Home Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum

PSA Low-population commons... who is over-paying for them and why?

Please help me understand.... the concept of paying significant dollars for so-called
"low-pop" commons when there have not been sufficient PSA submissions to truly know
that they're "low-pop".

Lets use 1981 Topps as an example, because I'm mid-way through busting 36 vending boxes
and will have 20-30 of each card in the set when I'm done.

Card #101, Benny Ayala, is as good an example as any but there are a number of cards
in the set with PSA 9 population of 5 or less.

The Benny Ayala card has been graded 16 times so far, with no 10s and only two 9s.
Given that only 16 have been graded you'd have to think that there are most likely
a ton of PSA 9 Ayala cards out there ungraded -- I believe that I will have at
least 5 soon myself.

So why is someone willing to pay a large premium for a card that has not been graded
enough to justify a true "low-pop" status? And there are many cards in this
set that fall into that category IMHO. I can really understand someone wanting a PSA 10
Ron Guidry (none so far after 87 subs) but these low-pop commons don't make sense to me.

I fully understand the nature of the reality-altering effects of the dangerous drug
known as "PSA Set Registry", but is this drug really that strong? Perhaps there
is something I'm just not getting.
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the PSA 10 collector he didn't exist.

DaveB in St.Louis

Comments

  • Good point on the low total submission numbers.

    But I have a hard time believing that some of these low-pop 1981 cards are not submittable at 9 or above.

    Yes there are some that are typically way off-center or have print-defect issues, but a good
    number of them like Ayala don't suffer from that problem. After going through 16 boxes
    of 1981 Topps vending I already know which of the low-pops are going to be tougher.

    The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the PSA 10 collector he didn't exist.

    DaveB in St.Louis
  • milbrocomilbroco Posts: 2,709 ✭✭✭
    I am not sure about any of that but I do know I am going to go through my thousands and thousands of commons to look for gradeable cards.
    Bob
    ebay seller name milbroco
    email bcmiller7@comcast.net
  • Like I already said... I'm probably missing something that's more obvious to those
    that routinely work with the low-pop PSA 9s.

    As will many grading issues, it's hard to generalize about the population reports.
    The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the PSA 10 collector he didn't exist.

    DaveB in St.Louis
  • gemintgemint Posts: 6,066 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I think it depends on the era. When you're talking about late 70s and newer commons, the low pops are the result of few people submitting them. Even cards that are notoriously off center or have other common factory issues will not be low common if people submitted them like they would commons from the early 60s and older. Starting in the late 70s, collecters really started protecting their cards. That means there are tons of high grade sets and singles out there let alone unopened. If you take a card like a 1962 Landrum or 1971 Claude Raymond, those cards are legitimately low pop. There are probably more high grade examples out there but not hundreds. There are some cards like the 1969 Mike Andrews or Tom Satriano in PSA 9 that I haven't seen a new example graded in years. I think those cards will remain low pop going forward with an occasional new example surfacing from time-to-time. For a 1981 Benny Ayala, I'm skeptical it would remain a low pop card if people were motivated to submit them.
  • When I was generalizing about low-pop commons I should have stated that I was mostly
    thinking about 1980 and later.

    I don't take chances -- the good ones that I cull from vendor, wax or rack go straight to a penny sleeve
    and the better ones from there into a top-loader (with sleeve). I don't store anything potentially valuable
    any other way. I do not use card-savers for high-end cards or potential 9/10 -- the easiest
    way to reduce their condition is to try to stuff them into a card-saver.

    Now for my 1981 project there have been some sizable stacks of commons for a short while
    and the really good low-pops are getting penny-sleeved at a minimum.


    The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the PSA 10 collector he didn't exist.

    DaveB in St.Louis
  • I've been going through my thousands of OPC hockey commons from the 80's and after doing so, I'll happily pay for an already graded low pop common in PSA 10 or 9 if there are no 10's. The cards are just that hard to find from wax and vending and I've gone through plenty of it. The tough commons consistently show the same faults and if one is awarded a 10, it is often a marginal 10. It's the same with the stars of course.
    I agree that it is a bit speculative at this point but I worry more about the uncut sheets than unopened material or collections in binders.
  • scotgrebscotgreb Posts: 808 ✭✭✭
    Excellent topic Dave -- but I don't think you are missing anything here.

