1960's low pop card data
Fuzz
Posts: 903
After the earlier thread, I took a little data from today's pop report. I counted for each card number (all variations added together) the number of cards in the set with pop's of 8 or less. I used only Topps basic issues:
Year/pop 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1960 0 0 0 1 0 4 3 4 8
1961 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
1962 3 1 3 8 8 10 14 12 15
1963 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 4
1964 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 5 3
1965 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 1
1966 0 0 0 2 4 2 16 8 12
1967 lowest pop in set is 9
1968 lowest pop in set is 12
1969 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 8 10
The first and last of the list are not a surprise with 62 being the hardest and 68 being the easiest but several of the others were a surprise based on listening on the boards. 1966 is easily the second hardest set followed by 1960 or 1969 depending on your bias. 1964 is harder than the colored borders of 1963? 1961 which is highly competitve has only two cards that make this list at all !
While it doesn't account for the demand side, it may reflect the demand side. Many more people will be willing to build a 68 set because it is completable than a 62 and so on. More collected sets, like 61 may have more of the harder cards already submitted and the like.
Anyway, it is raw data. Do with it as you like. I stand behind my comment of earlier that 1966 is one tough set.
Fuzz
Year/pop 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1960 0 0 0 1 0 4 3 4 8
1961 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
1962 3 1 3 8 8 10 14 12 15
1963 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 4
1964 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 5 3
1965 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 1
1966 0 0 0 2 4 2 16 8 12
1967 lowest pop in set is 9
1968 lowest pop in set is 12
1969 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 8 10
The first and last of the list are not a surprise with 62 being the hardest and 68 being the easiest but several of the others were a surprise based on listening on the boards. 1966 is easily the second hardest set followed by 1960 or 1969 depending on your bias. 1964 is harder than the colored borders of 1963? 1961 which is highly competitve has only two cards that make this list at all !
While it doesn't account for the demand side, it may reflect the demand side. Many more people will be willing to build a 68 set because it is completable than a 62 and so on. More collected sets, like 61 may have more of the harder cards already submitted and the like.
Anyway, it is raw data. Do with it as you like. I stand behind my comment of earlier that 1966 is one tough set.
Fuzz
Wanted: Bell Brands FB and BB, Chiefs regionals especially those ugly milk cards, Coke caps, Topps and Fleer inserts and test issues from the 60's. 1981 FB Rack pack w/ Jan Stenerud on top.
0
Comments
Website: http://www.qualitycards.com
The work was even done with my "Cavalcade of Sports" collectors pen. That must make it quality work.
Art,
Crucnching the #'s manually doesn't take long but could you suggest a different cut off. A pop 8 or less may be most of the cards in some of those sets.
Fuzz
You bring up a good point regarding the "data". I believe your experience with the 1966 set is just as good if not better than any "data" derived from the PSA population report. For starters, the whole universal population (ungraded and graded) of cards from 1966 is unknown. Since it costs time and money to fill out a submission form and have a card graded, it is reasonable to assume that there are a alot of cards from 1966 that are not slabbed. This disparity might be accentuated in regards to commons if you believe that the majority of collectors are attracted to "star" players. In short, we don't know the population denominator of the 1966 set other than it will continue to grow indefinitely if you monitor the population report.
The reality is that the population report can't even reliable serve as a surrogate marker of "tendencies" due to the unpredictable effects of typographical errors, resubmits and crossovers to other companies. The PSA population report is one part of several sources of data we use in assessing the "collecting landscape" of a given issue. The fact is that the inherent variables that affect how the PSA population report is compiled prevents it from ever being a valid representation of what is actually out there. Furthermore, the unremitting effect of these variables will continue to weaken the relaibility of the population report in time. More importantly, I envision that the data from the set registry will evolve into a more useful barometer of challenges in a given set than the population report in regards to PSA graded cards. As you know, collectors have the option of hiding the individual cards, but PSA would have access to this data and could use it in gauging the difficulty of certain cards.
My two cents,
Ron
Great response but I think that it was at least a quarters worth.
Your points are valid, well written and well thought out. But this wouldn't be a response if I didn't disagree with something. Nothing can replace the hobby experience that we have gained. But what about the areas where we don't have it? Your right about the numbers in the pop report. Most are wrong, few are right and we will never know which is which. But, except for variation reclassification, all the effects will make the number lower, not higher.
