1952 pafko question

[baez578]

Can someone explain to me why the Andy pafko card is so expensive compared to other 1952 cards? Not familiar with the set but I'm curious.

Thanks

[brookdodger55]

The main reason is that the card is #1 in the set and not many in high grade. Check PSA and SGC
population #'s. Also take into account the # of high grades that are raw in private collections.
Also cards put in # order first card and last card were always jammed into box causing
damage/ condition sensitive.
Mike

[39special]

Back then kids would put rubber bands around the stacks of cards they had and the first card would always have the damage from the rubber band.Pafko being #1 card.they are hard to find in good shape.

[baez578]

Makes perfect sense. Thanks for the explanation

[KCRfan1]

'52 Topps is an iconic set, and as mentioned before, nice cards are hard to come by. The '52 set is Topps first jump in the card business ( there are also '51 Topps red and Blue backs ). Nobody knew if the set would be popular, or flame out. The Black Back is likely more difficult to come by and more expensive. The Black Back was the very first print run, and contained cards 1-80. The second print run, and subsequent series, are Red Back. Add this in with the previous comments, and you arrive at some fairly expensive prices for the card.

[SMPEP]

It's also an undisclosed short print.

It was printed half as many times on the sheet as say a Jim Russell card.

Cheers,
Patrick

[darkhorse9]

I've always thought the "first/last card got more damage" theory to be more conjecture than fact. If that was the case and most sets had high number series that went uncollected, then the last card in the preceding series should get the same considerations.

That's not the case in sets like 1961 (#522 Dick Ferrell) or 1966 (#522 Phil Linz) or 1967 (#533 Jack Fisher). None of those cards see a value increase for high condition over any other cards from that series.

The 1952 set does get that consideration for #310 George Metkovich, but mostly because the legend of the "last card" theory shows up there.

[baez578]

Speaking of black back, I noticed someone on ebay trying to sell a Pafko black back for $97000!!!

Seems crazy. I'd rather spend that on a ruth goudey, mantle, or a couple of clemente rc's

[JollyElm]

I always hated the 'number 1 card accrues more damage' theory. Growing up in New York, there was not a single kid I ever knew who put the cards in number order. They were always sorted by team and then what we used to call 'junk' - league leader cards, checklists and other stuff that couldn't be classified by team - was put together in the back of the stack. Checklists were plentiful and everyone hated getting them, so we'd actively check them off. That's how we'd know when we finally had a full set.

[Volod]

You may have a point there with the "last card" not getting as much damage as commonly supposed. However, the first card in early '50's sets definitely did get rubber-banded. There was no other way for kids to carry their collections around at that time, without fear of losing them. A friend of mine tried to beat the problem by hauling his stacks of '52 Bowman cards in his lunchbox. Then, opened it one day at noon to find jelly leaking from a sandwich onto the cards...not good. I guess you could have carried separate bags or boxes to the schoolyard, but 8-10-year-olds can only haul so much baggage around.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

I always hated the 'number 1 card accrues more damage' theory. Growing up in New York, there was not a single kid I ever knew who put the cards in number order. They were always sorted by team and then what we used to call 'junk' - league leader cards, checklists and other stuff that couldn't be classified by team - was put together in the back of the stack. Checklists were plentiful and everyone hated getting them, so we'd actively check them off. That's how we'd know when we finally had a full set.

Not 50's, but early 70's when I started collecting (At least started buying more than one pack a year) I started putting them in order by teams. Having the 74 team checklists helped. But I didn't have all of them, and even tually gave up and started putting them in number order, with a few I thought were special going in pages and a binder that one of the stores carried.

What a project that first sorting was! I laid out all my 74s in one several lines across the floor of my room, leaving room for each number. it mostly covered the floor and took a long time.

The kids I knew sorted them a bunch of different ways. probably about half did it by number, the rest by team, except a couple kids who had "different " systems. One seemed to just keep them all disorganized in a shoebox. The other had some sort of system I think based on how much he liked the player. Oddly neither had much trouble finding a particular card for a trade.
We didn't usually bring a whole bunch of cards to school. Maybe 50 or so for flipping or trading.

The kids that did things by number did wreck a lot of first and last cards with rubber bands.

The other thing about number order is wether you stack with the #1 card face up or face down. I never noticed until I started buying sets that many people do it what's to me backwards. When I box them, #1 is in front facing front, and whatever is last is at the back. But most of the sets I've bought have #1 in the back facing forward and the last card in front. It takes a while for me to reverse them to my way of stacking.

So stacked like that, the #1 card is the bottom card and will also get exposed to spills and stuff like that a bit more often. (I lost a few last cards from that when I was a kid, a 75 Aaron being the worst loss. )

Steve B