    IMO . . .

    The economics of the hobby will correct the pricing for those undeserving issues soon enough -- albeit a fair point that we don't necessarily know the true rarity until the sample size of graded issues gets large enough.

    In the meantime, impatient buyers will pay inflated prices -- nothing wrong with that -- but I have no interest in it.

    I'd rather buy a "common" HOF rookie card for my collection.

  • gemintgemint Posts: 6,066 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>I've been going through my thousands of OPC hockey commons from the 80's and after doing so, I'll happily pay for an already graded low pop common in PSA 10 or 9 if there are no 10's. The cards are just that hard to find from wax and vending and I've gone through plenty of it. The tough commons consistently show the same faults and if one is awarded a 10, it is often a marginal 10. It's the same with the stars of course.
    I agree that it is a bit speculative at this point but I worry more about the uncut sheets than unopened material or collections in binders. >>



    This is a good point. There's the 'work' factor involved with searching through thousands of boxes of commons to find those worthy of submission. So even though there may be 1,000 or more MINT grade 1981 Ayala cards scattered around the country, collectors might prefer to pay $20 for a 9 rather than to go through the effort to find and sub their own. Now if you're talking $100 or $500, that level may tip the scales and drive more people to submit.
  • WinPitcherWinPitcher Posts: 27,726 ✭✭✭
    Some people have to be first regardless of cost.

    Good for you.
  • Good points everyone. It's starting to get clearer to me now.
    The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the PSA 10 collector he didn't exist.

    DaveB in St.Louis
  • ThoseBackPagesThoseBackPages Posts: 4,871 ✭✭


    << <i>Some people have to be first regardless of cost. >>



    +1
    Big Fan of: HOF Post War RC, Graded RCs
    WTB: PSA 1 - PSA 3 Centered, High Eye Appeal 1950's Mantle
  • Well, there are a lot of uninformed responses on this forum regarding this specific issue; especially if you differentiate 1970s low pop commons versus 1980s (which aren't fully collected or searched as of yet). In regards to 1970s there are low pop commons that are low pop because high grade specimens are basically impossible to find. Some might be based on the positioning of the card in the sheet (i.e. top row for the green/yellow, red/yellow 1975 minis) or other reasons. In 1976 you would be hard pressed to find a nice PSA 9 Brett, but similarly, look at recent prices paid for Stennet RB, Torre, Briggs, or Rick Miller cards. These cards are just IMPOSSIBLE to find in nice minty condition. There is always the possibility that someone will open a super box or case with a run of these in mint, but the buyer takes that likelihood into account.
    Buyers are not all ignorant or greedy. There are many informed decisions made on a daily basis regarding purchases. Each year is unique with its own challenges and "white whales" While the rare commons in sets like 1970 through 1977 are well known and established, perhaps 1978 is very close to becoming fully established as the unopened dries up. I consider the 1979 set still in flux but there are 30-50 low pop commons that might stay low forever, so one has to make an educated guess. 1980s who knows really - there is too much product yet to be ripped.
    A more interesting discussion is what is the fair market value for low pops. For example, I just lost a 1976 Torre psa9 for 449.00. I have never seen a nice example let alone one as nice as this one. I would have bid 100-200 more if I had known I was in danger of being outsniped. What is the true value? I guess it is what idiots like me are willing to pay. Even though the market has "hypothetically" exploded for this card, how many will magically start popping up on Ebay? Are 9 Torres resting in common lots in people's raw collections? My guess is no after ripping a full vending case and assorted 20-30 vending boxes of this year. If I find any Torres, they are always as horrible as the Millers and the Briggs...

    Torre
    75 Minis - GET IN MY BELLY!


  • << <i>When I was generalizing about low-pop commons I should have stated that I was mostly
    thinking about 1980 and later.

    I don't take chances -- the good ones that I cull from vendor, wax or rack go straight to a penny sleeve
    and the better ones from there into a top-loader (with sleeve). I don't store anything potentially valuable
    any other way. I do not use card-savers for high-end cards or potential 9/10 -- the easiest
    way to reduce their condition is to try to stuff them into a card-saver.

