Population estimating

[steve B]

There isn't really any good way of getting numbers to put to any production from that era. It's not until around 92-3 that there's even any way to get a reliable estimate.

But, it should be possible to make some very rough comparisons.
For example, I looked closely at some T206 pop reports, and found that almost every HOFer was graded roughly twice as often as a common from the same series. There were a few oddities and commons that appear to be anything but common, but for a normal common if there were 50 graded there would be about 100 of most HOFers. (Odder still, there are more Magies graded than Magees)

That's less likely to apply as cards get newer and the price differences are larger. But any particular player who is popular should be sent in approximately as often across several years unless their card is in a tougher series or is their rookie card. So if for example there are 15% more 65 Mantles than 64 or 67 you can feel fairly confident that the print run was roughly 15% more that year. (Do NOT think I'm saying that's the actual facts, I just used that as a made up example. ) The timing of different series will affect it a bit, today we typically see sets as lower numbered series and high numbers, but in the past it was seen as being more divided, low numbers, semi-highs, sometimes a couple different tiers. 52 Topps was a good example with 1-80 being slightly higher, the series just under the high numbers being a bit higher, and of course the highs being special.

Aside from condition there really shouldn't be any odd short prints in any Topps series. They pretty much all fit within the sheet size. 57? Through 91 and a bit beyond the sheets on the press were double 132 card sheets. Cards that are slightly short printed on the left sheet should be non- short prints on the right sheet.
Because of the production methods some cards are more prone to printing/cutting issues, and won't be found well centered or without print defects. For some that will affect the number that get graded, If everyone is looking for 8 or higher, and the card is prone to being off center fewer will be sent in as they're obviously not going to get the high grade.

So some general comparisons can be made, but even those have to be tempered with a fair degree of knowledge about the set and the ones from the yeas before and after. And some hobby history.

A decent example- A long time ago I bought a partial set of 75 OPC, and haven't really added any to it. Maybe 4-5 commons. Looking at the set, someone who knows or can look up historical pricing could come close to pinpointing when I bought it based on which key cards are there or not there. For instance there's a Yount, but no Brett. So I got it before people started looking at Yount as a potential HOFer. The other rookies that are or aren't there would narrow it down even more. I haven't looked in a long time, but I think Lynn is missing but Rice isn't. That sort of thing.

Steve B

[JustinD]

I think without actual company records it's a total crapshoot. I fall on the side of anything Topps printed was a ton and anyone else was a little less...lol.

I don't think the pop reports on the graded cards are even remotely accurate due to serial resubmitters, so using that info for anything is like using the King James bible for a science report.

[brian1961]

Hi Tony. Thanks for responding. You've gotten some excellent responses.

I guess I take a contrarian view of the combined PSA / SGC population reports. Though you must factor in the possibility of cards being cracked out and resubmitted, I believe those pop reports to be a very useful tool to guage rarity, scarcity, and trends, to some extent.

There are reasons why some commons are less plentiful than the stars. Why bother the hassle and expense of grading a common? For someone who is wanting the card for PSA's Set Registry. More collectors collect particular players than trying to assemble an entire set, because completing a set is much more expensive and time-consuming. Some have found it's not that fulfilling in the end to have pursued "a 598-card Topps set", so they choose their favorite player, or players, or an entire team. Yankees, Dodgers, Cubs, and Reds are probably collected more than the old Kansas City A's, Washington Senators, or Cleveland Indians.

I come back to the sheer cost of grading, as well as the frustration and bother of doing so. However, graded cards are where the money is, period. As JustinD alluded to, when a card is cracked out of a holder, in the hopes of being resubmitted to get a better graded, hardly anyone bothers to later send back in to PSA the old plastic cert of the first grade. It's not really that the collector or dealer is lazy, they just don't want to pay more money and time to mail them back to PSA. It somewhat screws up the population report, but they don't care about that. They should, but that's their human nature.

It wasn't until the mid-70s that the USA became "collecting conscious", and began to save EVERYTHING that might become valuable one day. Moms stopped throwing out their son's card collection; from the mid-70s Moms were extra careful to save the collection--and any other collectibles. That's why so much from the last 40 years is plentiful. Another reason those cards are plentiful was because the adult hobby of card collecting began in earnest in 1969, and by the mid-70s had grown exponentially each year. The card companies got the hint and began producing more, and more, and more.

Factor in the invention of hard plastic sheets and cardboard boxes made to hold 800 cards that came to pass in the 1980s, and then the larger boxes to hold 3200 cards. The larger boxes subtly fostered the notion to buy more and more cards. The storage sheets was a way to preserve one's cards. Then came the hard screwdown plastic holders.

Etc.

For cards of the 40s and 50s, such as you love, it comes down to whether or not "finds" of unsold product were uncovered. I bring "finds" of that nature out because those became the source of soon-to-be PSA 8s, 9s, and 10s. "Finds" have involved pre-war and post-war cards, mainstream, nationwide food issues, and even rare regionals.

Let's look at that '53 Topps Willy Miranda. Let's say it really was a legitimate sport print. Just as an example, mind you. If knowledge of that became known, certain collectors who gravitate toward scarce cards would want that Miranda. I remember a collector wanting Miranda cards because Willy was from Cuba, as he was. Many collectors would still only want the card if they were trying to complete the '53 Topps set. Most other guys would not care, since Miranda was a common player, and collecting the '53 set is now too expensive, either raw or especially in high-graded form.

Lots of thoughts, Tony, and so my verbose answer is to say there are a lot of mitigating factors that say, "it depends". The old "it depends on the supply and demand" factor is always relevant.

Best regards, Tony. With the pop reports, at least we've an idea of the "supply" in the equation. As for demand, if YOU want cards from a given set, YOU'RE somebody; go for it! Just research it to have a good idea that when you want to sell it, you'll at least get your money back. The old "finds" are very rare today, where pre-'71 is concerned.

Time to quit and be with my family. Regards, Brian Powell

[Bram99]

Thanks for all of the responses. My wife did a search and found the following links that are potentially helpful for relative sales of issues between years:

http://boblemke.blogspot.com/2013/05...iscovered.html

http://portasite.com/?page_id=4266

http://boblemke.blogspot.com/search?q=bowman+sales