True Value of PSA Low Pop Commons?
scottsusor
Posts: 1,210
In the "Have 1967's Gone Cold?" thread, John said:
*****
I would not consider 16 PSA 8s to be a hard to find card. A sleight premium over SMR yes...but not 6X SMR.
John
*****
I thought this was an interesting comment/observation, and one worth investigating. Normal rules of business would suggest that scarcity affects value. Now, we all know that the SMR shows every "common" card in every set to have the same "common" value. And we all know that's BS in terms of real life because all cards are not created equal. Due to printing abnormalities, certain "common" cards are not really "common" in terms of supply when you factor in the "PSA 8 and above" consideration and its effect on supply scarcity.
Something I did recently on several Topps sets -- 1967 to 1971 to be specific -- was to spreadsheet out every common card in the set, along with its numbers in PSA 7, 8, 9, and 10 with NQ. I then correlated these to the number of these cards that were already locked into PSA Registered Sets -- thereby reducing the the number of "available" cards. I'm sure I'm not the only one who ever did this, but the results were quite interesting and revealing. I actually assigned a "score" to each card, which factored in both the population and the number of cards already in sets. The lowest population cards actually came out with a negative score. Meaning, there were more collectors looking for that card than cards available. There are additional factors, such as sets not registered that may contain that card and disparities in the PSA numbers due to crack outs, but overall its about as accurate as I could get.
When, for example, a 1969 #52 Mike Andrews gets a score of -17, and the 1969 #663 Dick Radatz gets a score of -16, what does that say about its value in terms of SMR x 2 or 3 or 4 or 10? If we think back to our statistics classes, we can effectively show that such a card gains considerable value over the "common" card value posted in the SMR. But how much? Within the past couple of months, a PSA 8 Andrews and Radatz sold individually for $224 and $229 respectively on eBay. That's the open market working at the highest level possible, though still not perfectly.
My contention, based on all of this, is that 10 x SMR for THE toughest cards to get in that 1969 set may be just about right, the recent sale of a 1969 Gates Brown for $760 notwithstanding. Gates isn't even among the lowest pop cards in the 1969 set, so we can safely conclude that Gates (and some others, most notably Detroit Tigers in all years) are aberrations.
My conclusion then, is that whether we are talking about the 1967 Jack Hamilton or any other "low pop" common card, its value is very much relative to supply and demand, just as any other commodity in the business world. Toss in the emotional value tied to adding a tough card to one's set and the value of SMR x goes even higher. When I first did my spreadsheet model, that 1969 #52 Mike Andrews card had an actual value of $200 on it -- and that was before the $224 winning bid on one on eBay. Not too bad, I'd say.
Anyway, please feel free to follow this up with your own findings, observations, and/or opinions.
Scott
*****
I would not consider 16 PSA 8s to be a hard to find card. A sleight premium over SMR yes...but not 6X SMR.
John
*****
I thought this was an interesting comment/observation, and one worth investigating. Normal rules of business would suggest that scarcity affects value. Now, we all know that the SMR shows every "common" card in every set to have the same "common" value. And we all know that's BS in terms of real life because all cards are not created equal. Due to printing abnormalities, certain "common" cards are not really "common" in terms of supply when you factor in the "PSA 8 and above" consideration and its effect on supply scarcity.
Something I did recently on several Topps sets -- 1967 to 1971 to be specific -- was to spreadsheet out every common card in the set, along with its numbers in PSA 7, 8, 9, and 10 with NQ. I then correlated these to the number of these cards that were already locked into PSA Registered Sets -- thereby reducing the the number of "available" cards. I'm sure I'm not the only one who ever did this, but the results were quite interesting and revealing. I actually assigned a "score" to each card, which factored in both the population and the number of cards already in sets. The lowest population cards actually came out with a negative score. Meaning, there were more collectors looking for that card than cards available. There are additional factors, such as sets not registered that may contain that card and disparities in the PSA numbers due to crack outs, but overall its about as accurate as I could get.
When, for example, a 1969 #52 Mike Andrews gets a score of -17, and the 1969 #663 Dick Radatz gets a score of -16, what does that say about its value in terms of SMR x 2 or 3 or 4 or 10? If we think back to our statistics classes, we can effectively show that such a card gains considerable value over the "common" card value posted in the SMR. But how much? Within the past couple of months, a PSA 8 Andrews and Radatz sold individually for $224 and $229 respectively on eBay. That's the open market working at the highest level possible, though still not perfectly.
