exactly why they should become expensive....but they never will be if no one's looking for them...kinda like the tree that falls in the forest, only completely different if it's a PSA8 T206 common

weird

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Since my goal is to have 1 of each pre-WWII baseball card in the ACC, I will have to agree with our beloved great grandfather of collecting, Mr.Burdick. My preference is a HOF'er but a hole is a hole in the collection. A beat up common will suffice until I can upgrade. In some sets the mere existence of an available card, HOF'er or not, is so seldom seen that one must jump at the chance to "fill the void". I would offer a different view on the rare sets ,like Orange Borders, commons vis a vis HOF'ers. I think there are so few cards circulating that whether it's a HOF'er or not, they are all darn scarce (or "rare" if I must). In this case, and others like it, I don't think the HOF'ers were necessarily collected more then the regular players and therefore the population of such is almost equal. There are many sets I can name (Tango Eggs, E92 Nadja's, E105 Mello Mints, etc...) where the availability of high grade commons is unequal to that of HOF'ers....In other words there seem to be more high grade commons than HOF'ers, which would disprove this collecting theory of high grade HOF'ers. BTW, if the Matty Orange Border didn't have the hole I would have gobbled it up...but since I already have a team Orange Border, and there are others that come up for sale every so often, I chose to wait. regards

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

Yes Gil, but my collection 'requires of me' both type selectivity and hof requisity (my word, so no jokes please!), thus I only collect a single card of any one hofamer, and can repeat no type more than once in the entire collection........ I know, madness!

However, I do still believe in relative scarcity, so that while a greater number of hofamers may have survived in all issues, within each issue is x-number examples of each player - so it is still possible to compare the number of extant Ruth 33' Goudeys with the number of surviving Ruth 21' Oxfords.
And thats how I make my rarity choices.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

I agree completely with Leon. Also don't forget that at the time the cards were issued back in the 'teens, these guys were not yet in the Hall and there were many players who had sensational careers for a few years and were as popular as many who made it in to the Hall. It would seem reasonable that collectors would be scurrying to get Dauberts, Leachs, McInninis', etc., just as much as Hoopers, Schalks, Bresnahans, etc.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

Leon - I hate to correct you, but there are 4 holes in the Matty Orange Borders


yet, it is still the best example I have ever seen (its the only one I have ever seen).



As far as collecting commons rather than HOFers in an uncommon set... I basically would take any one I could get my hands on if I liked the set - but would be happier to get the HOFer than the common (even if the common was more scarce).


At the end of the day these cards are meant to be enjoyed, and I get to look at a Matty Orange Border and not a Skippy Noname Orange Border.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason

was actually a very solid middle-reliever of the era...his stats just didn't translate well due to the technology of the times, and his habit of getting himself traded 2-3 times each year for gross insubordination

true story..

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Well, I certainly understand and sympathize with those who are trying to master sets which are very demanding. Mine is quite understanding, but difficult to understand.

But E, Daniel, it appears to me that the requirements of your collection result in a puzzle which may not have a solution within its specifications; or have you set out the matrix?

That is: only HOFers. Only one card per set. All sets. No repeat HOFers.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

Jason,

- no offense intended to Skippy or the proud Noname family!

Regards,
Joe

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

My name is pseudo and here is the matrix solution.....

Not all sets.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason

I'm just trying to get his story out there, ya know...spread the word

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

is the word of the day "legs"?

Jay

Growing old is not optional, growing up is.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

I remember that song. Looking up from the mud, the blood and the beer, he says "Im the mangy dog that named you Sue"

doh.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

Here are the SGC population breakdowns for certain sets. I think it empirically demonstrates what we all know gut-wise, which is that higher grade prewar cards are much rarer than their postwar counterparts. I find the differences between the T cards within their polulations to be particularly interesting. It appears that higher grade T210s are proportionally rarer than higher grade T206's by about 40% (1.9% v. 3.1%).

In terms of frequency of occurrence within their own populations, the T206 80, T210 70, 1954 Topps 92 and 1971 Topps 96 all occur about equally, so you could reason that they are all of equivalent rarity. Here is where scarcity and value diverge: there are more T206 80's than 1971 96's, but would anyone trade them straight up?

T210
607080 Total
762012 623
12.1%3.2%1.9%

T206
80Total
74724379
3.1%

1954
8486889296Total
881501462157815170
17%9.7%8.9%3%1.6%

1971
8486889296Total
795103920066822035755
13.8%18.1%35%11.9%3.5%

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Please correct me where I am wrong here. It is my understanding that SGC grades above 60 primarilly reflect their assessment of the manufacturer’s performance in the manufacture of the card, while grades of 60 and below address the user’s inability to preserve the card in the condition which it was purchased.

If this is true, then the differences between t206s and t210s in grades of 70 and above will tell us about the consistency of high quality manufacture; and investigation of grades 60 and below will identify the user’s impact on card preservation.

From the data presented, it can be seen that 17% of the t210 cards graded have experienced very little circulation damage, and 5% have seen none.

I wonder how these numbers stack up for the t206 and other sets.