BBCE 1952 Topps Wax Pack "Brick"

[mckinneyj]

As a collector or 52Ts I find myself in Ted's camp. The 52 semi-high commons can frequently be found in lots along with lower numbered cards without any special mention on ebay. Any lots with highs included are sure to advertise as such. Vendors at card shows have trouble finding or keeping any high series cards. Semi-highs are easily found at shows. I think the price differential between the high and semi-high series is an accurate reflection of the relative populations. Just my observation/experience...

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by mckinneyj

As a collector or 52Ts I find myself in Ted's camp. The 52 semi-high commons can frequently be found in lots along with lower numbered cards without any special mention on ebay. Any lots with highs included are sure to advertise as such. Vendors at card shows have trouble finding or keeping any high series cards. Semi-highs are easily found at shows. I think the price differential between the high and semi-high series is an accurate reflection of the relative populations. Just my observation/experience...

I think the spread is accurate to a point, there is some type of "legendary" status kicker working with the highs as well. I did the canvass as I have never really seen a comparison of the semi and high series anywhere, so it was instructive and I figured I could get a blog post out of it as well. I thought there would be less highs than I found. 60 of #368 surprised me for sure.

[sflayank]

Just look at the pop report
Every card from 100 to 407 with the exception of mantle May's berra feller ..the same pop
500-60] cards of each approx...
That's over 50000 hi#s graded
Probably 250000 not graded
Rare? Hmmm

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by sflayank

Just look at the pop report
Every card from 100 to 407 with the exception of mantle May's berra feller ..the same pop
500-60] cards of each approx...
That's over 50000 hi#s graded
Probably 250000 not graded
Rare? Hmmm

Yup. In demand vs rare.

[Republicaninmass]

Let's rely on skewed data, not people who collect the set.


Advantage of grading a low grade common


Advantage of grading a high number.

No affect on cards submitted.

High numbers, hardly rare or scarce. Demand outweighs supply.


Im having a great day Dave. Not wasting my life debating and researching something I cant control. I worked with the 52 set for a majority of my collecting career, only about 25 years. Aside from Rosen's find, that produced many of the high grade Highs in the pop report, I dont believe I've seen any collection with only or the same amount of high numbers.


I have a hard time believing even repacks 10 years later would go unnoticed and not be scooped up by at least a few collectors working on the set.

I dont believe for one second, given the stars and amount of Giants, Yankees, and red sox in the high series, were an accident. It was loaded with September world series hopefuls and stars to encourage buying late in the season.


These are just opinions, and certainly worth what you paid for them. Just wanted to add my two cents.

I've also edited for spelling, not because I typed in some roid rage....David

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Let's rely on skewed data, not people who collect the set.


Advantage of grading a low grade common


Advantage of grading a high number.

No affect on cards submitted.

High numbers, hardly rare or scarce. Demand outweighs supply.


Im having a great day Dave. Not wasting my life debating and researching something I cant control. I worked with the 52 set for a majority of my collecting career, only about 25 years. Aside from Rosen's find, that produced many of the high grade Highs in the pop report, I dont believe I've seen any collection with only or the same amount of high numbers.


I have a hard time believing even repacks 10 years later would go unnoticed and not be scooped up by at least a few collectors working on the set.

I dont believe for one second, given the stars and amount of Giants, Yankees, and red sox in the high series, were an accident. It was loaded with September world series hopefuls and stars to encourage buying late in the season.


These are just opinions, and certainly worth what you paid for them. Just wanted to add my two cents.

I've also edited for spelling, not because I typed in some roid rage....David

Hmmm, I haven't said about half the things you think I did and I don't think you have ever understood my original point, which was Topps never dumped the cards at Sea and instead got rid of excess warehouse stock to CCC around 1960, who sold them as singles.

[ALR-bishop]

I have always felt the dump them in the ocean story was a Topps intended urban legend. Why go to that trouble ? But having put the 52 set together in semi master format ( sill need several gray backs) the scarcity of the high numbers seems real to me. But I do think it is played by sellers for all it's worth

By the way I owe thanks to both Dave and Ted thanks for sharing info with me on this set over the years

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by toppcat

Hmmm, I haven't said about half the things you think I did and I don't think you have ever understood my original point, which was Topps never dumped the cards at Sea and instead got rid of excess warehouse stock to CCC around 1960, who sold them as singles.

Dont give yourself that importance.

I was addressing the myths regarding the topps highs.

I couldnt care less about your opinion.

There are simply not enough of them to have been sold through 1960. Unless each person is hoarding them like #332

That is unless you want to speculate that people thought the set ended at 310, which many did because highs WERE NOT AVAILABLE. Some have mentioned they thought it ended at 250


Ok, maybe they werent dumped at sea, it doesnt make your skewed data any more factual.