My contention, based on all of this, is that 10 x SMR for THE toughest cards to get in that 1969 set may be just about right, the recent sale of a 1969 Gates Brown for $760 notwithstanding. Gates isn't even among the lowest pop cards in the 1969 set, so we can safely conclude that Gates (and some others, most notably Detroit Tigers in all years) are aberrations.
My conclusion then, is that whether we are talking about the 1967 Jack Hamilton or any other "low pop" common card, its value is very much relative to supply and demand, just as any other commodity in the business world. Toss in the emotional value tied to adding a tough card to one's set and the value of SMR x goes even higher. When I first did my spreadsheet model, that 1969 #52 Mike Andrews card had an actual value of $200 on it -- and that was before the $224 winning bid on one on eBay. Not too bad, I'd say.
Anyway, please feel free to follow this up with your own findings, observations, and/or opinions.
Scott
0
Comments
take a look at the 69 set that is registered on the sgc registry. all 96's and lots of psa crosses (some of the prettiest cards i have ever seen). the population numbers are probably not all that accurate.
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
You also need to factor in that people sell their sets all the time....heck with the 1965's....5 of the top sets *except the Dukes* have sold been sold or broken up in the past year.
The Gates Brown that sold for 760 was PSA 9 from the 68 set. The reason I know this is because I bought it. I also bought the Andrews.
Dave
For a short time forum member - you've got a pretty darn good handle on the cause and effect that the pop report has on prices. Its also amazing what a dropoff their is below PSA 8 for most sets. Its almost like a 7 is a failure... But, there are a lot of factors that really need to be taken into account if you want to try to accurately PREDICT what the price of cards will be before they close - and even then - EMOTION can turn that 10X SMR into 25X SMR on random occasions with ease.
I too, used to run a Statistical Analytical group with over a dozen PHd's in Statistics and varied Advanced Math degrees. To create the factors relative to one another isn't super hard. But, it is a great tool and can really guide you while determining what you might be willing to pay for a card. But, every now and then - you'll get a guy or a couple of guys who just throws everything out the window...
Case in point... last week - I had a snipe bid in for a 1972 PSA 10 High Series #761 Ron Cey Rookie. Based upon pop and the price that other 10's had sold for, factoring in High Series and a Dodger - I figured that I could nab it for around $625. I have a pretty good feel for most 1972 PSA 10's - but in this case... Set up the snipe and went to bed...
The next morning - I checked my mail and noticed that I didn't win. I went into the auction and see that it went for $1201. The winner ($1201) and the 2nd place bidder ($1200) were two guys who had not bid on 72 PSA 10's before - one was a Dodger collector - the other, I still don't know... Without these two guys - my snipe would have won the bidding by $8.
I've also found that some of the most INSANE bidders are the new guys... These are the ones who start building a 700 card set and feel that they HAVE to catch up to the guys who've been working on the set for years. So, in order to move quickly - the easiest substitution for patience - is money...
Nice thread!
Sets - 1970, 1971 and 1972
Always looking for 1972 O-PEE-CHEE Baseball in PSA 9 or 10!
lynnfrank@earthlink.net
outerbankyank on eBay!
As someone who has met (and traded with) each of you, you both have much in common. Care to make some predictions on the low pop 1969's and 1966's I've put on EBAY? They'll be visible late night tonight and run for 10 days, ending 2/16.
EJ
Used to working on HOF SS Baseballs--Now just '67 Sox Stickers and anything Boston related.
I have stopped tyring to determine pricing on low pop common cards as often many collectors that are close to finishing off a set will bid like crazy to get a certain card in the grade that they need.
As a an avid ebay bidder for over 5 years I have seen some pretty crazy things in the past with low pop commons.
Many times the Low pop commons will go for more than a superstar like Aaron-Mays-Clemente in the same set.
Most of the time the cards are truly hard to find in top grade due to centering problems, typical print defects, poor focus but other times the pops are low for the fact that not too many collectors were submitting "commons" before, until the birth of the set registry.
I also use a couple of internet services that help and track recent sales of cards before I bid on them to see a history or if a bidding pattern exists for a certain card.
I would think that it would be next to impossible to find out what the "real value" of these low pop cards are. Usually the "real price" is whatever the market will bear at that given moment.
Good luck hunting!
