Cobb very possibly was double or triple printed...and the survival and grading rates might be higher. My point isn't that all the other cards on your list are from the same category, but that there is evidence to suggest Wallace is different from the others. I would guess Cobb is too, but that is purely a numbers argument without corroborating front evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T205 GB
The Wallace no cap we know was an error that was corrected at some point in the run. It could very well be the case that Wallace was printed in lesser quantities. Your arguement that Wallace's pop numbers hold no water when you have Cobb at nearly 2X the amount of all the others. If you add the one line and two line together the numbers match. It's the same card just one was a corrected error.
Bresnahan to Wallace is all opinion!
|