For those lined up who have dealt with me before, paypal is duffettjames@gmail.com and I'd appreciate saving the paypal juice where possible. If you need an invoice, I understand as well, just pm me and I'll have it out.
Just an update on where we are at so far. I will likely ship in batches as people pay, via either fedex or usps, if you have a preference, please let me know. USPS will be first, sometime early this week. Thanks a ton - Jim
<< <i>Just an update on where we are at so far. I will likely ship in batches as people pay, via either fedex or usps, if you have a preference, please let me know. USPS will be first, sometime early this week. Thanks a ton - Jim
Thanks Jim! We are living out of our suitcases atm and our idiot embassy still has not called us for an interview. BTW the recent auctions were pretty tough and I have been getting beat regularly over the past several months - looks like we have some new players! Who won that Driessen PSA 8? I thought it was an easy win at 144.00 and would have gone 200.00 if I thought there was competition. Someone else went in the 120s. Congrats to the winner, that is one of the best I have seen.
<< <i> BTW the recent auctions were pretty tough and I have been getting beat regularly over the past several months - looks like we have some new players! Who won that Driessen PSA 8? I thought it was an easy win at 144.00 and would have gone 200.00 if I thought there was competition. Someone else went in the 120s. Congrats to the winner, that is one of the best I have seen. >>
I was surprised as you that I didn't win it either. The Driessen is one of the last 4 remaining 7s I have in my set. I thought my $136 bid was strong given the previous high sale was $97. I believe the winner is the guy who has the #5 set "Sassagedog's Minis". He's purchased several cards from me over the last year, all red/yellows. Looks like he has Driessen in 7... now 8.
Also, I've got a bunch of nice minis up for auction on eBay right now including several tougher PSA 9s like Cooper and Stinson, PSA 8s of Aaaron and Ryan, and several lots. Most of these are pack pulled and self submitted by me. Check out the auctions.
Got my box tonight, hand delivered by Jim~can't beat that service! LOL!
Good seeing you tonight, Jim~thanks again for breaking this case for us. It looks like there are some really nice cards in these boxes waiting to be pulled!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I thought I would share the results of a small sub of Mini's that popped today. The Dobson and Montanez are of what I'll term the "non-cut-card-case" variety; examples of this type are both underrated toughies due to typically poor t/b centering and snow issues, so I'm really pleased to receive 8's on these two. Also of note is that I'm now about 0 for 10 subbing Tommy Davis examples for 8's; I'm beginning to wonder if I'll ever figure that card out or even if I'll ever try subbing any again. Of the green yellow color combo, the Davis is by far the easiest to find full sized and in 7 condition while at the same time being super tough in an 8. The Dobson was a raw eBay purchase, the Davis was a 7 crackout, and the remaining four were purchased raw at the April Chantilly Colllector's Showcase card show. None of these are for sale, btw - all are staying with my collection as are the ones some of these replace in my set. Thanks for reading!
NEAR MINT 7 1975 Topps Mini 39 Andy Thornton Card NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1975 Topps Mini 44 Pat Dobson Card MINT 9 1975 Topps Mini 122 Al Hrabosky Card NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1975 Topps Mini 162 Willie Montanez Card NEAR MINT 7 1975 Topps Mini 237 Carl Morton Card NEAR MINT 7 1975 Topps Mini 564 Tommy Davis Card
Nice work, Nick! The Montanez in PSA 8 is indeed a tough one.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>I thought I would share the results of a small sub of Mini's that popped today. The Dobson and Montanez are of what I'll term the "non-cut-card-case" variety; examples of this type are both underrated toughies due to typically poor t/b centering and snow issues, so I'm really pleased to receive 8's on these two. Also of note is that I'm now about 0 for 10 subbing Tommy Davis examples for 8's; I'm beginning to wonder if I'll ever figure that card out or even if I'll ever try subbing any again. Of the green yellow color combo, the Davis is by far the easiest to find full sized and in 7 condition while at the same time being super tough in an 8. The Dobson was a raw eBay purchase, the Davis was a 7 crackout, and the remaining four were purchased raw at the April Chantilly Colllector's Showcase card show. None of these are for sale, btw - all are staying with my collection as are the ones some of these replace in my set. Thanks for reading!
NEAR MINT 7 1975 Topps Mini 39 Andy Thornton Card NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1975 Topps Mini 44 Pat Dobson Card MINT 9 1975 Topps Mini 122 Al Hrabosky Card NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1975 Topps Mini 162 Willie Montanez Card NEAR MINT 7 1975 Topps Mini 237 Carl Morton Card NEAR MINT 7 1975 Topps Mini 564 Tommy Davis Card >>
Nice Nick, interesting observation on the Davis, Sorry to hear about your struggle. I totally agree with your assessment - the place I look for snow is the center 0...it is easiest to see there. Also, the Thornton is VERY under-rated as a tough card. Many of the 9s were cut (I have destroyed 3 glaring examples). There is one cut 9 I know of still floating. But the 8s just don't come up for auction that often. I suspect that the 8 pop = 48ish might be inflated by crackouts as early collectors tried to get the difficult 9 and failed several times. Same with the Montenez in a legit 8...not easy to find. BTW I have been getting pummelled in auctions lately - probably only winning 1 in 5 and 1 in 3 of the cards I pursue. Looks like game on for star cards 8 and above. There seems to be a market forming for 9s in pop 11-15 coming in at around 80-100.00. That is still a bargain IMO but much higher than many of these list on VCP.
The Davis reminds of a little fun with numbers I had about this time last year with the Mini population report. I wondered if there was some metric that would best describe the relative difficulty in receiving an 8 or higher on a Mini common. About the best one I found that made sense with my experience with grading Mini's was the ratio of the 7 to 8 population of a card. The main assumption with this metric is that most commons are not submitted for 7's but for 8's and higher, and that if the common receives a 7, it's very likely a "miss" at achieving a higher grade. One problem with the population report has always been crackouts affecting the numbers, but in this case, a crackout demonstrates a miss and an attempt at a correction - in other words, a crackout can be a good indicator of a card's difficulty at achieving a high grade. Anyway, I took a July 2014 population report and copied it into a spreadsheet and worked the numbers (this was right before the format of the report was unfortunately changed to show 0.5 grades as +'s and qualifiers as q's which makes the report now difficult to copy into a spreadsheet). Using this metric, the top 10 toughest commons and associated ratios are:
Tommy Davis (1.6757) Claudell Washington (1.5897) Ken Singleton (1.3333) Cliff Johnson (1.3077) Steve Rogers (1.0889) Glenn Borgmann (1.0526) Jack Heideman (1.0526) Rick Burleson (1.0345) Frank Tanana (0.9737) Dave Giusti (0.9688)
Keep in mind that the population report and by extension, this metric, don't show those Mini's that were rejected (or never selected for grading in the first place) due to falling below the minimum size requirement, which is a substantial part of the difficulty of many Mini's. I think what it best shows is that for those cards that met the minimum size requirement and were submitted, in most circumstances to receive an 8 or higher, these were the top 10 toughest to get that 8+. It's no surprise to me, based on my experience, to see Tommy Davis at the top.
BTW, the whole point in me running these numbers last summer was to help me decide which low pop commons I should try to submit and which ones I should just outright buy and not waste $ trying to get in an 8. For that purpose, I think the metric works well.