Check out my ebay auctions listed under seller ID: jeej
Regards,
Alan
FB -- Thank you for the compliment. Though I'm new to the PSA world, and to this board, I'm not new to the baseball card world -- I've been a collector and part time dealer since 1969. I was a table holder at the old Midwest Sports Collectors Convention in Troy Michigan (I grew up in Livonia Michigan) back in the early 70's (I'm 45 years old now). So I've been around the block a few times.
EJ -- I haven't done a values spreadsheet on 1966 but I'll give you my predictions on the 1969's in a little while. It should be interesting to see how close I come.
Miami3 -- Good observations. The "crazy" comment is spot on and its a good bet that when "crazy" happens, emotions are involved (i.e. somebody just HAS TO HAVE that tough common to add to his/her set).
And to everybody -- I'm glad you're enjoying the thread! Great commentary!
Scott
(I guess I should do a sig line now, eh? Haha)
We may know each other. I did shows in the late 70's and early 80's in the Detroit area. I was living in Garden City at the time. Cant remember alot of the peoples names any more but Jerry Romanko comes to mind and Mike Rea. Mike and his brother own a card and comic store on Ford Rd. We also are about the same age as I am 44.
Dave
Last year I was surprised when a 61 Topps PSA 8 card I listed went for much higher dollars than I anticipated even though it had a pop in the 12-14 range (if I remember correctly) and yet then lower pop 67s (Hamilton, Sims and Priddy No Trade) went for less than anticipated.
I think what Frank's example points out, and what I think to be true, is that the value of a card is what 2 motivated bidders determine it to be. And, while it's population number is of some significance, the demand will ultimately dictate what it sells for (rather than a mathematical equation of so many times SMR based purely on population reports).
Again, I have no idea what to expect so just from a standpoint of seeing where a 1 pop card of a 60's issue Topps set ends up in this day and age of grading may be an interesting viewing experience.
Setbuilders Sports Cards
Ebay: set-builders & set-builders2
<< <i>Is it possible to have too low of a pop? One where everybody just overlooks it when putting the set together? >>
Terrific question. My first reaction would be to say, no, it probably wouldn't be completely overlooked. But that said, its value might suffer from a more sporadic looking pattern by those putting together a set with such a common card in it. I haven't paid much attention to how "hot" the 1962 set is -- I'd suspect it would be relatively strong. Nor have I viewed the Set Registry for 1962. But in going back that far year-wise, and with regard to the dark brown borders of 1962, I'd also suspect that an 8 might carry just a bit less interest. Note, I said interest, not value.
I must confess that I am a little disappointed with the "Vintage Buy/Sell/Trade" board in this regard. I've been around these boards for only a couple of months but in that short time I've sensed almost a general disdain for that board -- at least when compared with this one. To my way of thinking, that board would/could be instrumental in both locating/alerting the most interested/motivated buyers (with the "Now on eBay!" type of post), and thus getting the highest possible return for a card like the 1962 pop 1 card you're referring to.
Question: Do most of you, who are regulars on the "PSA Set Registry" board, also frequently peruse the "Vintage Buy/Sell/Trade" board looking for low pop common cards you're seeking? Or is it only this board and eBay that draws most of your interest?
Dave -- We may very well have met in the 70's in the Detroit area -- not that we'd recognize each other now -- haha!
Scott
<< <i>Scott/FB:
As someone who has met (and traded with) each of you, you both have much in common. Care to make some predictions on the low pop 1969's and 1966's I've put on EBAY? They'll be visible late night tonight and run for 10 days, ending 2/16.
EJ >>
EJ -- My analysis is only for PSA 8 cards at or below a "zero" score, so here are my projected values for the 1969 Topps PSA 8 low pops you listed:
32 Sammy Ellis, 252nd toughest card, $39
43 Joe Niekro, 91st toughest card, $119
103 Roger Repoz, 291st toughest card, N/A
108 Tony Taylor, 33rd toughest card, $149
210 Felix Millan, 20th toughest card, $159
217 John Donaldson, 72nd toughest card, $129
342 Bubba Morton, 94th toughest card, $119
584 Don Mason, 416th toughest card, N/A
Simplified, the "zero" score which I refer to means that current supply approximates current demand in a "perfect world" scenario. The Repoz and Mason cards both fall below a "zero" score, so I don't have a value assigned to them. They should go at or below the standard SMR price for 1969 commons. Will these cards all go for what I show as a value? No, probably not, because everything is dependant upon a variety of external factors. These values suggest only what they are worth right now relative to all 1969 PSA 8 commons.
