Diamond Stars Manush No "W' (or as I like to think of it Red Sox version)

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

So how tough do you think this card is. PSA graded about 160 before they recognized the variation and about 170 since. Out of those 170 only 8 have been the no "W" variety. I think that's a pretty decent sample, especially if people tend to grade things for which they see a low population (I've certainly done it) which then makes a card look LESS rare than it actually is on a pop report since more people have been motivated to get the variation slabbed than the more common version.

Is it really a 20 - 1 ration of regular to no "W"? If it is man it's an underappreciated gem.

Whaddaya think?

EDIT: Ratio on ebay is about 11 - 1

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Really, no thoughts on the matter?

[brianp-beme]

One would think that the Diamond Stars variations, like the Manush you mention, would attract more collector attention. But the Diamond Stars set is no T206 when it comes to collector zeal (though they should draw more excitement...they are such cool cards). Thus the lack of response about your question.

I would think the ratio is a little more like 8 to 1 or perhaps a little less, just based on pure observation. The ones without the 'W' are from the 1936 printing (and have blue backs). Just not enough master set collectors to make these (currently) much more valuable.

Brian

[SAllen2556]

The bluebacks from 1936 are somewhat rarer than the 1935 series, but at least you can find them in great condition. It's the 1934 series from 1 to 24 that are the true hidden gems. You cannot find these cards in any sort of decent condition, and I think they're much rarer than the blue backs from '36 (except for the high numbers from 97-108). But alas, no one cares, so no real premium. I guess they'll always be the poor step child of the Goudeys.

A PSA 5 or better card from the '34 series is a HUGELY undervalued card. It should be at least 2 to 3 times pricier than the '35 version of equal grade.

I posted this once before, but since it's not an Uzit back with a ghost or a stamp or an overprint or whatever, no one's interested, which is fine. I like this set for all the Tigers in it.

Using card target and eBay:
#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

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I know about the year/color issues, though the info about the low # '34s is cool. I wonder though do ALL the '36 Manush cards have the switch to the Red Sox. I don't know what the print schedule was, but it seems a tough variation than some of the others I've dealt with (Marranville, Lombardi etc...)

[brianp-beme]

It appears that the #30 Manush, along with #26 Martin and #31 Cuyler, were the only three low number cards to be 'reprinted' with 1935 stats, blue backs AND have 1936 copyright dates. The 9 cards from numbers 1-24 that were reprinted with 1935 stats and blue backs all have 1934 copyright dates.

i wonder if those three cards, including the Manush no 'W' variation, were later replacements and perhaps not printed in as large as quantities. Has anyone had difficulties locating the blue back Martin and Cuyler cards?

Brian

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Interesting and might explain the seeming extra scarcity.

For the record I think it's one of the most aesthetically pleasing sets of all time. Can't understand its red-headed step child status. Maybe the lack of Ruth?

[brianp-beme]

Here are some examples of why this set should be more popular...

Brian

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

Here are some examples of why this set should be more popular...

Brian

Preaching to the choir