I use the report to instantly gain a foothold of knowledge in an area that I didn't previously have or to expand my current knowledge. In 61 T FB for example, the Paul McQuire has a large (several dozen) number of 9's when most cards have pop's of less than 5. Whether the right number is 35 or 30 is not really relevent, I know has a consumer that this one is one to bargain shop for. Pop 1's will probably become pop 2's and 3's and higher with time. But McQuire will be cheap. It also can point to cards with lower pop's to keep an eye out for if the price is right.
The single advantage that the pop report brings is that it can give "forward looking" knowledge about collecting a set. I learned from my study that I really don't want a 1960 T BB set that bad to put up with that kind of frustration. Had I started collecting the set to gain the knowledge, then it would have been "rear view mirror" info. I could have flushed a lot of time and money into a quest that I might not have started if I would have known. I could have put my money into a 67 set which would have been much easier and cheaper. The pop report at least allows me to infer something about the broad nature of what I am about to enter. Not as good or accurate as actual experience, but a lot easier and cheaper to get.
Fuzz
I think the data are valuable as well. The pop report is about as good as it gets in my opinion. Sure there are going to be some inaccuracies but as a percent of the whole, I think they are probably trivial.
Sandy
Since I am starting a 60 set, your numbers are a little frightening. The 61 set does not look so difficult until you realize that there are at least 10 people that are very close to or have completed an all 8 set or better. That makes the competetion for a pop 10 card very intense. And al of the guys except Davalillo are willing to pay many multiuples of SMR for a card they don't have. That is how the Houk card with a pop of 7 reached $616 last week, with an SMR of $22. Add in the Yankees collectors and the Manager collectors, and it was a free for all.
I would greatly appreciate it if you would update these numbers periodically and post them. Thanks again.
Do the numbers include just 8-10's, 1-10's? NQ's?
_________________
1956 Topps PSA 8's+(active)
1969 Topps PSA 8's+(retired)
1972 Topps PSA 9's+(active)
1973 Topps PSA 9's+(retired)
1986 Topps PSA Perfect(active)
1997 Flair Legacy's(active)
<< <i>... I learned from my study that I really don't want a 1960 T BB set that bad to put up with that kind of frustration. Had I started collecting the set to gain the knowledge, then it would have been "rear view mirror" info. I could have flushed a lot of time and money into a quest that I might not have started if I would have known. I could have put my money into a 67 set which would have been much easier and cheaper. The pop report at least allows me to infer something about the broad nature of what I am about to enter. Not as good or accurate as actual experience, but a lot easier and cheaper to get.
Fuzz >>
Am I the only one that sees a problem with these statements? I collect what I like because I like it - not because it's easy to get. 1960 just happens to be one of my all time favorite sets. I am very slowly working on this set and I really value it personally. If I wanted an easy set, I'd go after 1968 or 1975 Topps - oh, wait, I am collecting the '75 set.
Sorry if I offended any '68 or '75 set collectors. That was not my intention. I just wanted to say that the Pop Report has no influence on what I collect, although it is a valuable tool.
JEB.
The cards list 8's and 9's only --- I didn't figure that added 10's would greatly change the results. Not many cards with four 8's, 1 nine and 8 tens.
JEB,
I think it is hilarious that people like you on the board push regularly that there is no right way or wrong way to collect and then if someone ........ anyone says something that isn't exactly what you think, you take a shot. Personally, I don't care what you think of how I collect. But I will make the point clearer for you. Not everyone on this board either has limited interests or any infinite supply of money. Counting both cards and coinss as one collection each, I collect 17 different things. I love to have 60 set, and an Old Judge set,and a set of proof $20 gold pieces, and a set of chips from the original Flamingo,etc. Someday, I may get those things but not this year. So I put your current resources into what I can finish, meeting my goal, that I like the best. I keep what I get and don't "collect to sell". That further stretches resources. Therefore, most of us prioritize. The pop report is a tool in helping with that process allowing us to know what lies ahead. I would not recommend a $100/month guy to start a T206 set in 8, no matter how cool he thinks they are.
Your a hypocrit.
I wasn't attacking you and what have you gathered from my posts here, or from my collection in general, that makes you think that I am a hypocrite? I have always been straightforward about what I collect in my posts. I just tell it as I see it. I collect what I'm interested in. Recently, I have experienced some extreme changes, but I stay focused on what I am interested in, regardless of what the Population Report shows or the fact that I do not have unlimited resources and will not be able to complete my sets overnight. How does any of this make me a hypocrite?
Again, sorry if I offended you. That was not my intent.
JEB.