I'm going to guess that many of you will see those values and think I'm out of my mind. That may be, but that's another story. All I'm doing here (and only because EJ requested it) is illustrating values according to what a real world business model would yield. I think it quite likely that the values I presented won't be reached for these cards. Why? Because many collectors set artificial boundaries on what they WILL pay, without regard to what they SHOULD pay.
Scott
Real world business model maybe - but in this case - not an accurate one. You're assuming a straight line from toughest Pop to easiest Pop. But in fact, the curve is a relatively flat one that starts to get steeper and steeper as you get to the toughest 20, 30 or 40 or so.
There are several factors that you've neglected to take into account - Saturation point for one and the price that the active builders of this set would be willing to pay. Some of these prices might hold up IF the card is rare enough and if the Pop is low enough to still be needed by those invidivuals ACTIVELY building the set.
The Bubba Morton for example has a Pop of 13 in PSA 8 and 2 in PSA 9. If this card came up on eBay right now, I would guess that it MIGHT reach $30-$40 (and it might go for $12) because most of the active collectors already have it and the ones still needing it are a much more frugal group (notice I used frugal rather than Cheap SOB's). I could only see it reaching the $119 level if it was one of the last 10 cards needed by two different collectors.
69 is a tough set. This set has a wider disparity in population than any other set from 63 to 72. Its also one of the few major sets where many collectors build this as a secondary set. Its not a knock on 69, but its easier to collect a few cards here and there while the major players (Jacobs, Hobbs, Gaspipe, Gemint, Fread) grab what they need. If you look at the sets of #4 through #14 on the current Finest list - I can guarantee you that not one of the set builders would put a $50 bid on a Pop 13 $20 SMR card.
So, while the equation works for relative toughness in relation to each other - I think the dollar value portion is pretty far off.
Other 69 guys - any thoughts?
Sets - 1970, 1971 and 1972
Always looking for 1972 O-PEE-CHEE Baseball in PSA 9 or 10!
lynnfrank@earthlink.net
outerbankyank on eBay!
Used to working on HOF SS Baseballs--Now just '67 Sox Stickers and anything Boston related.
As far as the buy/sell/trade board, I go there occasionally. If all of the ebay low pop cards were to be posted, it would be overrun. Since it is hard to search it, it becomes less useful. The ebay search feature makes it such that anyone who is interested in a 62 PSA 8 pop 1 knows that it is there. You don't need to post it on the board.
<< <i>Scott,
Real world business model maybe - but in this case - not an accurate one. You're assuming a straight line from toughest Pop to easiest Pop. But in fact, the curve is a relatively flat one that starts to get steeper and steeper as you get to the toughest 20, 30 or 40 or so. >>
FB -- Absolutely correct. The problem? I simply don't have enough sample data (yet) to correctly graph out that steep curve at the top. I know its there but its virtually impossible to chart it. So I used the simplistic straight line method, at least for now.
Scott
Outside of "once in a lifetime" opportunities, I can't spend $50 for a common in PSA 8.
Here's hoping you are close on your projections
Used to working on HOF SS Baseballs--Now just '67 Sox Stickers and anything Boston related.
I too fall into the cheap SOB group! I just can't justify spending big bucks on high priced cards when I still need SOOOO many others! So, I just keep my bids the same and see what I win. As I near completion of a set - then I have to start getting serious. But, even then - I prefer my own submissions to spending BIG dollars!
Scott,
The factors will come. The market changed when graded cards hit the market and then changed again when the registry started. When it comes to 72's - I know every low pop PSA 9 that comes on eBay. If I need it - I set up my snipe and can pretty much tell you before hand whether I expect to win or not. Although lately there has been a new player in the PSA 9 market that has started to skew the dollars somewhat. WHen I figure out his rhyme and reason - my predictions will become dead on again - at least until the next new player joins - or old one leaves!
Wow! This is pretty neat! A thread where everyone isn't calling each other a dipwap (or worse!)
(Cheap SOB comment not included...)
Sets - 1970, 1971 and 1972
Always looking for 1972 O-PEE-CHEE Baseball in PSA 9 or 10!
lynnfrank@earthlink.net
outerbankyank on eBay!
Used to working on HOF SS Baseballs--Now just '67 Sox Stickers and anything Boston related.