Incidentally, to attempt to capture an overall difficulty which accounts for not only difficulty in submitting a card to get an 8 (ratio of 7/8) but also difficulty in finding an already graded 8+ card (represented by total population of 8+), I added together the 7/8 ratio and the population of 8+ for each Mini, and sorted in ascending order to get what I term total difficulty. I'm sure there are many flaws with the assumptions behind this overall metric, but I use it as a guide. Here are the top 50 toughest (this is data from a July 2014 population report):
Rank Card No. Name 7 8 Ratio 7/8 Total 8+ Ratio plus total high grade
1 143 Cliff Johnson 34 26 1.3077 33 34.30769231 2 302 Rick Burleson 30 29 1.0345 34 35.03448276 3 53 Dave Giusti 31 32 0.9688 35 35.96875 4 405 John Montague 17 34 0.5000 37 37.5 5 564 Tommy Davis 62 37 1.6757 38 39.67567568 6 512 Larry Milbourne 12 35 0.3429 41 41.34285714 7 647 Claudell Washington 62 39 1.5897 40 41.58974359 8 458 Ross Grimsley 29 39 0.7436 41 41.74358974 9 133 Dan Driessen 31 36 0.8611 41 41.86111111 10 16 Frank Tanana 37 38 0.9737 41 41.97368421 11 322 Ed Goodson 24 37 0.6486 42 42.64864865 12 649 Jack Heidemann 40 38 1.0526 42 43.05263158 13 481 Will McEnaney 17 39 0.4359 43 43.43589744 14 297 Craig Kusick 23 40 0.5750 43 43.575 15 56 Rick Wise 26 39 0.6667 43 43.66666667 16 127 Glenn Borgmann 40 38 1.0526 43 44.05263158 17 503 Fred Stanley 18 38 0.4737 44 44.47368421 18 371 Gates Brown 24 38 0.6316 44 44.63157895 19 58 Chuck Taylor 27 36 0.7500 44 44.75 20 253 Jesus Alou 30 36 0.8333 44 44.83333333 21 187 Denny Doyle 14 35 0.4000 45 45.4 22 277 Frank Taveras 17 40 0.4250 46 46.425 23 339 Jim Fergosi 13 41 0.3171 47 47.31707317 24 219 Ed Herrmann 21 39 0.5385 47 47.53846154 25 612 Terry Hughes 30 40 0.7500 47 47.75 26 326 Wayne Twitchell 20 42 0.4762 48 48.47619048 27 168 Bill Greif 9 43 0.2093 49 49.20930233 28 380 Sal Bando 18 44 0.4091 49 49.40909091 29 417 Skip Lockwood 18 44 0.4091 49 49.40909091 30 514 Jose Cruz 26 44 0.5909 49 49.59090909 31 178 Cesar Tovar 25 40 0.6250 49 49.625 32 64 Dave Chalk 5 36 0.1389 50 50.13888889 33 345 Clay Carroll 7 39 0.1795 50 50.17948718 34 237 Carl Morton 11 40 0.2750 50 50.275 35 84 Enzo Hernandez 12 37 0.3243 50 50.32432432 36 31 Dave Rader 18 43 0.4186 50 50.41860465 37 245 Mickey Lolich 22 39 0.5641 50 50.56410256 38 30 Bert Blyleven 66 42 1.5714 49 50.57142857 39 173 Steve Rogers 49 45 1.0889 51 52.08888889 40 259 Len Randle 30 49 0.6122 52 52.6122449 41 65 Don Gullett 33 41 0.8049 52 52.80487805 42 499 Marty Perez 12 48 0.2500 53 53.25 43 163 Jim Brewer 17 46 0.3696 53 53.36956522 44 157 Pedro Borbon 12 45 0.2667 54 54.26666667 45 23 Bill Russell 12 39 0.3077 54 54.30769231 46 97 Earl Williams 11 34 0.3235 54 54.32352941 47 96 Mike Cosgrove 18 37 0.4865 54 54.48648649 48 82 Pat Kelly 12 40 0.3000 55 55.3 49 301 Dave Roberts 24 46 0.5217 55 55.52173913 50 162 Willie Montanez 24 43 0.5581 55 55.55813953
By this calculation, Cliff Johnson is the toughest to find (by either submitting one raw or buying one graded) in high grade. Of note is non-red/yellow and non-green/yellow combos show up in the top 50, including Denny Doyle and Chuck Taylor. I paid quite a bit for a full-sized Denny Doyle a few months back (I may have set a record) in an 8. This is why. I've always thought that card is way undervalued.
That is a fantastic list Nick. It brings to the forefront something I have always thought and kept quiet about. There are actually 3 primo difficult color combos not two. I have always thought Red/Yellows were the toughest, followed by Green/Yellows and Red/Blues. In fact, I feel that Red/Blue difficulty is almost on par with Green/Yellow.
EDIT: My clear number 4 color combo is Yellow/Red (due to both some difficult cards such as Doyle and Montanez but also the tremendous star power in this combo). As for number 5 I go back and forth between the green/green (real cut issues); and orange/brown. Any have different thoughts? Also, it would be interesting to see the next 50! There are still several dozen tough 8s that didn't crack the top 50.
Good points on the red/blue and yellow/red. I think those two color combos are a very small step below the green/yellow in terms of difficulty only because the green/yellow more often comes up naturally short. However, what's tricky about the red/blue and yellow/reds is that many of those cards come in the "cut card case" variety (there is a discussion on these in this thread on March 1-2, 2013). PSA grades those as legit; however, many feel like these "cut card case" cards (or whatever their source - I have no idea where they came from) dilute the true population that came retail in wax, cello, and rack packs. Examples include Montanez, Doyle, Dobson, Brooks Robinson, and Johnny Bench in the yellow/red and Mickey Lolich, Ken Singleton, Mike Hegan, Bert Blyleven, and Chuck Taylor in the red/blue. All of these come off of the Giusti sheet (Dave Giusti is found in the upper left corner of this sheet) which you can view in this thread on 11/11/2011 (I posted the sheet on that date), and these are much easier to get 8's on than the retail variety. The bottom line is that these "cut card case" variety cards dilute the true retail population such that the difficulty of these examples is understated by the population report and the metrics I posted. Just something to keep in mind. And again, this is why I paid a premium for the Denny Doyle a few months ago. I've figured out a way to tell certain of these "cut card case" cards, including the Doyle, from the retail ones simply by the markings on the cards (e.g., fisheye in a certain location). But for now, I'm not revealing that info - I can't give you guys all my secrets in one day, lol.
Here are the next 50 to chew on:
51 152 Mario Guerrero 9 39 0.2308 56 56.23076923 52 116 Lerrin LaGrow 27 49 0.5510 56 56.55102041 53 222 Dan Spillner 10 39 0.2564 57 57.25641026 54 55 Bobby Bonds 12 45 0.2667 57 57.26666667 55 442 Maximino Leon 20 49 0.4082 57 57.40816327 56 603 Lew Krausse 28 54 0.5185 57 57.51851852 57 86 Joe Lis 25 44 0.5682 57 57.56818182 58 131 Toby Harrah 8 43 0.1860 58 58.18604651 59 401 Mike Wallace 12 51 0.2353 58 58.23529412 60 601 Juan Beniquez 13 46 0.2826 58 58.2826087 61 232 Diego Segui 14 46 0.3043 58 58.30434783 62 28 Tom Murphy 14 44 0.3182 58 58.31818182 63 287 Roric Harrison 19 38 0.5000 58 58.5 64 528 Eddie Leon 4 37 0.1081 59 59.10810811 65 582 Eduardo Rodriguez 6 33 0.1818 59 59.18181818 66 362 Steve Hargan 12 51 0.2353 59 59.23529412 67 155 Jim Bibby 11 42 0.2619 59 59.26190476 68 160 Graig Nettles 12 45 0.2667 59 59.26666667 69 338 Rick Stelmaszek 13 41 0.3171 59 59.31707317 70 243 Jim Kaat 15 39 0.3846 59 59.38461538 71 315 Don Kessinger 28 46 0.6087 59 59.60869565 72 103 Rick Miller 39 55 0.7091 59 59.70909091 73 81 Ron Reed 36 49 0.7347 59 59.73469388 74 509 Dave Hilton 6 39 0.1538 60 60.15384615 75 227 Bob Watson 9 49 0.1837 60 60.18367347 76 337 Kevin Kobel 7 36 0.1944 60 60.19444444 77 428 Dave Hamilton 8 36 0.2222 60 60.22222222 78 119 Tommy Helms 11 37 0.2973 60 60.2972973 79 562 Gary Nolan 11 37 0.2973 60 60.2972973 80 125 Ken Singleton 72 54 1.3333 59 60.33333333 81 99 Mike Hegan 18 49 0.3673 60 60.36734694 82 229 Barry Foote 25 51 0.4902 60 60.49019608 83 27 Ken Reitz 34 49 0.6939 60 60.69387755 84 537 Tommy Harper 9 50 0.1800 61 61.18 85 504 Buddy Bradford 9 48 0.1875 61 61.1875 86 265 Ron Bryant 11 44 0.2500 61 61.25 87 354 Dick Bosman 11 43 0.2558 61 61.25581395 88 25 Lee May 14 47 0.2979 61 61.29787234 89 289 Ken Rudolph 14 46 0.3043 61 61.30434783 90 637 Ted Martinez 17 53 0.3208 61 61.32075472 91 101 Expos Team 16 49 0.3265 61 61.32653061 92 41 Cesar Geronimo 15 44 0.3409 61 61.34090909 93 218 Jerry Johnson 16 40 0.4000 61 61.4 94 583 Andy Etchebarren 51 57 0.8947 61 61.89473684 95 407 Herb Washington 1 49 0.0204 62 62.02040816 96 433 Larry Demery 7 41 0.1707 62 62.17073171 97 182 Don Hahn 9 48 0.1875 62 62.1875 98 377 Tom Hilgendorf 9 43 0.2093 62 62.20930233 99 74 Mark Belanger 12 45 0.2667 62 62.26666667 100 651 John Morlan 13 48 0.2708 62 62.27083333
Incidentally, Andy Etchebarren (rank = 94) is an interesting one. It has a relatively high population in 8+, but there are an almost equal number of 7's of this card (50+) to the number of 8's, meaning this one is difficult to sub and get an 8. This is a prime example of a card, that IMO, you're better off just buying on eBay for $10-15 instead of trying to sub it. Chances are that if you sub it, you're going to get a 7 due to PD.
