New Website: t206insider.com

[brianp-beme]

Nice site, and I love the sortable checklist option. I do have a question...what are long prints? I have not heard of this term before with the T206 set. Is it a particular subject that, within its print group, has an abnormal availability, as if it were possibly double printed?

Great work, and hope to see even more features.

Brian

[sreader3]

Thanks for the feedback guys. "Long prints" are the guys Ted Z identified as the Exclusive 12 460-only subjects plus a few Pirate guys from the 350-only series, all of which were printed in unusually high quantities. I decided to group them into the "long print" bucket. I might get rid of that designation if it causes confusion.

[T206Collector]

I'm a huge fan of the site and your research (going back to the beginning). It's great stuff. I'm particularly happy to see that you have updated your scarcity charts, and that you have taken into account high value bias. It is a really smart idea "that reported condition profiles for T206 subjects in the PSA Population Report are different due to high value transaction bias." And that you can derive useful information from the fact that more low grade Cobbs get submitted for grading than low grade Unglaubs.

I know you have Doyle throwing as theoretically on the scarce side. And I get it - it's a Series 150 only subject. But, my experience has been that this card is not so tough. Anecdotally, of all of the signed T206 cards that found their way onto ebay in 2007 from The Great Pittsburgh Find of Signed T206 cards, the most prevalent card was a signed Doyle throwing (5 examples). And, even if you assume it's because Doyle was an easy signature at the time, then isn't it surprising that only 3 portrait and 2 batting poses were signed?



Obviously that's just one universe, but in my two runs up the Monster Mountain I have not found Doyle Throwing to be particularly tough either. I can't see how SLer Ed Foster could be found even slightly more easily, as your report suggests. Theilman, who you rank alongside Doyle, is way harder, in my humble - non-data driven - gut feeling/opinion.

Regardless, very very helpful! Great stuff!

[sreader3]

Paul,

Thanks for the kudos. I am the first to admit that the condition-adjusted population ranking methodology that I invoked is imperfect. I was surprised by a few of the rankings too, but the data are what they are. I didn't massage the rankings to comport with conventional wisdom or my "gut feel" since that would have defeated the purpose of a data-driven approach.

Scot

[The Nasty Nati]

Great site! Although I would include Reulbach Glove Showing and Mike Powers as part of your short print list.

Also, I've noticed that the Sov. 150 for the 150 only series are incredibly tough to find. Even harder than Hindu. The Sov. 150 multiplier in IMO should be high for 150 only subjects.

It should be mentioned too that the back multipliers for certain cards like the Sov. 460 and Sov. 350 are really tough for the Super Print group as Ted discovered in his research. http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=124890

[sreader3]

Originally Posted by The Nasty Nati

Great site! Although I would include Reulbach Glove Showing and Mike Powers as part of your short print list.

They should be on the short print list. I'll look into it add them if they aren't.

Thanks.

EDITED TO ADD: They are on the short print list. You have to go to page 2.

Scot

[sreader3]

Originally Posted by The Nasty Nati

Also, I've noticed that the Sov. 150 for the 150 only series are incredibly tough to find. Even harder than Hindu. The Sov. 150 multiplier in IMO should be high for 150 only subjects.

It should be mentioned too that the back multipliers for certain cards like the Sov. 460 and Sov. 350 are really tough for the Super Print group as Ted discovered in his research. http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=124890

I had to use generic back multipliers to keep the initial project scope at a reasonable level. You are right that as Ted and others have shown some backs are tougher with certain print groups -- Sov 150 with 150-only as you mention. Also Old Mill with 150/350 and with the Exclusive 12 460-only guys. Etc. etc. I may try to code different back multipliers for different print groups in a later release. Thanks for the suggestion.

[steve B]

Signed up and so far I really like the site.

I've had a copy of inside T206 for a while, and found it fascinating.


I'm looking forward to seeing what other research gets posted there. There's some good stuff here that could be mirrored or put into a more approachable format. And there's some stuff I've seen that hasn't been posted, but should be. (Not mine)

I also like the universal registry.
Just a few minor ideas there.