I did go a little nuts recently. Expect to see some tough 8's in my set in the not too distant future.
Michael
<< <i>...I too fall into the cheap SOB group! I just can't justify spending big bucks on high priced cards when I still need SOOOO many others! So, I just keep my bids the same and see what I win. As I near completion of a set - then I have to start getting serious. But, even then - I prefer my own submissions to spending BIG dollars!...) >>
Great point. I am doing the same thing with the 1960 set. I pick up a few cards every week or so in PSA 8 (or when Jay gets a submission back
<< <i>...Wow! This is pretty neat! A thread where everyone isn't calling each other a dipwap (or worse!)
(Cheap SOB comment not included...) >>
BTW Frank, you're a dipwap (whatever that is)!
JEB.
I agree with your strategy about completing in 7's and 8's to keep it simple and cheaper.
Part of the benefit of doing that rather than bidding $50 for a common 8 is that you get to
know which cards are easier and harder to find. (My luck was such that a card I'd never seen
in an 8 on ebay goes for $56 and then a week later there's another one on there. That was
the case with 1967 Petrocelli and Abernathy).
My goals for 1967 were
1)Getting a complete set at all. Last card: Al Dark. (next to last card Tom Seaver)
2) Getting a complete set in graded form
3) When I found out about PSA's registry, of course the next goal became getting a complete
set in PSA graded. But I took whatever I could get and had (and still have
the lowest graded complete set of 1967 baseball.
4) My current goal is completing 1967 in 8 or better. But that really means upgrading my 7's
and one 6 (checklist 454) to 8's, not really buying lots of 9s. That is also to say to my fellow
collectors ahead of me (Dan, Larry, Mike and Alan) "don't worry I won't ever pass you".
5) a subgoal is getting my rating up to 8.0 It was about 7.92 when I got the last
card (a self-submitted Andy Etchebarren PSA7 ...sure I couldda bought an 8 privately for a hundred and fifty...)
Luckily some of the 9's balance some of the 7's until that point.
You know those card ratings factors in the registry ALSO don't reflect population such that
the aforementioned Jack Hamilton and Duke Sims count 1.0 just like the everybody-has-ten Gene
Brabender card from '67.
1967and 1973 Topps baseball wantlists (any condition) welcome. Once had the #14 ATF 1967 set. Yet another collector like skylaneflyer, gimel1 who made it to the completion of 1967 only to need the money more than the company of 609 close friends.
Looking for oddball Norm Cash and Cleon Jones stuff, and 1956 team cards
Lots of cards, yes, but do you know what I found?
I found lots and lots of NM-MT and MINT cards with HORRIBLE centering. They'd easily get 8's and 9's but 80% or more would not meet the 65/35 centering requirement. Ergo, they would never be submitted for grading, or if they were, they'd all get the distasteful "(OC)" qualifier. For higher pop cards, I had PLENTY of well-centered cards.
This is why cards like that 1971 Topps #577 Jim Lonborg sold for $909.00 last week on eBay, and why another one that's out there now is probably going to go for close to that amount. The year doesn't matter -- If most of the cards of that player are off-center, that translates to a very low supply and a very high demand.
Scott
Used to working on HOF SS Baseballs--Now just '67 Sox Stickers and anything Boston related.
<< <i>I have read this thread with interest since I am about to list for auction next week a PSA 8 NQ 1 of 1 from 1962, the Don Landrum card #323. There have been none higher graded. Other than variations and PSA/DNA submissions, I don't think there is another common from the decade of the 60's with a pop of 1 in PSA 8 NQ condition. Unless I've read my pop report wrong, it would thus be the singularly most difficult regular issue Topps card of the 60's. I have no idea what to expect to get for this card. Is it possible to have too low of a pop? One where everybody just overlooks it when putting the set together?
>>
Norty,
Were you happy with the $600+ for this card?
1962 Don Landrum PSA 8 1/1
I had mixed emotions, especially after seeing the 71 Lonborg 1 of 5 go for over $900 and the Hockey Checklist go for $1400. The Landrum is a much tougher card. On one hand, I cannot complain about getting over $600 for a common I had graded raw. That's a damn nice return and makes up for some losers along the way. On the other hand I was surprised there was only 1 snipe at the end and there were only 11 bids in total. I expected more of the Registry guys to go after it. Perhaps, as was discussed, the 62's just are not that popular a set and many fewer people are actively pursuing it.