Great stuff, Nick! Thanks for taking the time to share these results.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Interesting data. I hadn't done the analysis before, but this seems consistent with what I've experienced subbing mini. On another note, I'm down to my last 4 cards I need to have my set all PSA 8 or higher, with no shorties If anyone has copies of these four that they'd be willing to part with, I'd very much appreciate it.
BTW, if anyone is interested in picking up a PSA 10 Sprague #76 (pop 9), full-sized and from a wax pack for $100 dlvd via pp gift, please feel free to PM me.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
My theory on the "cut card" samples is that these were test runs wherein Topps was trying to set the size up on their printing presses...some employees probably brought stacks of these home and they eventually got circulated. Thus some particular cards can be found like this while others cant. Topps never sold cut card cases of 75 minis - and remember these would always be sold at the end of the year not the beginning. Cut card cases were just a way for Topps to dump excess inventory that did not sell to dealers - clearing out the warehouse before next spring. I have done my homework on the history of these Good point on the Doyle Nick - I have always had that as a key tough card. FYI when I came back on my buying spree early this year I bought 6 Doyle 8s from ebay (most from 4SC) - when I got home to look at them they were all short of the sort Nick is referring to...I basically said F-it and destroyed them all. Thus the pop has gone back down a bit. I wish PSA would get tighter on grading these. Seeing how 407 Herb Washington is #95 - surely, there has to be a few 8s floating out there somewhere! Or someone has a definite man-crush on the guy and has hoarded all the good examples. I need many and I haven't seen one up this year.
EDIT: 407 Washington, I destroyed 3 9s bringing the pop down to 10. One other cert is a known 6004 short (60044708) - I think majoryankeefan tried to sell this before. So really there are at most 9 - I have 5 good certs in my database. I also suspect Eric Roberts probably cracked a 9 or two (Demented) because that guy was fanatical in search of 10s and has incredibly deep pockets (there are no 10s of this card). Because this is a lower pop 9 it is entirely possible that there were several crackouts of 8s early on...who knows. It is what makes collecting minis exceptionally interesting. I need to replace those 3 9s, and one other 8.
My theory on the "cut card" samples is that these were test runs wherein Topps was trying to set the size up on their printing presses...some employees probably brought stacks of these home and they eventually got circulated. Thus some particular cards can be found like this while others cant. Topps never sold cut card cases of 75 minis - and remember these would always be sold at the end of the year not the beginning. Cut card cases were just a way for Topps to dump excess inventory that did not sell to dealers - clearing out the warehouse before next spring. I have done my homework on the history of these
Yes, I have a very similar viewpoint on these. In my mind, I've ruled out that they came from cut card cases, mainly because I think by now we would have heard of evidence of cut card cases for Mini's. Out of the six, 132-card sheets that comprise the Mini print runs, I've been able to positively identify this variety as coming from 3 sheets (mainly the "Giusti sheet"). My theory on them is that given their main attributes of having vivid coloring and high gloss (i.e., they are some of the most beautifully printed Mini's one will ever see) and because they were limited to certain sheets suggesting a very small print run, they are most likely some sort of early proofs printed to promote the then novel Mini's to retail stores in the winter or very early spring of 1975 shortly before the Mini's were release for retail sale. I mean think about it. If you were going to suddenly reduce the size of your baseball cards for some of your wholesale buyers in 1975, wouldn't you want to give them a heads up before you sprung these on them? What better way to do so then print up a small run of these and send them to your wholesalers to let them know what was coming. I think it's the most plausible explanation for them.
As far as being circulated, I've wondered if these came out of the "Topps Vault" in recent years, but I haven't seen any evidence of that. I don't know what to call them, so I've just been referring to them as "cut card case" Mini's for lack of a better term. They are an interesting piece of the history and mystic of the Mini's, and I don't despise them necessarily, but I would feel better about them if I definitively knew how they came about.
<< <i>My theory on the "cut card" samples is that these were test runs wherein Topps was trying to set the size up on their printing presses...some employees probably brought stacks of these home and they eventually got circulated. Thus some particular cards can be found like this while others cant. Topps never sold cut card cases of 75 minis - and remember these would always be sold at the end of the year not the beginning. Cut card cases were just a way for Topps to dump excess inventory that did not sell to dealers - clearing out the warehouse before next spring. I have done my homework on the history of these >>
Henry, have you been able to find any actual data behind the history behind the cut card cases. We know from the photos that Jim shared early on in this thread they existed (the stack of slightly short Joe Rudis was a great pic, lol) and were produced by Topps for whatever purpose (likely not retail), but I have never seen any actual data behind their history. Are your contentions supported by evidence or just speculation? Would be great to find out more info behind these cut card cases (or whatever you want to call them)~I know there are certain other issues (like 63 Topps baseball) that share some similarities with these, in that cards are slightly shorter than those found in packs, but I have not seen any hard evidence on how these cut card cases were distributed, why they were created by Topps and for what purpose (other than specualtion). Similar conjecture and mystery surrounds the 1971 baseball rack packs with player header cards (instead of Topps header cards), with lots of speculation and conjecture but no concrete data or supporting evidence.
I do have a 1982 Topps baseball "cut card case" consisting of all cards from the "A" sheet~which means lots of Bretts and Carews, for example, but no Ripkens. Same with 1980 Topps baseball. This may explain why some minis can be found in this form while others cannot~in 1975 Topps designated cards on sheet by asterisk (* and **) instead of letters, which they began using in 1978 (using letters A through F).
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Yah Tim, I talked to several old time dealers who explained how cut-card cases worked when I was on my fact finding mission several years ago. They would basically jam around 12K cards in a case at the end of the year and ship them to dealers at a reduced price (overstock). These dealers would then break down the cards to sets and they would sell them at their shops and via sports digests etc. The cases would normally be broken to either A or B etc based on several sheets of cards. Also, these cases were sold at the end of the year - not in the beginning...in the beginning Topps would sell by vending to the dealers which were much more condition sensitive to the cards (vending were not sold to the public in those days). Minis were never sold this way - no vending and no cut-card cases. Remember - if they did somehow sell off minis at the end of the year there would be no reason to see them in a slightly different size. Nick, brings up an even more important point...they tend to come from one sheet! It then makes sense that they will trying different runs using one sheet and employees made off with stacks of them - probably even taken from the trash. There have never been "new" finds of these cards - just the old stacks that have circulated via ebay and other means.
Cut card cases I am very familiar with, as I have one myself (from 1982), and it sounds like what those old time dealers were discussing with you was the history behind standard cut card cases which aren't necessarily rare, though they do seem to be more common for some years (like 1980 and 1982) vs others.
I think the mystery behind these mini "proofs" or "cut card singles" or whatever term you want to use for them is yet example as to why this set is as interesting as it is. If these singles were truly never intended for public distribution, but instead were cards absconded by rogue Topps employees looking for souvenirs from a new and experimental set at the time (a scenario I agree is very possible), that just adds another element of intrigue to the conversation surrounding this very unique Topps set.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
but instead were cards absconded by rogue Topps employees looking for souvenirs from a new and experimental set at the time (a scenario I agree is very possible)
There is a board member who could answer the question definitively. He was the original owner/recipient if many, many cut card cases and has in fact had minis, some of which I have acquired. Dumpster diving is also a very real possibility here as well.
<< <i>There is a board member who could answer the question definitively. He was the original owner/recipient if many, many cut card cases and has in fact had minis, some of which I have acquired. Dumpster diving is also a very real possibility here as well. >>
Yes, Jim that is also possible/equally likely... The more interesting point I am working on is that, in fact, Minis have been consistently mis-labeled as a "test" run since their inception. Rather, it is more accurate to state that Topps had TWO variations of cards issued that year. One can assert that minis were limited to Michigan and California (this is inaccurate because it was actually the entire west coast). However, in most places in Michigan you could ONLY purchase minis. Moreover, if we look at this in regards to markets - Michigan was a HUGE market for cards and California is NOT a small state and has/had the following teams: As, Giants, Padres, Dodgers, Angels...so a significant percentage of the teams were located in these two states. Again, in many locations you could ONLY buy minis because dealers had a choice - and most chose the minis as was pushed by Topps. In the end, it is a mute point for us mini lovers but I have always been bothered that minis were described more as a novelty than a significant issue.