    Now for my 1981 project there have been some sizable stacks of commons for a short while
    and the really good low-pops are getting penny-sleeved at a minimum. >>



    BTW thank you so much for the comment about card-savers...I just had 800 minis graded and they were a disaster! I am fully convinced that the fact that I had most of these sitting in card savers for the last 3-6 years ruined them and probably cost me about .5 per card in grade on average. This was a very painful and valuable lesson learned.
    You know that toploaders do indeed save the cards over time? BTW - how do you get your cards into penny sleeves without damage? I have just bought the "thick" sleeves which seem to work better with cards as it is easier to slide them in.
    75 Minis - GET IN MY BELLY!
  • StoogeStooge Posts: 4,639 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The best way to keep your cards safe is this:

    Leave them in the original packs until you are ready to submit them. When you are ready to sub for example 100 cards, rip enough packs to give you 100 cards to grade, and stop ripping.

    Easy as that! image

    Paul.

    Later, Paul.


  • << <i>BTW thank you so much for the comment about card-savers...I just had 800 minis graded and they were a disaster! I am fully convinced that the fact that I had most of these sitting in card savers for the last 3-6 years ruined them and probably cost me about .5 per card in grade on average. This was a very painful and valuable lesson learned.
    You know that toploaders do indeed save the cards over time? BTW - how do you get your cards into penny sleeves without damage? I have just bought the "thick" sleeves which seem to work better with cards as it is easier to slide them in. >>



    The penny-sleeve in a top-loader is my method and I'm sure there are lots of other practices
    out there that have worked well for people.

    I personally find that putting a card in the card-saver is tougher to do than a penny sleeve and when you have a lot of
    cards to package it's pretty time-consuming. Plus I'm not convinced that the card-saver protection over time is really that
    great compared to the top-loader which is very protective. When you have the card in a sleeve in a top-loader you can
    move your cards around often and not risk damage -- unless you turn them upside down and even then if the card is in a
    penny sleeve it's not likely to fall out. Hasn't ever happened to me at least.

    Top-loaders aren't cheap but you can buy them in bulk and I feel it's worth the cost.
    The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the PSA 10 collector he didn't exist.

    DaveB in St.Louis


  • << <i>Well, there are a lot of uninformed responses on this forum regarding this specific issue; especially if you differentiate 1970s low pop commons versus 1980s (which aren't fully collected or searched as of yet). In regards to 1970s there are low pop commons that are low pop because high grade specimens are basically impossible to find. Some might be based on the positioning of the card in the sheet (i.e. top row for the green/yellow, red/yellow 1975 minis) or other reasons. In 1976 you would be hard pressed to find a nice PSA 9 Brett, but similarly, look at recent prices paid for Stennet RB, Torre, Briggs, or Rick Miller cards. These cards are just IMPOSSIBLE to find in nice minty condition. There is always the possibility that someone will open a super box or case with a run of these in mint, but the buyer takes that likelihood into account. >>



    It's very hard to generalize on this topic and I'm sure you're right about certain sets and low-pop common cards being very hard to find
    in PSA 9 or above.

    But I was mostly curious about some of the prices I've seen for low-pop commons for sets like 1981 where the total submission
    count was 15 or less and you know that there will be more graded down the road.
    The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the PSA 10 collector he didn't exist.

    DaveB in St.Louis


  • << <i>

    << <i>Well, there are a lot of uninformed responses on this forum regarding this specific issue; especially if you differentiate 1970s low pop commons versus 1980s (which aren't fully collected or searched as of yet). In regards to 1970s there are low pop commons that are low pop because high grade specimens are basically impossible to find. Some might be based on the positioning of the card in the sheet (i.e. top row for the green/yellow, red/yellow 1975 minis) or other reasons. In 1976 you would be hard pressed to find a nice PSA 9 Brett, but similarly, look at recent prices paid for Stennet RB, Torre, Briggs, or Rick Miller cards. These cards are just IMPOSSIBLE to find in nice minty condition. There is always the possibility that someone will open a super box or case with a run of these in mint, but the buyer takes that likelihood into account. >>



    It's very hard to generalize on this topic and I'm sure you're right about certain sets and low-pop common cards being very hard to find
    in PSA 9 or above.