Since I do not have a set on the Registry I am not exactly certain how the process works for PSA"s Registry grading one's listed set. Am I correct in presuming that getting a 1 of 1 PSA 8 common would have nearly no effect on a person's set grade? If so, likely that would be a disincentive to someone chasing a particularly hard card. It was 50% cheaper to buy the 1 of 1 PSA 9 card #324 that I listed just in front of the Landrum. Chris Renaud plucked that but did not take a stab at the Landrum. I presume PSA credits 9's more than hard 8's.
What did you think of the price Buckwheat? (And anyone else that follows low Pop 60's cards).
Setbuilders Sports Cards
Ebay: set-builders & set-builders2
Personally, I was a bit surprised that the PSA 9 (1 of 1) 1967 #3 Duke Sims went for only $356 a couple days ago, because the 1967 set is a pretty active one, or at least that's what I've observed. Maybe some offline deals were cut between potential buyers to keep the price down on that one?
Anyway, my evolving theory on low pop common card values suggests that $200 is, more or less, the maximum inherent value of any PSA 8 or PSA 9 common card in any regular Topps issue. Past that, it becomes a timing issue, where current demand will move the value up according to how many interested buyers are competing for the card at that point in time.
What's interesting, though, is that the evidence thus far suggests that the cards immediately under the top 2 or 3 in each year/set tend to be tremendously undervalued even when there's only a slight separation supply-wise. For example, a few days ago, a 1971 Topps Bill Sudakis PSA 8 sold on eBay for a little over $200. Sudakis is high on the low pop '71 list too, about 9th or 10th toughest overall, with Lonborg and Claude Raymond still securely in the 1st and 2nd spots.
Scott
Well there is a 2nd 71 Lonborg up now (at a site we know and love) which will test your theory.
Also, theoretically, when you have a 1 of 1 8 like the Landrum, shouldn't the demand be uniform across the Registry for anyone currently working the set in high grade?
Setbuilders Sports Cards
Ebay: set-builders & set-builders2
<< <i>Scott:
Well there is a 2nd 71 Lonborg up now (at a site we know and love) which will test your theory.
Also, theoretically, when you have a 1 of 1 8 like the Landrum, shouldn't the demand be uniform across the Registry for anyone currently working the set in high grade? >>
Joe -- my experience is that willingness to pay is directly inversely proportional to "cards to completion". As the number of PSA 8s needed for a straight 8 set declines, a collector's willing to pay huge premiums for a rare PSA 8 increase dramatically. Even if you have a 1962 Topps 1/1 PSA 8 card -- a set collector that is only 75% done will have less incentive than another collector who only needs eight cards to complete his set.
<< <i>Joe -- my experience is that willingness to pay is directly inversely proportional to "cards to completion". As the number of PSA 8s needed for a straight 8 set declines, a collector's willing to pay huge premiums for a rare PSA 8 increase dramatically. Even if you have a 1962 Topps 1/1 PSA 8 card -- a set collector that is only 75% done will have less incentive than another collector who only needs eight cards to complete his set. >>
Excellent point. And that is completely in line with what I was trying to say about timing being everything when the value/price goes past the theoretical $200 benchmark. And here's the thing that some folks might still be missing. As more set builders fill up their sets with all the higher pop commons, there will be heavier competition for the low pop commons. If more come out, that's great for all of them, but what if they don't? -- Or at least not enough to give them all the cards they need to complete their set? I'm just blue-skying here, but in the case of '71 Topps, that $909 price probably has more chance of looking like a bargain down the road than it does of looking stupid.
Regarding the '71 PSA 8 Lonborg that's out there now -- I wouldn't expect it to fetch $909 based on the bid pattern of the previous one. Last I looked it was at $405 with a couple days left. But on the last one, the bid pattern showed only 2 bidders willing to go past about $500, if my memory is correct. One of them got it, the other didn't. Thus, I would project this Lonborg to go for between $500 and $600.
Scott
The big guns (M garcia, Thurman, W Mccall, Kellner) and other mid series cards have been seen on Ebay quite frequently over the past two months in 8's. 3 Kellners in 2 months. 1st one went for 600-700, 2nd one went for 500 and the 3rd for 200 or so.
Sad to say on low pop commons, but it is only a matter of time before the huge premiums are a thing of the past.
I dont believe there are enough newer Psa 8 set builders with deep pockets willing to pay 10-20X smr. Low Pops will be a footnote in the grading market within a year or two. It Sure is a blast right now though.