Features I'd like to see
Having a way to denote if a card is slabbed or not and if so, by what company. That could be weighted or not, probably simpler/less controversial if at least the big three are weighted the same.

An extended universal registry. I'm only up to the D players, and already I've had a couple where I've had to choose between a lesser condition tougher back and a slightly nicer more common back.

Including blank backs.


And a few very minor glitches, inconsistencies etc.
Entering cards is "a bit" slow. Being able to do more than one at a time would be helpful. Not that it will matter once they're entered, but the initial setup is pretty slow.

One small thing that would help would be having the menus for back and condition and when/where you get them a bit clearer. I finally realized I can do it in one click in the box instead of closing the default and opening the menu.

And very trivial, but it slows me down, maybe not others. The menu for the backs requires a click on the word "select" and the one for condition requires a click next to "select".


All in all a great start! If those few things are the only glitches you've done very well.


Steve B

[tedzan]

Hi Scot

You have created a super-site here. There sure is a lot of stuff to take in.

And, a tremendous thank you for this feature......" At last, you can participate in a registry without being captive to a grading service ! ".

I will register my PIEDMONT, SOVEREIGN, and SWEET CAPORAL "complete" sets (which for the most part are ungraded).


TED Z
.

[Beastmode]

I do not collect pre-war, but I found your site amazing. If I did collect, it would be a great resource for rookies like me.

[sreader3]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Hi Scot

You have created a super-site here. There sure is a lot of stuff to take in.

And, a tremendous thank you for this feature......" At last, you can participate in a registry without being captive to a grading service ! ".

I will register my PIEDMONT, SOVEREIGN, and SWEET CAPORAL "complete" sets (which for the most part are ungraded).


TED Z
.

Thanks Ted. I know we kicked around the idea of creating a site a few times over the years so your positive review means a lot. I also appreciate you taking the time to register some of your cards. Additionally, I hope you will consider writing a piece (or several!) for the Research section. Those would be invaluable contributions. Scot


EDITED TO ADD: Thanks also to John for your kind words. I hope I responded to everyone!

[sreader3]

Originally Posted by steve B

Signed up and so far I really like the site.

Features I'd like to see
Having a way to denote if a card is slabbed or not and if so, by what company. That could be weighted or not, probably simpler/less controversial if at least the big three are weighted the same.

Thanks Steve. In terms of the registry, my idea was to keep everyone on equal footing regardless of the grading company (or no company at all). Obviously this also simplified configuration on my end. I may add grading company as a registry input in a future release just to allow collectors to better track their collections, but I don't think I want grading company to influence registry points.

[sreader3]

Originally Posted by steve B

An extended universal registry. I'm only up to the D players, and already I've had a couple where I've had to choose between a lesser condition tougher back and a slightly nicer more common back.

Including blank backs.

And a few very minor glitches, inconsistencies etc.
Entering cards is "a bit" slow. Being able to do more than one at a time would be helpful. Not that it will matter once they're entered, but the initial setup is pretty slow.

One small thing that would help would be having the menus for back and condition and when/where you get them a bit clearer. I finally realized I can do it in one click in the box instead of closing the default and opening the menu.

And very trivial, but it slows me down, maybe not others. The menu for the backs requires a click on the word "select" and the one for condition requires a click next to "select".

Steve--I'll take note of all this. Some of these changes won't be possible because I am using the Knack.com toolset which has limited configuration options. Scot

[steve B]

Originally Posted by sreader3

Steve--I'll take note of all this. Some of these changes won't be possible because I am using the Knack.com toolset which has limited configuration options. Scot

Yes, the software will have limits, especially if it's affordable.

I'm sure some of it is just the newness, once I get used to it it'll be easier for me. And as I mentioned, everything I mentioned is really pretty trivial in the big picture.

Did a few more, got the last part of the alphabet done, so maybe a bit more than halfway to getting them all entered. Had a few tough calls on the grading, mostly between Poor and fair, and a few that might get a VG from a company, but with a light crease I put them all in good, maybe one or two in good +.


Steve B