I think the "test" issue classification is more of a colloquial term than a clinical definition and has more to do with the fact that Topps had never previously issued a card of that size and didn't issue one afterwards. Perhaps an "experimental" issue would be a more accurate classification. I grew up in New York and minis were not available here in any way shape or form.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Its a fair point though. It is far, far too wide of a distribution to be called a test issue. The fact that it was limited geographically and a one year wonder makes it something many just cant wrap their brains around/find a neat definition for.
There is a board member who could answer the question definitively. He was the original owner/recipient if many, many cut card cases and has in fact had minis, some of which I have acquired. Dumpster diving is also a very real possibility here as well.
This sounds fairly definitive to me.
At the end of the day, what really matters to me about these cut card case Mini's is whether or not they are legitimate Mini's on the same level as ones that came out of a wax, cello, or rack pack. What I see as going for them is that PSA has and continues to holder them. They are not difficult to distinguish from retail Mini's once you have them in hand and can examine the edges (easy to see and recognize the distinct cut with the naked eye), so I doubt the graders at PSA miss the distinction, but rather recognize them as a particular type, variation, or whatever you want to call it.
Has anyone spoken with PSA reps and received their take on the cut card case Mini's?
Edited to add that my take on them is that there is enough evidence to indicate that they are legit, in that they come from the factory as is without alteration (at least the ones that are holdered), and I'm not all that concerned with how they got circulated. I'm treating them as a variation in my collection by collecting examples of both the retail version and its cut card case counterpart. These are not at all rare, btw. There are many, many out there that have been holdered in the last few years.
I have spoken with Joe about them and his stance is that they do exist as cut card case cards. Whether they were stuffed in actual cut card boxes, I have no idea. That said, they share the exact cut as 1976 cut case cards, easily recognizable as Indy says. This is a different edge than a pack opened card, but also a different edge than a razor or trimmer and easily identified as neither. These are also very mildly undersized, just like cut case 76s as well. I'm not sure how that happens and have never heard an explanation that makes sense.
Several other things about cut card cases. If someone told you they are very knowledgeable and told you one of the fact is they came around 12,000 cards, their memory is not as vivid as they think. The cases are distinctive and hold nine rows of just under 1,000 cards per row, stuffed in a cardboard box.
Another important issue that lends credence to the minis coming in some variation of this form IS the bulk of single players out there. Cut card cases, or the process that produced these cards, came in two variations. Random sequencing AND bulk by player. I have personally opened cases of the exact same year with each variation. The ones with all the cards clumped by player tend to come back n6 more than others. There is a reason Kruk has offered 800 card boxes of 1977 Don Sutton. Trust me, they didn't collate them individually. I have 71s, 72s, 74s, 75s and 76s with great clumps of the same player and little variety.
So full circle, while no one may have memory of physical cut case minis, there are in fact minis out there that were produced by the same process. No one sat and found then collated 200 identical, minimally short Joe Rudi, Andy Messersmith, Jim Lonborg, Bill Madlock, Bill Bucker, Mike Marshall HL, Bert Blyleven, Richie Zisk (look at the 9 4sc has on ebay right now) and so on and managed to get them to stack with that sheen that only comes from the factory when laid on their edge. How these came to leave Brooklyn, I have no idea, but they did.
I just had an interesting thought... I am not knowledgeable enough to know they answer, but I'll bet someone here is. I wonder if the end of year blow out that is the cut card process winds up with a different process at times. What I mean is if sheets are cut one or few at a time would the edges look like a pack pulled card, and would a large stack of identical sheets cut together have edges that looked like they were cut with pressure from the top down creating both bulk of identical cards together and that distinctive "pressed down" edge look these have?
I was really curious why Montague (405) was not in your top ten on the first metric list you shared, but after looking at the numbers I can see why...currently, only 62 total have been attempted. If not the lowest total submitted, it's very close (Just finding a raw candidate for possible grading is nearly impossible, unless you get a miracle "Ryan box" :-) ). Maybe Jim's boxes will have that magic? Anyway, that first metric is pretty cool. Thanks for sharing!
Hey Nick, you mentioned collecting both variations in your set, if you ever get a break in the action I bet many would love to see an example or two of side-by-side scans (of a retail version versus a suspected cut card version).
Yes, I'll post graded retail and non-retail versions side by side to give you an idea what to look for. As I'll show, with some you can easily see the difference by looking at certain markers (e.g., fisheyes, stray ink, etc.) on the card; others, you probably won't be able to tell the difference from a .jpeg in that they look identical. The only difference is the edges which you can only see when the card is in hand. I had actually thought of doing a post like that earlier this morning, but ran out of time. I'll try to put something together tonight.
The 71 321 Matchicks show the edge sheen nicely and the Rudys are what Indy is talking about. I have more similar lots, these were just old sample pics I took when we had this discussion previously.
Those are the pics from Jim I was referring to earlier~thanks for posting them!
Great stuff, everyone!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Jim, did you try grading any of those '71 Matchick's? In my limited experience with cut cards, they either all are mint or they all have the same flaws like print dots or smudges in the same areas.
Those are some great photos from MiniDuff. You can really see the shine on the sides of those stacks due to the pressed nature of the cut. In other words, some of the surface of the card right at the edge was somehow pressed downward while the cut was made. So the shine you're seeing is actually the gloss on the surface of the card angled downward at the card edge.
To demonstrate further, here are some photos and scans of a retail (wax, cello, or rack) and a non-retail (cut card case or proof or whatever) version of Cesar Geronimo #41. First a scan showing the two cards side by side. The one on the left is the retail version and the one on the right is the non-retail version. The retail version measures about 80.75 mm. The non-retail version measures just the slightest hair over 80mm. Let's call it 80.1 mm. You can see the difference in card heights.
Now let's look at them under the light with the pressed left edge facing toward you. In most examples of non-retail/cut card case Mini's, the left edge is the most pressed and therefore the shiniest. One exception is the Mike Hegan #99 Mini which has the right edge most prominent. In this scan, the left Geronimo Mini is the retail version (note that there is no shine/light reflection on the edge) and the right Geronimo Mini is the non-retail/cut card case Mini (note the intense shine on the edge).
Now you might be saying, the angle of the light and camera is causing the shine. That's not the case. In the photo below, I switch the two (non-retail/cut card case version now at the left and retail at the right), and the camera and light source remain in the fixed position. The edge of the cut card case Mini still brightly shines while the retail version does not.
The shiny left ledge (or right edge in some cases) is the best way I've found to identify a cut card case Mini. It's easy to identify the edge when you have the card in hand or when the photo is taken just right like shown here. But it's not so easy when the card is in a holder and all you have to go by is a .jpeg scan. I'll show side by side scans to demonstrate this shortly.
The next scan shows two graded Denny Doyle Mini's. Can you tell which version is which? It's not easy at all IMO.
If you thought the one on the left is the non-retail cut card case version and the one on the right is the retail version, you're correct. The one on the left measures exactly 80 mm and the one on the right measures 80.5 mm, but both cards look like they fill the holder, so that's not the best indicator of a retail versus a non-retail version for Denny Doyle IMO. The best way to tell the difference between the two is that the retail version has that short black stray line along the top edge of the card - it almost looks like a printer's guideline for where to cut the card. In my experience, the cut card case version of the Doyle never has this line - or at least I have not come across one with this line. It's by no means a fool-proof way to judge the card by the scan, but it's the best way that I've found.
Very interesting and thoughtful analysis, Nick! Thanks for taking the time to post the pics.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Finally, here is a scan of two Brooks Robinson #50 versions side by side. In my experience, the Brooks Robinson #50 is the most common HOF Mini that I've seen in the non-retail version. The one on the left is the non-retail version and the one on the right is the retail version. Do you see any differences judging by the scan alone?
The non-retail version on the left measures exactly 80 mm and the retail version on the right measures 80.5 mm. The non-retail version on the left as a pressed left edge that identifies it as a non-retail version, but I doubt anyone can see it in the scan. The best way to tell the versions apart when viewing a scan is to look the right of the "S" in "Orioles." In my experience, if there is no yellow fisheye to the right of the "S" in the black shadow of the team logo AND the card appears to fully fill the holder, then chances are it's the retail version. As you can see in the scan, the retail version to the right does not have the fisheye while the one on the left does (look within the black shadow just to the right of the "S." If the fisheye is there AND the card appears to be slightly short in the holder, then in my experience, chances are that it's a cut card case version.