Thanks
Scott
<< <i>There has also been a glut of 1957 low pops on Ebay as of late. >>
This might have something to do with a number of high profile collectors currently building the set at an agressive pace.
John
I guess it depends on how one builds their set. Since this is my second go-around with the 1972 set, I did things differently this time. I identified very early on the cards I was willing to pay a significant premium for and was very aggressive on those when I saw them. Due to the timing, I was fortunate enough to snag most of them for a lot less than I'd anticipated. Right now I'm about 28 cards short and only one is a toughie. So on the other 27, I know they'll be around and can pick them up at a time and price of my choosing without feeling the need to overpay.
Mike
<< <i>Schmidt> "my experience is that willingness to pay is directly inversely proportional to "cards to completion". As the number of PSA 8s needed for a straight 8 set declines, a collector's willing to pay huge premiums for a rare PSA 8 increase dramatically."
I guess it depends on how one builds their set. Since this is my second go-around with the 1972 set, I did things differently this time. I identified very early on the cards I was willing to pay a significant premium for and was very aggressive on those when I saw them. Due to the timing, I was fortunate enough to snag most of them for a lot less than I'd anticipated. Right now I'm about 28 cards short and only one is a toughie. So on the other 27, I know they'll be around and can pick them up at a time and price of my choosing without feeling the need to overpay.
Mike >>
Mike: I think your strategy is sound, and the better strategy to pursue. Nonetheless, I do not think it is necessarily reflective of most set builders.
With some of the vintage sets (I'm speaking primarily of 1955 Bowman here...), there was not a critical mass of 8s graded in the past to truly identify the low population cards. Thankfully, I was able to pick most of them up before some of the low pops were hitting the $500 - $700 range. However, my strategic mistake from the getgo was not having a huge willingness to pay for lower population Yankee commons. I greatly underestimated the entrenched market for some of those cards.
Also -- with some of the 1955 Bowman PSA 8s have populations of five or less, often some PSA 8s have not publically traded in four years or more. With many of the low population commons, I can tell you where 75% of them reside, with good guesses as to where the rest are. With some of the 1970 issues, it seems to me like there is a much greater potential for future 8s than with some of the vintage issues. Nonetheless, because of their sheer size, the 1970s issues will always be very tough in straight 8 or better.
<< <i>Joe -- my experience is that willingness to pay is directly inversely proportional to "cards to completion". As the number of PSA 8s needed for a straight 8 set declines, a collector's willing to pay huge premiums for a rare PSA 8 increase dramatically. Even if you have a 1962 Topps 1/1 PSA 8 card -- a set collector that is only 75% done will have less incentive than another collector who only needs eight cards to complete his set. >>
Mike Schmidt:
I agree with the point you make above. The only lingering question I have is given the huge number of cards that have been graded from the 60's in recent years and this being the only one to grade an 8, wouldn't that in and of itself increase the willingness to go higher for it when there is less of a likelhood you'll see another one or two any time soon? This is sort of a 62's corollary to the point you made with Scott regarding the 55 Bowmans
<< <i>Also -- with some of the 1955 Bowman PSA 8s have populations of five or less, often some PSA 8s have not publically traded in four years or more. With many of the low population commons, I can tell you where 75% of them reside, with good guesses as to where the rest are. With some of the 1970 issues, it seems to me like there is a much greater potential for future 8s than with some of the vintage issues. >>
Setbuilders Sports Cards
Ebay: set-builders & set-builders2
However, with that said, I can perhaps rationalize it considering there are only currently five of the Lonborgs in PSA 8 condition with none graded higher. Cards that have 9 examples typically have a good supply of 8 condition cards as well. If someone is trying to put together an 8 or higher set, and assuming at least a couple of these cards will remain in good homes, prices can go up when such a card comes up for auction.
When it is all said and done, I am not sure personally if I could still justify paying so much for a common (maybe if I had more money, it would be different
Well, I have a fairly nice raw Lonborg from 71 that I now have to send in for grading. If it comes in at an 8, "jackpot." If not, I will have another nice 7 for my set.
A very thought provoking thread!
As a general rule, I attempt to purchase any common card that meets my grading (and personal - look/budget) standards. However, when I have to make a choice between two cards, I always focus on the "lower" of the low pop even if those cards sell for somewhat of a premium b/c I don't know when I'll see them again.