    But I was mostly curious about some of the prices I've seen for low-pop commons for sets like 1981 where the total submission
    count was 15 or less and you know that there will be more graded down the road. >>



    I know that there is a LOT of 1981 still unopened - no heavy hitter has really taken on this set - maybe partly because of lack of rookie power. Therefore, it is a crapshoot regarding pops (much like 1979 was 5 years ago). However, there are several experts in this set that can probably give you a heads-up on cards that will remain tough in the future. I have seen top 10 lists from this year on several occasions (check the registry forum). IMO this set is as difficult as the 1979 with similar issues: thin borders amplify o/c issues, soft stock means almost NO raw will garner top grades etc...
    75 Minis - GET IN MY BELLY!
  • MiniDuffMiniDuff Posts: 1,241 ✭✭✭
    Sensationally poor quality control plays a huge role in my opinion. The cardboard was awful, the print awful, the cutting awful.

    With 75 minis, I get it. It was a test issue. It was a new size.

    That said, Henry and others touch on it, there are issues, such as 81 that are nowhere near mature. Until there is critical mass where submitting high grade has a reasonable chance of breaking even or god forbid making a dollar, it will all sit in collections. What is the motivation, unless you are yourself a collector of the set, to submit cards you will lose money on if they grade a 9? Until enough collectors concentrate on a set to drive prices to that point, low pop is a function of low submissions, nothing more imho.

    As an avid mini collector and mini grader for seven years now, I can tell you the early cycle was this: Wow, someone just paid $60 for a psa 8 Toby Harrah because it is a 13 pop that hasn't come up in a while, I better go look at my raw. That card is now mature with 41 8s and 10 9s. Just one example, but I think it is fair to say that aside from 71s, minis are the hardest cards of the 70s. You can look at pops there for an idea of what a difficult, but fairly mature, set looks like.
    1975 Mini Collector
    ebay id Duffs_Dugout
    My Ebay Auctions
  • gemintgemint Posts: 6,066 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I probably have 5 or 6 complete or near complete 1981 sets. In all the years, I have never searched through them for submittable cards aside from the Nolan Ryan. I'm sure there are many more out there like me.


  • << <i>

    As an avid mini collector and mini grader for seven years now, I can tell you the early cycle was this: Wow, someone just paid $60 for a psa 8 Toby Harrah because it is a 13 pop that hasn't come up in a while, I better go look at my raw. That card is now mature with 41 8s and 10 9s. Just one example, but I think it is fair to say that aside from 71s, minis are the hardest cards of the 70s. You can look at pops there for an idea of what a difficult, but fairly mature, set looks like. >>



    An interesting fact Jim...most of the red/yellow, green/yellow htf low pops now have around 30-38 samples in 8. Harrah at only 41 is surprisingly low no? Maybe time for another 60.00 hammer price image
    75 Minis - GET IN MY BELLY!
  • grote15grote15 Posts: 29,480 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I don't believe you can compare % of 10s between one set and another on a 1:1 scale percentage-wise, though, as there are a lot more "less than gem mint" cards from 1979 that are worth submitting to get 9s than 1981, for which it makes sense really at this point to submit only those cards that are flawless. As Jim mentioned, unless you are putting together the '81 set, there is absolutely no incentive to sub 1981 Topps cards unless they are gem mint, while there are a number of PSA 9 1979 cards that are worth submitting at least. Until the total number of cards between sets are comparable, you can't really compare the two sets in terms of difficulty for obtaining a PSA 10 grade, imo.


    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.
  • Dpeck100Dpeck100 Posts: 10,910 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>I don't believe you can compare % of 10s between one set and another on a 1:1 scale, though, as there are a lot more "less than gem mint" cards from 1979 that are worth submitting to get 9s than 1981, for which it makes sense really at this point to submit only those cards that are flawless. As Jim mentioned, unless you are putting together the '81 set, there is absolutely no incentive to sub 1981 Topps cards unless they are gem mint, while there are a number of PSA 9 1979 cards that are worth submitting at least. Until the total number of cards between sets are comparable, you can't really compare the two sets in terms of difficulty for obtaining a PSA 10 grade, imo. >>




    Well said.