A retail version can have the yellow fisheye to the right of the "S," but what I've noticed is that if it does, then it also fills the holder completely AND there is stray yellow ink spattered in the orange/red area on the bottom left of the card face. I don't have photo showing this, but I think Tim (Grote15) posted a scan of this version in this thread last fall or winter. It was a retail version that I sold to him.
You are correct, Nick~in fact, I am posting here side by side the retail version I bought from you (on the right) and the non-retail version which is a card that I self-submitted to PSA (on the left). The non-retail version, as you have illustrated, is just slightly shorter than the retail version, and has superior color and registration. I prefer the retail version for my set, but I like the other card, as well.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Thanks Tim. Note that both have the faint yellow fisheye to the right of the "S." But, the retail version, in addition to being full sized, also has the stray yellow, paisley looking ink in the lower left in the red/orange area. The non-retail version does not. Again, I don't have a large sample size, but this is the best guide I've been able to come up with to date.
If you get a chance, check out the scans of completed sales in VCP for #50 in PSA 8. It's very interesting to observe the number of sales of what I suspect are, based on the identifiers above, non-retail versions.
Comments
<< <i>I just wanted to let any interested Mini collectors know that I am selling the following. If anyone is interested, please PM me
5-Ryan HL PSA 7
20-Munson PSA 7
70 - Mike Schmidt PSA 8
122- Al Hrabosky PSA 8
298-Johnny Grubb PSA 8
300-Reggie Jackson PSA 7
358-Bumbry PSA 8
370- Seaver PSA 8 (2)
371-Gates Brown PSA 7
500-Ryan PSA 7
514-Cruz PSA 7
540-Brock PSA 8
600-Carew PSA 8 (2)
607 Jim Holt-PSA 8
617-Rook Infielders (Decinces) PSA 8 (2)
620-Roook Cathers/Gary Carter PSA 8
622-Rook Outf/Fred Lynn PSA 9
647-Caludell Washington PSA 7 (2)
660-Aaron PSA 7
I will go Low end of VCP, particular for those that might want multiple cards.
Thanks! >>
Can you post some scans? Looking at 70, 300, 371, 514, 600, 647, 660.
Thanks,
David (LD_Ferg)
1985 Topps Football (starting in psa 8) - #9 - started 05/21/06
[URL=http://s610.photobucket.com/user/jimduffett/media/011_zpsqwxmi3ms.jpg.html]
[URL=http://s610.photobucket.com/user/jimduffett/media/013_zps3zm0cbvz.jpg.html]
For those lined up who have dealt with me before, paypal is duffettjames@gmail.com and I'd appreciate saving the paypal juice where possible. If you need an invoice, I understand as well, just pm me and I'll have it out.
Thanks a bunch - Jim
ebay id Duffs_Dugout
My Ebay Auctions
Jim, those look beautiful!
TheClockworkAngelCollection
1. Henry
2. Gemint - confirmed
3. Todd - confirmed
4. Fergie - Invoiced
5. Ryanseven - Paid
6. 1970s - Paid
7. Grote - Invoiced
8. Dakillo - Paid
9. Matty
10. Minimaster - Paid
ebay id Duffs_Dugout
My Ebay Auctions
<< <i>Just an update on where we are at so far. I will likely ship in batches as people pay, via either fedex or usps, if you have a preference, please let me know. USPS will be first, sometime early this week. Thanks a ton - Jim
1. Henry
2. Gemint - confirmed
3. Todd - confirmed
4. Fergie - Invoiced
5. Ryanseven - Paid
6. 1970s - Paid
7. Grote - Invoiced
8. Dakillo - Paid
9. Matty
10. Minimaster - Paid >>
Thanks Jim! We are living out of our suitcases atm and our idiot embassy still has not called us for an interview. BTW the recent auctions were pretty tough and I have been getting beat regularly over the past several months - looks like we have some new players! Who won that Driessen PSA 8? I thought it was an easy win at 144.00 and would have gone 200.00 if I thought there was competition. Someone else went in the 120s. Congrats to the winner, that is one of the best I have seen.
Dakillo, Ryanseven, Minimaster, Fergie and 1970s all shipped this morning USPS Priority insured.
ebay id Duffs_Dugout
My Ebay Auctions
<< <i> BTW the recent auctions were pretty tough and I have been getting beat regularly over the past several months - looks like we have some new players! Who won that Driessen PSA 8? I thought it was an easy win at 144.00 and would have gone 200.00 if I thought there was competition. Someone else went in the 120s. Congrats to the winner, that is one of the best I have seen. >>
I was surprised as you that I didn't win it either. The Driessen is one of the last 4 remaining 7s I have in my set. I thought my $136 bid was strong given the previous high sale was $97. I believe the winner is the guy who has the #5 set "Sassagedog's Minis". He's purchased several cards from me over the last year, all red/yellows. Looks like he has Driessen in 7... now 8.
Also, I've got a bunch of nice minis up for auction on eBay right now including several tougher PSA 9s like Cooper and Stinson, PSA 8s of Aaaron and Ryan, and several lots. Most of these are pack pulled and self submitted by me. Check out the auctions.
Ryan Hoge - PSA President, IG: @maysmantle
<< <i>Update on the mini case break:
Dakillo, Ryanseven, Minimaster, Fergie and 1970s all shipped this morning USPS Priority insured. >>
Thanks again Jim! Now... out of this group, who is planning to rip their box? I don't want to be the first one
Ryan Hoge - PSA President, IG: @maysmantle
Ryan Hoge - PSA President, IG: @maysmantle
Good seeing you tonight, Jim~thanks again for breaking this case for us. It looks like there are some really nice cards in these boxes waiting to be pulled!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
NEAR MINT 7 1975 Topps Mini 39 Andy Thornton Card
NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1975 Topps Mini 44 Pat Dobson Card
MINT 9 1975 Topps Mini 122 Al Hrabosky Card
NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1975 Topps Mini 162 Willie Montanez Card
NEAR MINT 7 1975 Topps Mini 237 Carl Morton Card
NEAR MINT 7 1975 Topps Mini 564 Tommy Davis Card
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>I thought I would share the results of a small sub of Mini's that popped today. The Dobson and Montanez are of what I'll term the "non-cut-card-case" variety; examples of this type are both underrated toughies due to typically poor t/b centering and snow issues, so I'm really pleased to receive 8's on these two. Also of note is that I'm now about 0 for 10 subbing Tommy Davis examples for 8's; I'm beginning to wonder if I'll ever figure that card out or even if I'll ever try subbing any again. Of the green yellow color combo, the Davis is by far the easiest to find full sized and in 7 condition while at the same time being super tough in an 8. The Dobson was a raw eBay purchase, the Davis was a 7 crackout, and the remaining four were purchased raw at the April Chantilly Colllector's Showcase card show. None of these are for sale, btw - all are staying with my collection as are the ones some of these replace in my set. Thanks for reading!
NEAR MINT 7 1975 Topps Mini 39 Andy Thornton Card
NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1975 Topps Mini 44 Pat Dobson Card
MINT 9 1975 Topps Mini 122 Al Hrabosky Card
NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1975 Topps Mini 162 Willie Montanez Card
NEAR MINT 7 1975 Topps Mini 237 Carl Morton Card
NEAR MINT 7 1975 Topps Mini 564 Tommy Davis Card >>
Nice Nick, interesting observation on the Davis, Sorry to hear about your struggle. I totally agree with your assessment - the place I look for snow is the center 0...it is easiest to see there. Also, the Thornton is VERY under-rated as a tough card. Many of the 9s were cut (I have destroyed 3 glaring examples). There is one cut 9 I know of still floating. But the 8s just don't come up for auction that often. I suspect that the 8 pop = 48ish might be inflated by crackouts as early collectors tried to get the difficult 9 and failed several times. Same with the Montenez in a legit 8...not easy to find.
BTW I have been getting pummelled in auctions lately - probably only winning 1 in 5 and 1 in 3 of the cards I pursue. Looks like game on for star cards 8 and above. There seems to be a market forming for 9s in pop 11-15 coming in at around 80-100.00. That is still a bargain IMO but much higher than many of these list on VCP.