Gatorbait
Dallas Green 2, a pearson 0, g witt 2, landrum 0, blanchard 3 just to name a few. Today, Dallas Green 7, a pearson 2, landrum 1, blanchard 7, g witt 4. I guess the question becomes are these cards really that hard to find? The low pop craze has gathered some serious stength just in the past 3-4 months. Psa has been grading for about 10 years. These 5 cards were graded 8's 7 times total in that amount of time. However in the last 3-4 months that number has jumped to 21 8's. I for one can say that it has been fun hunting down these low pop cards raw cards and will continue to do so.
I have also noticed bidders are not bidding quite as strong on the real low pops as they were 3-4 months ago. I remember a 61 repulski that dsl had selling for 591.00 and then the next two closed at 380.00 and 130.00. thats a real dramatic dip. It appears that even the big gun psa set collectors have been doing their homework
on the perceived low pop commons. Pop report surfing on the laptop, Latte and a private jet. MUST BE NICE!!
thanks
Scott
Would Topps have done this in 1969 in order to keep Boston area kids searching through pack after pack for a Mike Andrews (or substitute your favorite city, team, and player here)? You bet they would! It was never officially confirmed but I think we can all recognize it as brillient selling strategy.
Scott
thanks
Scott
As far as the low pops coming up in number, that is especially true on the 61's, and I don't know how to explain it. Some cards that have been very hard to find in the past few years, have now had 5 to 10 graded PSA 8 in the past few months. For example the 119 A's Armor and the 128 Repulski. I hope that this is just the market responding to demand and digging up high grade cards. I am a little afraid that card doctors have gotten better and are working on low pop commons, figuring they won't get the scrutiny from PSA that a Mantle or other star would, but realizing that they will bring hundreds on Ebay.
I'm old so my memory is not what it used to be but I thought I got over $600 for an A's Armor about a year ago.
Setbuilders Sports Cards
Ebay: set-builders & set-builders2
I believe that your memory is correct, although I wasn't counting that as a "common" card in the same sense as Don Landrum. It is actually listed in the SMR. There was also a #554 Pirates team that went for over $900 with a pop over 30! But of course that is a team card of the Pirates championship team and a high number.
If you have a Ralph Houk, I am sure you would get more than $600 for it, too, but again not a true common.
I am wondering what the high number Bob Cerv PSA 9 1/2 will go for. Already over $750 with over 4 days to go. 1961 Cerv PSA 9
Scottsusor--does your formula apply to PSA 9's?
To sort of go along with what you're saying, I tend to think that "low pop" and "high pop" are relative terms. I mean if a card has a PSA8 population of say 18, but 20 people are actively and aggressively pursuing sets that could be considered a "low pop" card. The other side of the coin is a card that has a PSA9 pop of 2, but if noone cares. . .
I definitely agree that some cards in each set will ALWAYS be tougher to find relative to the other cards in the set regardless of what the actual population numbers play out to be.
Mike
<< <i>Scottsusor--does your formula apply to PSA 9's? >>
Yes and no. But its more of a projection than a formula. Its based on total number of cards graded 8, 9 and 10 with no qualifiers. So the 9's are in there but they aren't figured as a separate entity. I did it this way because the majority of demand is for 8 or better.
Mike -- You're right, of course. These graded cards are a luxury item and not a necessity. So at any given point in time, the demand will vary according to who and how many are seeking the available supply. I have a little problem with the "If noone cares" scenario though. If graded card set building were a brand new phenomenon -- as it was several year ago -- I could accept that playing into the equation. But we're well into graded card set building as a hobby/business at this point. Therefore, its likely that SOMEBODY will ALWAYS care.
Scott
Mike
<< <i>To sort of go along with what you're saying, I tend to think that "low pop" and "high pop" are relative terms. I mean if a card has a PSA8 population of say 18, but 20 people are actively and aggressively pursuing sets that could be considered a "low pop" card. The other side of the coin is a card that has a PSA9 pop of 2, but if noone cares. . . >>
This is a very accurate theory. Scott, I would direct you to this PSA 1/1 auction if you question the "no one cares" idea...
m116 Irv Young PSA 8 1/1
The top 4 underbidders on the Lonborg bid higher than the top underbidder on the Young. If the Lonborg was a 1/1, you could theoretically add 4 more potential underbidders to the Lonborg.
I could only show.
Currently collecting.....your guess is as good as mine.