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.