The Davis reminds of a little fun with numbers I had about this time last year with the Mini population report. I wondered if there was some metric that would best describe the relative difficulty in receiving an 8 or higher on a Mini common. About the best one I found that made sense with my experience with grading Mini's was the ratio of the 7 to 8 population of a card. The main assumption with this metric is that most commons are not submitted for 7's but for 8's and higher, and that if the common receives a 7, it's very likely a "miss" at achieving a higher grade. One problem with the population report has always been crackouts affecting the numbers, but in this case, a crackout demonstrates a miss and an attempt at a correction - in other words, a crackout can be a good indicator of a card's difficulty at achieving a high grade. Anyway, I took a July 2014 population report and copied it into a spreadsheet and worked the numbers (this was right before the format of the report was unfortunately changed to show 0.5 grades as +'s and qualifiers as q's which makes the report now difficult to copy into a spreadsheet). Using this metric, the top 10 toughest commons and associated ratios are:
Tommy Davis (1.6757)
Claudell Washington (1.5897)
Ken Singleton (1.3333)
Cliff Johnson (1.3077)
Steve Rogers (1.0889)
Glenn Borgmann (1.0526)
Jack Heideman (1.0526)
Rick Burleson (1.0345)
Frank Tanana (0.9737)
Dave Giusti (0.9688)
Keep in mind that the population report and by extension, this metric, don't show those Mini's that were rejected (or never selected for grading in the first place) due to falling below the minimum size requirement, which is a substantial part of the difficulty of many Mini's. I think what it best shows is that for those cards that met the minimum size requirement and were submitted, in most circumstances to receive an 8 or higher, these were the top 10 toughest to get that 8+. It's no surprise to me, based on my experience, to see Tommy Davis at the top.
BTW, the whole point in me running these numbers last summer was to help me decide which low pop commons I should try to submit and which ones I should just outright buy and not waste $ trying to get in an 8. For that purpose, I think the metric works well.
Rank Card No. Name 7 8 Ratio 7/8 Total 8+ Ratio plus total high grade
1 143 Cliff Johnson 34 26 1.3077 33 34.30769231
2 302 Rick Burleson 30 29 1.0345 34 35.03448276
3 53 Dave Giusti 31 32 0.9688 35 35.96875
4 405 John Montague 17 34 0.5000 37 37.5
5 564 Tommy Davis 62 37 1.6757 38 39.67567568
6 512 Larry Milbourne 12 35 0.3429 41 41.34285714
7 647 Claudell Washington 62 39 1.5897 40 41.58974359
8 458 Ross Grimsley 29 39 0.7436 41 41.74358974
9 133 Dan Driessen 31 36 0.8611 41 41.86111111
10 16 Frank Tanana 37 38 0.9737 41 41.97368421
11 322 Ed Goodson 24 37 0.6486 42 42.64864865
12 649 Jack Heidemann 40 38 1.0526 42 43.05263158
13 481 Will McEnaney 17 39 0.4359 43 43.43589744
14 297 Craig Kusick 23 40 0.5750 43 43.575
15 56 Rick Wise 26 39 0.6667 43 43.66666667
16 127 Glenn Borgmann 40 38 1.0526 43 44.05263158
17 503 Fred Stanley 18 38 0.4737 44 44.47368421
18 371 Gates Brown 24 38 0.6316 44 44.63157895
19 58 Chuck Taylor 27 36 0.7500 44 44.75
20 253 Jesus Alou 30 36 0.8333 44 44.83333333
21 187 Denny Doyle 14 35 0.4000 45 45.4
22 277 Frank Taveras 17 40 0.4250 46 46.425
23 339 Jim Fergosi 13 41 0.3171 47 47.31707317
24 219 Ed Herrmann 21 39 0.5385 47 47.53846154
25 612 Terry Hughes 30 40 0.7500 47 47.75
26 326 Wayne Twitchell 20 42 0.4762 48 48.47619048
27 168 Bill Greif 9 43 0.2093 49 49.20930233
28 380 Sal Bando 18 44 0.4091 49 49.40909091
29 417 Skip Lockwood 18 44 0.4091 49 49.40909091
30 514 Jose Cruz 26 44 0.5909 49 49.59090909
31 178 Cesar Tovar 25 40 0.6250 49 49.625
32 64 Dave Chalk 5 36 0.1389 50 50.13888889
33 345 Clay Carroll 7 39 0.1795 50 50.17948718
34 237 Carl Morton 11 40 0.2750 50 50.275
35 84 Enzo Hernandez 12 37 0.3243 50 50.32432432
36 31 Dave Rader 18 43 0.4186 50 50.41860465
37 245 Mickey Lolich 22 39 0.5641 50 50.56410256
38 30 Bert Blyleven 66 42 1.5714 49 50.57142857
39 173 Steve Rogers 49 45 1.0889 51 52.08888889
40 259 Len Randle 30 49 0.6122 52 52.6122449
41 65 Don Gullett 33 41 0.8049 52 52.80487805
42 499 Marty Perez 12 48 0.2500 53 53.25
43 163 Jim Brewer 17 46 0.3696 53 53.36956522
44 157 Pedro Borbon 12 45 0.2667 54 54.26666667
45 23 Bill Russell 12 39 0.3077 54 54.30769231
46 97 Earl Williams 11 34 0.3235 54 54.32352941
47 96 Mike Cosgrove 18 37 0.4865 54 54.48648649
48 82 Pat Kelly 12 40 0.3000 55 55.3
49 301 Dave Roberts 24 46 0.5217 55 55.52173913
50 162 Willie Montanez 24 43 0.5581 55 55.55813953
By this calculation, Cliff Johnson is the toughest to find (by either submitting one raw or buying one graded) in high grade. Of note is non-red/yellow and non-green/yellow combos show up in the top 50, including Denny Doyle and Chuck Taylor. I paid quite a bit for a full-sized Denny Doyle a few months back (I may have set a record) in an 8. This is why. I've always thought that card is way undervalued.
Rank Card No. Name 7 8 Ratio 7/8 Total 8+ Ratio plus total high grade
1 615 Rookie Pitchers 8 114 0.0702 205 205.0701754
2 617 Rookie Infielders 13 108 0.1204 164 164.1203704
3 24 Al Fitzmorris 8 97 0.0825 153 153.0824742
4 325 Tony Oliva 14 112 0.1250 151 151.125
5 318 Ernie McAnally 7 72 0.0972 149 149.0972222
6 621 Rookie Pitchers 15 81 0.1852 148 148.1851852
7 531 Reds Team 23 86 0.2674 147 147.2674419
8 83 Jim Merritt 4 91 0.0440 146 146.043956
9 585 Chris Chambliss 13 106 0.1226 145 145.1226415
10 566 Ray Burris 7 79 0.0886 145 145.0886076
11 451 Rick Dempsey 13 75 0.1733 143 143.1733333
12 347 Mike Caldwell 7 80 0.0875 142 142.0875
13 496 Pepe Frias 6 78 0.0769 141 141.0769231
14 255 Dwight Evans 21 99 0.2121 138 138.2121212
15 274 Vicente Romo 10 79 0.1266 138 138.1265823
16 321 Rudy May 9 76 0.1184 134 134.1184211
17 522 Gary Sutherland 7 66 0.1061 134 134.1060606
18 569 Frank White 8 79 0.1013 134 134.1012658
19 645 Danny Cater 13 90 0.1444 133 133.1444444
20 486 Ray Fosse 10 86 0.1163 133 133.1162791
21 26 Dave McNally 8 84 0.0952 133 133.0952381
22 586 Tim McCarver 7 83 0.0843 133 133.0843373
23 299 Bucky Dent 12 69 0.1739 128 128.173913
24 351 Bob Boone 9 63 0.1429 128 128.1428571
25 568 Dale Murray 4 90 0.0444 128 128.0444444
EDIT: My clear number 4 color combo is Yellow/Red (due to both some difficult cards such as Doyle and Montanez but also the tremendous star power in this combo). As for number 5 I go back and forth between the green/green (real cut issues); and orange/brown. Any have different thoughts? Also, it would be interesting to see the next 50! There are still several dozen tough 8s that didn't crack the top 50.
Good points on the red/blue and yellow/red. I think those two color combos are a very small step below the green/yellow in terms of difficulty only because the green/yellow more often comes up naturally short. However, what's tricky about the red/blue and yellow/reds is that many of those cards come in the "cut card case" variety (there is a discussion on these in this thread on March 1-2, 2013). PSA grades those as legit; however, many feel like these "cut card case" cards (or whatever their source - I have no idea where they came from) dilute the true population that came retail in wax, cello, and rack packs. Examples include Montanez, Doyle, Dobson, Brooks Robinson, and Johnny Bench in the yellow/red and Mickey Lolich, Ken Singleton, Mike Hegan, Bert Blyleven, and Chuck Taylor in the red/blue. All of these come off of the Giusti sheet (Dave Giusti is found in the upper left corner of this sheet) which you can view in this thread on 11/11/2011 (I posted the sheet on that date), and these are much easier to get 8's on than the retail variety. The bottom line is that these "cut card case" variety cards dilute the true retail population such that the difficulty of these examples is understated by the population report and the metrics I posted. Just something to keep in mind. And again, this is why I paid a premium for the Denny Doyle a few months ago. I've figured out a way to tell certain of these "cut card case" cards, including the Doyle, from the retail ones simply by the markings on the cards (e.g., fisheye in a certain location). But for now, I'm not revealing that info - I can't give you guys all my secrets in one day, lol.
