Low Pop Common or Just Low Number Slabbed?

bleacherbum

As I get close to completing the 1971 set, I'm now at the point where most of the cards are in the low pop category. I'm interested to hear what people think - are these low population cards a true indication of the scarcity of the card in the particular grade or is it just happenstance that they haven't been submitted as much as other cards? As I've tracked 1971's, many of the cards where there used to be single digits available now number in the 20's. Just this past month, the Lonborg pop, which was the scarcest card in the set, "skyrocketed" from 3 to 5 copies. This now puts the Regan and Raymond as the lowest pop cards in the set at 4. Another historical tough low pop was Shellenback, but now there are 11 PSA 8's out there.

Steve

srs1a

I think that this is an interesting question -- the set I collect is '68T baseball. About 9 months ago there were no 9's of card 453 -- S. Ellis. Then one popped up and it was whisked away in Stump's set...as I understand it, it is now in Ron Ritt's set. Then...up popped a SGC-96. on eBAY..which flew under the radar screen and ended up in my set....now, there's another PSA-9 on eBAY. So, in less than a year, the MINT POP went from zero to three.

I collected this set as a kid and still have a couple thousand "dog eared beauties"...when I last looked through them, I had 3 copies of #453 -- all beat the he!!, but all well centered. I wonder if this card will end up as a low-pop. There are other cards from the set (eg 128 Astros Rookies) that is now the low pop leader...and all my copies of this card are miserably centered. I have a feeling that 128 will stay a low pop...while more nice copies of 453 will show up.

time will tell...

ejguru

Absolutely SRS! If one simply looks at the number of 8's (or better) without taking a look in terms of % of submits 8 or better, they are missing a chunk of valuable info. Then again, one may be able to infer that there have been so few total submits because the card notoriously is drastically OC (or OF). I am sure there are examples collectors could cite from their issues of interest--

miami3

Good post SRS1a,

I too have a large quantity of 68 Topps baseball and have found the same problem with all of my Astro Rookie cards #128- they are all O/C.

I have been collecting/selling cards since 1979 and have found that 68's are readily available in almost any grade however there will always be high grade rarities such as this card possibly due to the location of the card on a printing sheet.

I would be curious to see if anyone has an uncut sheet of the #2 series in this year to see exactly where #128 falls near the cut line.

Jim

gemint

The lowest population cards from the early 70's or older are definitely much tougher to find in high grade than the rest of the set (in most cases). However, I don't think we should be surprised when cards with populations in the single digits eventually migrate to double digits. There are still many raw high grade sets out there hiding in private collections. These usually trickle out in the Mastro auctions over time. It's pretty safe to say that some high grade examples of these low pop rarities are buried in those sets and will find their way to a holder when the set is purchased and broken up.

Glynparson

i Could not have said it better myself gemint perfect synopsis of the situation.

purelyPSA

Another aspect of all this is the number of people attempting a particular set. Used to be that '71 Topps had two dozen guys with registered sets, and of those 24 or so, only 1/3 were above 25%. Now there's 60something and it takes 25% finished to hit the top 20. That tells me that yes, even though the pops have been rising steadily, so has the number of people who'll take an interest in that card. This in turn will buoy the prices. When supply overstrips demand is when there's a problem.

jaybyrd

Just checked my 1968 - #128 Astros Rookies, it is perfectly centered but corner wear knocks it down to Ex-Mt. As least we know that this card does exists centered.

scottsusor

Hey, that's MY 1968 #453 Sammy Ellis out there! Just came back from PSA grading this past week, and yes it is only the second one to get a PSA 9 grade.

EJ makes a great point. You have to look at the population of 8's of the same card to get a good idea of the value of a 9. In Sammy's case, there are only 16 PSA 8's. I believe that #102 Jose Cardenal has the fewest 8's with 10 right now, but there are 4 PSA 9's. So Sammy isn't too far behind Jose.

But more to the point of this thread, it may be that more people are looking for raw low pops these days, like me for example. So more come out. But a card that was poorly positioned for cutting by Topps in 1968, and hence had way more badly cut cards than other numbers, will ALWAYS be a low pop. Why? Because even as more come out, there will always be more and more collectors looking for (as an example) a PSA 8 or 9 #453 Sammy Ellis to help complete their set. And once such a card gets "locked in" to an in-progress set, it becomes unavailable (at least temporarily) to everybody looking for it.

Scott