How do you judge the scarcity of a set?

bosoxphan

I've seen three different ways collectors judge the scarcity of a specific set, and I'd like to hear opinions on which of the three is the most accurate. Let's assume you want to build a vintage 50's set in PSA 8 or better and have narrowed your choice down to the 1951 Bowman set, the 1953 Topps set, and the 1955 Topps set. Which of these three is the most scarce? Depending on what formula you use to judge rarity, you could get a different answer with each method.
I've seen some use "percentage of PSA 8 or better graded vs. total number of cards graded". Using this method the 1955 Topps set wins with 30.3%, the 1953 Topps set is 32.3% and the 1951 Bowman set is 38.7%. The problem I see with this choice is it doesn't take into account the actual number of cards graded. The number of 1955 Topps cards graded is extremely large comparatively.
Second, I've seen collectors use "average number of cards in PSA 8 or better". Meaning you take the total number of cards in the set graded 8 or better and divide that number by the number of cards in the set. Using this method, the 1951 Bowman set is deemed the rarest with a 20.5 card average, the 1953 Topps set is at 25.1, and the 1955 Topps is at 37.9. This method takes into account the absolute number of cards graded but seems to hurt sets with a lot of commons submitted due to the popularity of the set. Using this method the 1965 Topps set is deemed more scarce than the 1952 Topps set simply because the 52 Topps set has fairly even submissions of all cards in the set, stars or commons. Sets that have a large number of commons submitted, for whatever reason, fair poorly in this method.
The last one I've seen used is "number of cards graded of the single highest card". If you're doing PSA 8 or better than it'd be the card in that particular set that has the most graded 8 or higher. Collectors figure that the rest of the cards in the set have the potential to reach the numbers put up by that single highest card. Using this method the 1953 Topps set wins with 101 of Roy Campanella in PSA 8 or better, the 1951 Bowman set has 103 Willie Mays, and the 1955 Topps set has 195 Sandy Koufax. This method assumes all cards are equal, eventhough that's not always the case. Star cards were treated better than commons thus leaving more in high grade. Although it does treat all sets equally so the margin of error is the same across the board. It also penalizes sets that have one card graded way more than the rest of the cards in the set, but I suppose that could be nullified by using the 2nd or 3rd highest card instead.
I'd love to hear opinions on what formula you use to determine the rarity of a set or if you use more than one. Any of this make sense

FatCat

Another way to look at it is to figure out how many possible sets could be made in PSA 8 or better. For example, the population (in PSA 8 or better) of the lowest pop card is the amount of actual complete sets that could possibly be put together. Of course this would really only have accuracy with pre-1960 sets.

When I consider doing a set, I use the above method to determine how hard it will be to complete. Then I look at the registry to see how many of that low pop card are already in other sets. For example, if I'm considering doing a 50's set in PSA 8 or better and the lowest pop card in the set has 10 examples graded 8 or higher...if I then see that the registry has 4 sets which all already have this low pop card....I'll draw the conclusion that there's really only 6 more possible complete sets to be made. I also take into account the fact that many people do not put their set in the PSA registry. In addition, I take into account the actual card. Is this low pop card a star card? Is this low pop card a Yankee or Dodger card? That makes a big difference. You need to consider the fact that there might be other people (non set collectors) who want this card. And my example assumes there would be only 1 really tough card. In most 50's sets, there's a handful of really tough low pop cards. All of them need to be taken into consideration.

What's in circulation can sometimes be more important than actual scarcity.

gemint

This is tough to quantify but I agree with fatcat's method. You need to consider how many low pop cards are in the set (pick some number like a population <10). You also need to consider the rarity of the set. For example, there are a ton of commons from the late 70's with populations less than 10 but they are by no means rare. They just don't have enough resale value to encourage people to submit them.

Another great way to tell is to go on eBay and see if the majority of cards are selling over or under SMR and by how much. I think it's safe to say that there is a higher demand for 1972 Topps baseball than 1973 Topps baseball since there are many more people working on the '72 set. The final bid prices support this assumption.

jaxxr

Star cards were treated better than commons thus leaving more in high grade.

When I was a punk kid it was cool to use the stars as bike clackers for the spokes. We also used to play pretend games, with dice or a mechanical-type fied and made up our line-up with BB cards and guys like Al Kaline were used much more than Woody Held. In the 50s and 60s youngsters did not know about rookie cards and grading, the cards were made to be played with a bit. It seems Wiiile, Mickey and the Duke were handled a lot more than Granny, Smokey and the Spook (Jacobs).
I can even remember drawing a mustace on a Sandy K. card from the hated Dodgers, but would,nt bother defacing a bum like Norm Larker. I had a Mays card in my wallet but no Ruben Gomez. Times have changed, and the boys and girls realize profit potential so all cards are handled with care. The cards you are interested in were kid's products, an insert to bubblegum. I am sure not all kids treated their cards with the same disrespect of condition as me, but I would guess many did. If we only knew then what we know now.

bosoxphan

That is an interesting method that I had forgotten about. It puts a high emphasis on a few select commons as a query to the overall scarcity of the set though. The 1952 Topps set is a very interesting example. Most would consider it a scarce set, one of the scarcest of the 50's, yet in this method it would do pretty poorly. The set is so valuable and popular, every nook and cranny has been search and it seems like the majority of the nice ones have been sent in for grading, star or common. The population list of the set is very, very even. In most sets the highest submitted card has between 100-200 graded 8 or better and there will be a few select commons with only 5 or 6 graded 8 or better. The 1952 Topps set has a highest submitted card of only 63 graded 8 or better, with the low card at 9 graded 8 or better.

NickM

I judge scarcity on truly vintage material by tracking how many cards from a set are offered on eBay over a few weeks. This works to include non-graded cards as well. I think this takes availability into account much better than relying on PSA pop. reports does.

Nick

mikeschmidt

The 1955 Bowman set can only (with current population) have 3 sets with grades 8 or better on each card.

One basic way is to take total number of graded cards divided by the number of cards in the set. (even though this is a skewed analysis, it provides at least a starting point). Thus, 1955 Bowman has a total of about 30 or so graded sets, making it relatively scarce by 1950s standsards. Many cards have less than 15 examples graded total.

MS

theBobs

<< <i>Let's assume you want to build a vintage 50's set in PSA 8 or better and have narrowed your choice down to the 1951 Bowman set, the 1953 Topps set, and the 1955 Topps set. >>


Faulty assumption in that every rational thinking person would clearly make 1972 as his or her set of choice... It has the high numerator to couple with its high denominator....