Here are the next 50 to chew on:
51 152 Mario Guerrero 9 39 0.2308 56 56.23076923
52 116 Lerrin LaGrow 27 49 0.5510 56 56.55102041
53 222 Dan Spillner 10 39 0.2564 57 57.25641026
54 55 Bobby Bonds 12 45 0.2667 57 57.26666667
55 442 Maximino Leon 20 49 0.4082 57 57.40816327
56 603 Lew Krausse 28 54 0.5185 57 57.51851852
57 86 Joe Lis 25 44 0.5682 57 57.56818182
58 131 Toby Harrah 8 43 0.1860 58 58.18604651
59 401 Mike Wallace 12 51 0.2353 58 58.23529412
60 601 Juan Beniquez 13 46 0.2826 58 58.2826087
61 232 Diego Segui 14 46 0.3043 58 58.30434783
62 28 Tom Murphy 14 44 0.3182 58 58.31818182
63 287 Roric Harrison 19 38 0.5000 58 58.5
64 528 Eddie Leon 4 37 0.1081 59 59.10810811
65 582 Eduardo Rodriguez 6 33 0.1818 59 59.18181818
66 362 Steve Hargan 12 51 0.2353 59 59.23529412
67 155 Jim Bibby 11 42 0.2619 59 59.26190476
68 160 Graig Nettles 12 45 0.2667 59 59.26666667
69 338 Rick Stelmaszek 13 41 0.3171 59 59.31707317
70 243 Jim Kaat 15 39 0.3846 59 59.38461538
71 315 Don Kessinger 28 46 0.6087 59 59.60869565
72 103 Rick Miller 39 55 0.7091 59 59.70909091
73 81 Ron Reed 36 49 0.7347 59 59.73469388
74 509 Dave Hilton 6 39 0.1538 60 60.15384615
75 227 Bob Watson 9 49 0.1837 60 60.18367347
76 337 Kevin Kobel 7 36 0.1944 60 60.19444444
77 428 Dave Hamilton 8 36 0.2222 60 60.22222222
78 119 Tommy Helms 11 37 0.2973 60 60.2972973
79 562 Gary Nolan 11 37 0.2973 60 60.2972973
80 125 Ken Singleton 72 54 1.3333 59 60.33333333
81 99 Mike Hegan 18 49 0.3673 60 60.36734694
82 229 Barry Foote 25 51 0.4902 60 60.49019608
83 27 Ken Reitz 34 49 0.6939 60 60.69387755
84 537 Tommy Harper 9 50 0.1800 61 61.18
85 504 Buddy Bradford 9 48 0.1875 61 61.1875
86 265 Ron Bryant 11 44 0.2500 61 61.25
87 354 Dick Bosman 11 43 0.2558 61 61.25581395
88 25 Lee May 14 47 0.2979 61 61.29787234
89 289 Ken Rudolph 14 46 0.3043 61 61.30434783
90 637 Ted Martinez 17 53 0.3208 61 61.32075472
91 101 Expos Team 16 49 0.3265 61 61.32653061
92 41 Cesar Geronimo 15 44 0.3409 61 61.34090909
93 218 Jerry Johnson 16 40 0.4000 61 61.4
94 583 Andy Etchebarren 51 57 0.8947 61 61.89473684
95 407 Herb Washington 1 49 0.0204 62 62.02040816
96 433 Larry Demery 7 41 0.1707 62 62.17073171
97 182 Don Hahn 9 48 0.1875 62 62.1875
98 377 Tom Hilgendorf 9 43 0.2093 62 62.20930233
99 74 Mark Belanger 12 45 0.2667 62 62.26666667
100 651 John Morlan 13 48 0.2708 62 62.27083333
Incidentally, Andy Etchebarren (rank = 94) is an interesting one. It has a relatively high population in 8+, but there are an almost equal number of 7's of this card (50+) to the number of 8's, meaning this one is difficult to sub and get an 8. This is a prime example of a card, that IMO, you're better off just buying on eBay for $10-15 instead of trying to sub it. Chances are that if you sub it, you're going to get a 7 due to PD.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
1975 Topps Mini PSA 8+ #56 Wise, #133 Driessen, #232 Segui, #245 Lolich
Ryan Hoge - PSA President, IG: @maysmantle
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Good point on the Doyle Nick - I have always had that as a key tough card. FYI when I came back on my buying spree early this year I bought 6 Doyle 8s from ebay (most from 4SC) - when I got home to look at them they were all short of the sort Nick is referring to...I basically said F-it and destroyed them all. Thus the pop has gone back down a bit.
I wish PSA would get tighter on grading these.
Seeing how 407 Herb Washington is #95 - surely, there has to be a few 8s floating out there somewhere! Or someone has a definite man-crush on the guy and has hoarded all the good examples. I need many and I haven't seen one up this year.
EDIT: 407 Washington, I destroyed 3 9s bringing the pop down to 10. One other cert is a known 6004 short (60044708) - I think majoryankeefan tried to sell this before. So really there are at most 9 - I have 5 good certs in my database. I also suspect Eric Roberts probably cracked a 9 or two (Demented) because that guy was fanatical in search of 10s and has incredibly deep pockets (there are no 10s of this card). Because this is a lower pop 9 it is entirely possible that there were several crackouts of 8s early on...who knows. It is what makes collecting minis exceptionally interesting. I need to replace those 3 9s, and one other 8.
Yes, I have a very similar viewpoint on these. In my mind, I've ruled out that they came from cut card cases, mainly because I think by now we would have heard of evidence of cut card cases for Mini's. Out of the six, 132-card sheets that comprise the Mini print runs, I've been able to positively identify this variety as coming from 3 sheets (mainly the "Giusti sheet"). My theory on them is that given their main attributes of having vivid coloring and high gloss (i.e., they are some of the most beautifully printed Mini's one will ever see) and because they were limited to certain sheets suggesting a very small print run, they are most likely some sort of early proofs printed to promote the then novel Mini's to retail stores in the winter or very early spring of 1975 shortly before the Mini's were release for retail sale. I mean think about it. If you were going to suddenly reduce the size of your baseball cards for some of your wholesale buyers in 1975, wouldn't you want to give them a heads up before you sprung these on them? What better way to do so then print up a small run of these and send them to your wholesalers to let them know what was coming. I think it's the most plausible explanation for them.
As far as being circulated, I've wondered if these came out of the "Topps Vault" in recent years, but I haven't seen any evidence of that. I don't know what to call them, so I've just been referring to them as "cut card case" Mini's for lack of a better term. They are an interesting piece of the history and mystic of the Mini's, and I don't despise them necessarily, but I would feel better about them if I definitively knew how they came about.
Edited to say "five, 132 card sheets" not six.
<< <i>My theory on the "cut card" samples is that these were test runs wherein Topps was trying to set the size up on their printing presses...some employees probably brought stacks of these home and they eventually got circulated. Thus some particular cards can be found like this while others cant. Topps never sold cut card cases of 75 minis - and remember these would always be sold at the end of the year not the beginning. Cut card cases were just a way for Topps to dump excess inventory that did not sell to dealers - clearing out the warehouse before next spring. I have done my homework on the history of these
>>
Henry, have you been able to find any actual data behind the history behind the cut card cases. We know from the photos that Jim shared early on in this thread they existed (the stack of slightly short Joe Rudis was a great pic, lol) and were produced by Topps for whatever purpose (likely not retail), but I have never seen any actual data behind their history. Are your contentions supported by evidence or just speculation? Would be great to find out more info behind these cut card cases (or whatever you want to call them)~I know there are certain other issues (like 63 Topps baseball) that share some similarities with these, in that cards are slightly shorter than those found in packs, but I have not seen any hard evidence on how these cut card cases were distributed, why they were created by Topps and for what purpose (other than specualtion). Similar conjecture and mystery surrounds the 1971 baseball rack packs with player header cards (instead of Topps header cards), with lots of speculation and conjecture but no concrete data or supporting evidence.
I do have a 1982 Topps baseball "cut card case" consisting of all cards from the "A" sheet~which means lots of Bretts and Carews, for example, but no Ripkens. Same with 1980 Topps baseball. This may explain why some minis can be found in this form while others cannot~in 1975 Topps designated cards on sheet by asterisk (* and **) instead of letters, which they began using in 1978 (using letters A through F).
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Minis were never sold this way - no vending and no cut-card cases. Remember - if they did somehow sell off minis at the end of the year there would be no reason to see them in a slightly different size. Nick, brings up an even more important point...they tend to come from one sheet! It then makes sense that they will trying different runs using one sheet and employees made off with stacks of them - probably even taken from the trash.