  • << <i>

    '70, '71, '73 & '75 are all tougher than '75 mini when it comes to PSA 10s. Pretty impressive considering the minis are only at 1.6% for PSA 10s. >>



    Well having put all of them together multiple times...only 2 sets in the 1970s are difficult to compile in 8 and above: the 1971 and the 1975 minis. The only reason some of the other sets have low ratios of 10s is that there are tons of 8s floating around. Some people should not be allowed near numbers.
    75 Minis - GET IN MY BELLY!
  • itzagoneritzagoner Posts: 8,753 ✭✭


    << <i>Some people should not be allowed near numbers. >>



    image


  • << <i>

    << <i>Some people have to be first regardless of cost. >>



    +1 >>



    +2 Plain and simple.
    The speed of light is faster than the speed of sound...That is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

    -t206
    -e90-1
    -e95
    -m116
  • grote15grote15 Posts: 29,480 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Paul, in all fairness though, have you ever submitted to PSA any cards other than 1978 or 1979 Topps baseball? I would value the assessments of guys like Henry and Jim (and even myself) who have submitted hundreds or more cards from many different issues from this era rather than just copying and pasting numbers to determine the true difficulty (or lack thereof) of a particular 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.
  • ...sigh....

    What is the better indicator of how hard it is to find "high" grade cards - percent of 10s as a portion of total submissions or ACTUAL populations? The 1975 regular has 110922 in 8; 41,346 in 9; and 2436 in 10. The 1975 mini has 42,537 in 8; 14,171 in 9; and 1289 in 10. If we go just 9 and above then the Regular issue has north of 44K and the mini has north of 16K total graded to date. I predict within the next 3-5 years we will see the new norm that there will be over 3 times the number of 9s and 10s for the Regular set over that of the mini. So what is the point of looking at percent of 10s per total population as a better indicator of difficulty? image

    EDIT: Jim stumbled on the most elegant way to explain the current 1981 dilemma: it is at an immature stage so all projections are tricky. However, the initial indications of people who have actually ripped 1981s is that the cards are at least as difficult as sets such as 1979 and even perhaps 1977s. Who knows? As Jim states, only until some people are willing to throw money into these cards will the true pops start emerging as people start to rip and search
    75 Minis - GET IN MY BELLY!
  • Dpeck100Dpeck100 Posts: 10,910 ✭✭✭✭✭
    BBG,

    There have been 66,498 cards submitted from 1979 Topps with 27,961 graded PSA 9 and 4,305 graded PSA 10.


    The 1981 Topps set has 46,754 cards graded with 20,988 graded PSA 9 and 7,533 graded PSA 10.


    1979 Topps has a 42% PSA 9 ratio and 6.40% PSA 10 ratio.


    1981 Topps has 44.80% PSA 9 ratio and 16.1% PSA 10.


    These numbers obviously tell you that a 1979 Topps card is tough in general in a PSA 10. That being said simply comparing the two and making a 1 to 1 correlation is not accurate. There are many factors that can influence why a card has been sent in. If you are trying to compare the two directly I think a better measure would be comparing the percentage of cards from the set that have graded a 10. So for example if there are 724 cards in the 1979 Topps set and 726 in the 1981 set you would just simply take how many have achieved a grade of a 10. There are certain cards from all sets that are much easier then others so in the 16.1% there might be a large number of a few cards driving that percentage higher. The other major issue is that there are a great deal yet to be graded.

    I don't care to do it but I would be interested to see the percentage comparison using the method I suggested.



  • MiniDuffMiniDuff Posts: 1,241 ✭✭✭
    Comparing the ratio of PSA 10 75 minis to any of the others is willfully wrong or ignorant of the issue. Without getting this thread poofed, Go to VCP and look at 100 PSA 10 minis and then come back here and tell me how many are natural (unaltered) cards. Natural cards are the only ones we can use for an apples to apples comparison of set difficulty.

