Latest 1969 Baseball low POP's

RayBShotz

From time to time I do an informal scroll down the POP report and report here the latest Low POP leaders for 69' Baseball. Each time you find some of the stubborn typical suspects. The surprise is that you also find some that are definitely tough (especially by the POP numbers) but get far less "high profile" press. Some low POP's of the past are off the list now because of a concerted effort by submitters to land 8's or better for their sets or for sale (at a handsome profit!)
I have listed here 18 cards with total populations in 8NQ or better (following that are the numbers of those in PSA8/PSA9). Having followed this set very closely for years there are definitely a few new offenders on this list as well as the usual suspects. I'll leave the comments to you. (...and maybe chime back in later :-)

1969 Low POP's, 8 NQ or better PSA8/PSA9 in order of scarcity

#52 Andrews 7 Total 4/3
#254 Schultz 8 Total 7/1
#347 Hundley 8 Total 7/1
#466 Boccabella 8 Total 7/1
#655 Hershberger 8 Total 7/1
#620 Chance 8 Total 6/2
#502 Rojas 9 Total 9/0
#512 C.Jones 9 Total 9/0
#69 Hamilton 9 Total 8/1
#78 Satriano 9 Total 8/1
#663 Radatz 9 Total 8/1
#60 Briles 9 Total 7/2
#68 Duncan 9 Total 7/2
#104 Blass 10 Total 9/1
#346 Comer 10 Total 8/2
#315 Fisher 10 Total 7/3
#476 Red Sox Rookies 11 Total 11/0 Yellow & White Letters combined

If I missed any I apologize. This set has been heavily submitted in the last couple of years. There is a rousing bunch of regular set builders inside and outside of the registry. I feel that the POP numbers are a lot more mature now and are a helpful guide for the newbies and grissled veterans of the set (Yeah...grissled...that's me!) Enjoy.
RayB69Topps

scottsusor

I think #451 Rich Rollins and #426 Curt Flood AS should be on this list also.

Scott

ZodiacMindwarp

Ray,

I have been keeping track of similar data. These are the low population 1969 cards in regards to the amount of 9's and 10's graded as of 02/23/04:

0 (24)
21 85 108 121 212 245 262 285 290 313 426 432 448 462 476 477 487 489 502 509 512 518 625 663

1 (67)
43 49 69 71 78 83 101 104 106 143 193 204 216 220 233 235 243 252 254 257 258 266 267 277 278 279 280 281 287 294 299 305 312 326 328 347 350 381 387 391 431 436 446 449 456 457 464 466 470 473 475 479 483 493 494 496 498 508 511 530 598 617 632 642 653 655 662

2 (81)
48 52 54 59 60 68 72 93 102 105 110 111 187 191 198 201 207 210 223 225 229 232 236 240 248 249 250 259 263 269 270 273 282 288 289 293 298 300 302 308 314 316 336 341 342 343 346 353 377 380 382 392 394 405 407 423 429 443 444 445 452 453 458 467 469 474 478 481 484 490 492 495 501 506 578 609 618 620 622 627 638


The total number of low population cards and the percent of the set they represent at the specified date:

209/664 = 31.63% (10/10/03)
191/664 = 28.77% (12/19/03)
172/664 = 25.90% (02/23/04)

scottsusor

It would be interesting to compute the percentage of ALL 1969 Topps cards graded that these 20 or so numbers represent. That would give us a very clear picture of just how rare they are. I hope people are starting to get over their shock and dismay at how commons can be worth more than many of the stars/superstars in certain cases in the graded card world.

Scott

magellan

I've been finding there are a lot of tough ones out there. I'm trying to build a 7 set so some of the low pop's are much easier in that grade (Andrews has 16 7's on the 2/24 pop) but many of them have much lower pops of 7's than 8's , so in that case I bid on any 8's that show up. This is gonna take a while but I thnk that's going to add to the enjoyment.

Dave

scottsusor

Dave -- That is precisely why I contend that, in a few years, vintage low pop PSA 7 commons will be what vintage low pop PSA 8 commons are today.

Scott