There have never been "new" finds of these cards - just the old stacks that have circulated via ebay and other means.
I think the mystery behind these mini "proofs" or "cut card singles" or whatever term you want to use for them is yet example as to why this set is as interesting as it is. If these singles were truly never intended for public distribution, but instead were cards absconded by rogue Topps employees looking for souvenirs from a new and experimental set at the time (a scenario I agree is very possible), that just adds another element of intrigue to the conversation surrounding this very unique Topps set.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I agree, this is another valid possibility.
ebay id Duffs_Dugout
My Ebay Auctions
<< <i>There is a board member who could answer the question definitively. He was the original owner/recipient if many, many cut card cases and has in fact had minis, some of which I have acquired. Dumpster diving is also a very real possibility here as well. >>
Yes, Jim that is also possible/equally likely...
The more interesting point I am working on is that, in fact, Minis have been consistently mis-labeled as a "test" run since their inception. Rather, it is more accurate to state that Topps had TWO variations of cards issued that year. One can assert that minis were limited to Michigan and California (this is inaccurate because it was actually the entire west coast). However, in most places in Michigan you could ONLY purchase minis. Moreover, if we look at this in regards to markets - Michigan was a HUGE market for cards and California is NOT a small state and has/had the following teams: As, Giants, Padres, Dodgers, Angels...so a significant percentage of the teams were located in these two states. Again, in many locations you could ONLY buy minis because dealers had a choice - and most chose the minis as was pushed by Topps. In the end, it is a mute point for us mini lovers but I have always been bothered that minis were described more as a novelty than a significant issue.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
ebay id Duffs_Dugout
My Ebay Auctions
This sounds fairly definitive to me.
At the end of the day, what really matters to me about these cut card case Mini's is whether or not they are legitimate Mini's on the same level as ones that came out of a wax, cello, or rack pack. What I see as going for them is that PSA has and continues to holder them. They are not difficult to distinguish from retail Mini's once you have them in hand and can examine the edges (easy to see and recognize the distinct cut with the naked eye), so I doubt the graders at PSA miss the distinction, but rather recognize them as a particular type, variation, or whatever you want to call it.
Has anyone spoken with PSA reps and received their take on the cut card case Mini's?
Edited to add that my take on them is that there is enough evidence to indicate that they are legit, in that they come from the factory as is without alteration (at least the ones that are holdered), and I'm not all that concerned with how they got circulated. I'm treating them as a variation in my collection by collecting examples of both the retail version and its cut card case counterpart. These are not at all rare, btw. There are many, many out there that have been holdered in the last few years.
Several other things about cut card cases. If someone told you they are very knowledgeable and told you one of the fact is they came around 12,000 cards, their memory is not as vivid as they think. The cases are distinctive and hold nine rows of just under 1,000 cards per row, stuffed in a cardboard box.
Another important issue that lends credence to the minis coming in some variation of this form IS the bulk of single players out there. Cut card cases, or the process that produced these cards, came in two variations. Random sequencing AND bulk by player. I have personally opened cases of the exact same year with each variation. The ones with all the cards clumped by player tend to come back n6 more than others. There is a reason Kruk has offered 800 card boxes of 1977 Don Sutton. Trust me, they didn't collate them individually. I have 71s, 72s, 74s, 75s and 76s with great clumps of the same player and little variety.
So full circle, while no one may have memory of physical cut case minis, there are in fact minis out there that were produced by the same process. No one sat and found then collated 200 identical, minimally short Joe Rudi, Andy Messersmith, Jim Lonborg, Bill Madlock, Bill Bucker, Mike Marshall HL, Bert Blyleven, Richie Zisk (look at the 9 4sc has on ebay right now) and so on and managed to get them to stack with that sheen that only comes from the factory when laid on their edge. How these came to leave Brooklyn, I have no idea, but they did.
ebay id Duffs_Dugout
My Ebay Auctions
ebay id Duffs_Dugout
My Ebay Auctions
I was really curious why Montague (405) was not in your top ten on the first metric list you shared, but after looking at the numbers I can see why...currently, only 62 total have been attempted. If not the lowest total submitted, it's very close (Just finding a raw candidate for possible grading is nearly impossible, unless you get a miracle "Ryan box" :-) ). Maybe Jim's boxes will have that magic? Anyway, that first metric is pretty cool. Thanks for sharing!
Hey Nick, you mentioned collecting both variations in your set, if you ever get a break in the action I bet many would love to see an example or two of side-by-side scans (of a retail version versus a suspected cut card version).
Yes, I'll post graded retail and non-retail versions side by side to give you an idea what to look for. As I'll show, with some you can easily see the difference by looking at certain markers (e.g., fisheyes, stray ink, etc.) on the card; others, you probably won't be able to tell the difference from a .jpeg in that they look identical. The only difference is the edges which you can only see when the card is in hand. I had actually thought of doing a post like that earlier this morning, but ran out of time. I'll try to put something together tonight.
[URL=http://s610.photobucket.com/user/jimduffett/media/001_zps2d7a733c.jpg.html]
[URL=http://s610.photobucket.com/user/jimduffett/media/002_zps41f3b82b.jpg.html]
[URL=http://s610.photobucket.com/user/jimduffett/media/004_zps098dee41.jpg.html]
ebay id Duffs_Dugout
My Ebay Auctions
ebay id Duffs_Dugout
My Ebay Auctions
Great stuff, everyone!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
To demonstrate further, here are some photos and scans of a retail (wax, cello, or rack) and a non-retail (cut card case or proof or whatever) version of Cesar Geronimo #41. First a scan showing the two cards side by side. The one on the left is the retail version and the one on the right is the non-retail version. The retail version measures about 80.75 mm. The non-retail version measures just the slightest hair over 80mm. Let's call it 80.1 mm. You can see the difference in card heights.
Now let's look at them under the light with the pressed left edge facing toward you. In most examples of non-retail/cut card case Mini's, the left edge is the most pressed and therefore the shiniest. One exception is the Mike Hegan #99 Mini which has the right edge most prominent. In this scan, the left Geronimo Mini is the retail version (note that there is no shine/light reflection on the edge) and the right Geronimo Mini is the non-retail/cut card case Mini (note the intense shine on the edge).
Now you might be saying, the angle of the light and camera is causing the shine. That's not the case. In the photo below, I switch the two (non-retail/cut card case version now at the left and retail at the right), and the camera and light source remain in the fixed position. The edge of the cut card case Mini still brightly shines while the retail version does not.
The shiny left ledge (or right edge in some cases) is the best way I've found to identify a cut card case Mini. It's easy to identify the edge when you have the card in hand or when the photo is taken just right like shown here. But it's not so easy when the card is in a holder and all you have to go by is a .jpeg scan. I'll show side by side scans to demonstrate this shortly.
If you thought the one on the left is the non-retail cut card case version and the one on the right is the retail version, you're correct. The one on the left measures exactly 80 mm and the one on the right measures 80.5 mm, but both cards look like they fill the holder, so that's not the best indicator of a retail versus a non-retail version for Denny Doyle IMO. The best way to tell the difference between the two is that the retail version has that short black stray line along the top edge of the card - it almost looks like a printer's guideline for where to cut the card. In my experience, the cut card case version of the Doyle never has this line - or at least I have not come across one with this line. It's by no means a fool-proof way to judge the card by the scan, but it's the best way that I've found.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
The non-retail version on the left measures exactly 80 mm and the retail version on the right measures 80.5 mm. The non-retail version on the left as a pressed left edge that identifies it as a non-retail version, but I doubt anyone can see it in the scan. The best way to tell the versions apart when viewing a scan is to look the right of the "S" in "Orioles." In my experience, if there is no yellow fisheye to the right of the "S" in the black shadow of the team logo AND the card appears to fully fill the holder, then chances are it's the retail version. As you can see in the scan, the retail version to the right does not have the fisheye while the one on the left does (look within the black shadow just to the right of the "S." If the fisheye is there AND the card appears to be slightly short in the holder, then in my experience, chances are that it's a cut card case version.
A retail version can have the yellow fisheye to the right of the "S," but what I've noticed is that if it does, then it also fills the holder completely AND there is stray yellow ink spattered in the orange/red area on the bottom left of the card face. I don't have photo showing this, but I think Tim (Grote15) posted a scan of this version in this thread last fall or winter. It was a retail version that I sold to him.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
If you get a chance, check out the scans of completed sales in VCP for #50 in PSA 8. It's very interesting to observe the number of sales of what I suspect are, based on the identifiers above, non-retail versions.