    I believe the true ratio of mini psa 10s to be under 1.0% and hope one day we get there. Henry has helped us get a good part of the way there.
    1975 Mini Collector
    ebay id Duffs_Dugout
    My Ebay Auctions
  • BTW just to let you know why the overall pops are more important - please remember that the 1979s are skewed downward because there are primary cards: Ryan and Ozzie, that people are willing to submit for lower than 9 grades - thus the ratio numbers are not accurate.
    75 Minis - GET IN MY BELLY!
  • MattyCMattyC Posts: 1,335 ✭✭


    << <i>

    << <i>

    '70, '71, '73 & '75 are all tougher than '75 mini when it comes to PSA 10s. Pretty impressive considering the minis are only at 1.6% for PSA 10s. >>




    BBG,

    A few posts earlier you said this in defense of a set you collect:

    "

    << <i>I think you're missing the fact that sometimes a low submission count has to do with lack of submission worthy examples. With some cards, few have been subbed because none were worth subbing. There are cards out there that there will never be a 10 of ... and others where there's only 1 10 and no more will ever be found.

    Once you've subbed the examples you think are 9s and get your results you should have a better indicator of the toughness of a given card. Remember, just because you think they're 9s doesn't make it such image >>



    This is the case with minis.

    70, 73, and 75 cannot be deemed tougher just by speciously citing the GEM MT 10 percentage. 10s are a tricky thing. So many cards deemed 10s are often more accurately 9s and vice versa. The difference between an 10 and a great 9 is often luck. (Hence why so many live by the old "buy the card, not the grade" adage.)

    Not saying there are not deserving perfect cards deemed 10s, but the point being that the lack of minis in a "SUBMITTABLE" state is a huge factor.

    71s are another story altogether of course and I would say they are the toughest of the decade.

    As to the OP, I agree about collecting low pop commons. Someone once said, and I forget who, that those cards are like grenades-- and you don't want to be the last one holding one when the pop rises. I will say there are common cards in each set which are true rarities in a mint state, like perhaps a 61 Gentile or a 75 mini C. Washington. I can see value in these for the mature sets, as a passionate set builder would want one.

    But for 80s issues and many 70s issues, when it comes to low-pop commons the value of the card is always 100% created by the subjective grade assigned and resultant pop. If we are talking about personal taste and what one wants to collect, nothing else matters. But if one is collecting with even a slight eye toward recouping value down the line, low-pop commons in a Registry set is quite risky, as compared to say a HOFer or better yet a HOF RC. If anything ever happens to PSA (i,e., the growing fake-slab fiasco, the famous Wagner issue, all the beheaded minis, the cello pack fiasco) then low-pop commons whose value is based solely on subjective grade and pop will be in the roughest spot-- because they were used primarily as competition to raise a GPA on PSA's website. That is a much thinner buyer pool than for a nice HOFer card from any era with eye appeal.
  • Dpeck100Dpeck100 Posts: 10,910 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>BTW just to let you know why the overall pops are more important - please remember that the 1979s are skewed downward because there are primary cards: Ryan and Ozzie, that people are willing to submit for lower than 9 grades - thus the ratio numbers are not accurate. >>




    Excellent point. If doing a true statistical analysis these would be taken out as they are outlyers. There is no way using true statistical analysis that you can compare the two sets with a high percentage of statistical significance.

    All of these cards would need to be taken out of the calculations.


    The 1979 population is skewed by 12 cards with populations above 800 cards.


    The 1981 population is skewed by 9 cards with populations above 800 cards.


  • MiniDuffMiniDuff Posts: 1,241 ✭✭✭
    Good points. Sets are going to skew even lower in cases where there are a lot of cards worth grading in an 8.

    A 71 8 has a good chance of being profitable, even a number of 7s. 1975 or 1976 on the other hard, many 9s don't pay for grading/listing (later years as well for sure).

    I grade a lot of cards, but I do not grade my BEST cards per se. I grade the cards that have the best chance of turning a profit, so I am a one man skew of some of these numbers.
    1975 Mini Collector
    ebay id Duffs_Dugout
    My Ebay Auctions
  • MattyCMattyC Posts: 1,335 ✭✭
    BBG,

    I completely agree: with respect to the original post, a passionate set builder who is simply collecting what he wants, as you are, makes any discussion of price/value moot. If you love something and are taking it to the grave or passing it down to posterity, that's fantastic. The joy one gets from such pieces, whatever they may be, is always worth well more than the money spent.

    If there is any consideration of a sale down the line, low-pop commons are among the riskiest bets in the hobby-- though as with anything there are notable exceptions and true rarities out there, unique to each set. No doubt learning about those is always fun to a card guy as well.
  • MattyCMattyC Posts: 1,335 ✭✭


    << <i>Good points. Sets are going to skew even lower in cases where there are a lot of cards worth grading in an 8. >>



    This is a very important factor right there.
  • itzagoneritzagoner Posts: 8,753 ✭✭
    dis·pas·sion·ate
    adjective -sh(ə-)nət

    Definition of DISPASSIONATE

    not influenced by strong feeling; especially : not affected by personal or emotional involvement


    hmm.
  • royalbrettroyalbrett Posts: 620 ✭✭✭
    money > brains
    Yeah, I uploaded that KC icon in 2001
  • DodgerfanjohnDodgerfanjohn Posts: 489 ✭✭✭


    << <i>money > brains >>



    While I agree with this sentiment a lot and have a feeling it does drive the market for sports cards unnecessarily to some extent, you really don't know entirely where someone comes from.

    A guy who hits the lottery for $50 mill in LA or NY isn't filthy rich by any means...wealthy? Yeah depending on spending patterns. But after taxes, present value calcs, and cost of buying a house or property in an area where people with that type of scratch live, the guy still has to live on a budget. A nice budget no doubt, but not something where he can simply spend at will on whatever he wants.

    OTOH, if the guy lives in flyover country and is going to stay there, and there's a low cost of living...$1 million buys a mansion rather than a 3/2 1500 sq ft place....that guy really doesn't have the same concerns and relatively has unlimited funds. So dropping whatever's needed in pursuit of a hobby...well if that's what the guy wants to do so be it.
  • AlfiewtAlfiewt Posts: 337
    OK, here are some percentages for cards at different submission levels for each set.

    Total pop <800
    1979 Topps - 3908/45962 = 8.50%
    1981 Topps - 6066/32211 = 18.83%

    Total pop <100
    1979 Topps - 2636/27047 = 9.75%
    1981 Topps - 4962/22050 = 22.50%


    Total pop <50
    1979 Topps - 1230/14123 = 8.71%
    1981 Topps - 3208/15513 = 20.68%

    Total pop <50
    1979 Topps - 26/512 = 5.08%
    1981 Topps - 300/2269 = 13.22%

    50 lowest pop cards for each set
    1979 Topps - 40/900 = 4.44%
    1981 Topps - 47/603 = 7.79%

    20 lowest pop cards for each set
    1979 Topps - 9/306 = 2.94%
    1981 Topps - 13/224 = 5.80%

    This doesn't tell us the whole story about which set is tougher because the value of graded 1979 Topps cards is greater than 1981 Topps cards so people will be more selective when submitting 1981 Topps cards. We can try to tease apart the numbers in the pop all day long but the best way to tell the difference between the two sets would be to determine # of 10s you get out of the typical box (wax/cello/vending) for each set.
  • AlfiewtAlfiewt Posts: 337


    << <i> If you are trying to compare the two directly I think a better measure would be comparing the percentage of cards from the set that have graded a 10. So for example if there are 724 cards in the 1979 Topps set and 726 in the 1981 set you would just simply take how many have achieved a grade of a 10. There are certain cards from all sets that are much easier then others so in the 16.1% there might be a large number of a few cards driving that percentage higher. The other major issue is that there are a great deal yet to be graded.

    I don't care to do it but I would be interested to see the percentage comparison using the method I suggested. >>



    OK, here are those #'s:

    % of cards in set with no cards graded PSA 10:
    1979 Topps - 96/726 = 13.22 %
    1981 Topps - 68/726 = 9.37 %

    % of cards in set with PSA 10 pop 1 or less:
    1979 Topps - 190/726 = 26.17%
    1981 Topps - 120/726 = 16.53 %

    % of cards in set with PSA 10 pop 2 or less:
    1979 Topps - 279/726 = 38.43%
    1981 Topps - 168/726 = 23.14%

    % of cards in set with PSA 10 pop 3 or less:
    1979 Topps - 368/726 = 50.69%
    1981 Topps - 231/726 = 32.92%
  • When I started this thread I had no idea it would get this interesting.

    Plenty of good insights to take into consideration for the future 1978-81
    PSA set builders.

    Patience will benefit some on the low-pop commons so maybe they should concentrate
    first on the key cards in these sets and leave those for later?
    The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the PSA 10 collector he didn't exist.

    DaveB in St.Louis
  • goraidersgoraiders Posts: 2,158 ✭✭✭


    << <i>money > brains >>



    Brown tape>Clear tape..nuff saidimage
    J.R.
    Needs'
    1972 Football-9's high#'s
    1965 Football-8's
    1958 Topps FB-7-8
  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,171 ✭✭✭✭✭
    There have been some great points made, but few have addressed your question on who is over-paying and why.

    If you are hoping for value in a newer card you are looking for a 9 or10. I don't like to buy cards I know in advance I will not be happy with, just because it's the only one out there right now.

    When one of these low pop cards does surface, there is going to be a demand, either registry people or just high grade collectors.

    Since most of us don't have even one box to rip, we must buy them as they come along. It really doesn't matter to us that a bunch of 10's might get graded next week or next year.

    There was a thread on the 1975 Killebrew card that shows what happens once a card (although in this case a HOFer not really a common) reaches a value that gets submitters to submit. Patience is a virtue.

    population increase

    Joe
    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set


  • << <i>Comparing the ratio of PSA 10 75 minis to any of the others is willfully wrong or ignorant of the issue. Without getting this thread poofed, Go to VCP and look at 100 PSA 10 minis and then come back here and tell me how many are natural (unaltered) cards. Natural cards are the only ones we can use for an apples to apples comparison of set difficulty. >>


    Trimmed cards are a problem with all sets, not just 1975 Topps Minis.
  • Dpeck100Dpeck100 Posts: 10,910 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>

    << <i> If you are trying to compare the two directly I think a better measure would be comparing the percentage of cards from the set that have graded a 10. So for example if there are 724 cards in the 1979 Topps set and 726 in the 1981 set you would just simply take how many have achieved a grade of a 10. There are certain cards from all sets that are much easier then others so in the 16.1% there might be a large number of a few cards driving that percentage higher. The other major issue is that there are a great deal yet to be graded.

    I don't care to do it but I would be interested to see the percentage comparison using the method I suggested. >>



    OK, here are those #'s:

    % of cards in set with no cards graded PSA 10:
    1979 Topps - 96/726 = 13.22 %
    1981 Topps - 68/726 = 9.37 %

    % of cards in set with PSA 10 pop 1 or less:
    1979 Topps - 190/726 = 26.17%
    1981 Topps - 120/726 = 16.53 %

    % of cards in set with PSA 10 pop 2 or less:
    1979 Topps - 279/726 = 38.43%
    1981 Topps - 168/726 = 23.14%

    % of cards in set with PSA 10 pop 3 or less:
    1979 Topps - 368/726 = 50.69%
    1981 Topps - 231/726 = 32.92% >>






    Thanks for the running the numbers. I think the break down of these figures in high grade gives you a better idea of the difficulty of these two sets.


  • << <i>

    << <i>Good points. Sets are going to skew even lower in cases where there are a lot of cards worth grading in an 8. >>



    This is a very important factor right there. >>



    1979 and 1981 seem so tough to get in high grade that some guys in the registry have 8's on low-pop cards.

    Which pre-1985 Topps set, in your opinion, is the LATEST one that you feel could be affected by
    this factor? Is it 1981 or do you have to go back a lot earlier?

    The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the PSA 10 collector he didn't exist.

    DaveB in St.Louis
  • I believe 81 is the last year that Topps used the "toilet paper" card stock.
    75 Minis - GET IN MY BELLY!
  • grote15grote15 Posts: 29,480 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I have always found 77s to be really poor stock 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.
  • ClockworkAngelClockworkAngel Posts: 1,994 ✭✭✭


    << <i>I believe 81 is the last year that Topps used the "toilet paper" card stock. >>



    Yes from 1982 onward, PSA 10's aren't particularly difficult in any sets...whether it's Topps Donruss or Fleer.


    I see there is a 1981 Topps Pete Rose PSA 10 on eBay right now for $3500
    image
    The Clockwork Angel Collection...brought to you by Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Chase
    TheClockworkAngelCollection
Sign In or Register to comment.