Tool for judging low pop?
PaulMaul
Posts: 4,891 ✭✭✭✭✭
I've been thinking about how to identify cards in a set that are low pop. With small sets you can kind of eyeball it, but with something like 1972 Baseball it's tougher.
It would be cool if you could load the pop data into a spreadsheet, compile, say, the number of >= 9s for each card, and then rank the cards on a percentile basis. So it would tell you, e.g., Bob Barton is in the 15th percentile....15 percent of the set has a smaller number of 9/10s.
Then you could use this data together with anecdotal evidence to try and determine where "low pop" kicks in. 20th percentile? 10th?
I don't have the spreadsheet expertise to do this, but I'm sure someone does.
It would be cool if you could load the pop data into a spreadsheet, compile, say, the number of >= 9s for each card, and then rank the cards on a percentile basis. So it would tell you, e.g., Bob Barton is in the 15th percentile....15 percent of the set has a smaller number of 9/10s.
Then you could use this data together with anecdotal evidence to try and determine where "low pop" kicks in. 20th percentile? 10th?
I don't have the spreadsheet expertise to do this, but I'm sure someone does.
0
Comments
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>Next I plan to end pack re-sealing and eliminate shilling on eBay. Stay tuned! >>
I'd set my sights a little lower, go for world peace first
and then just sort on the column for the grade level of interest
I've done it many times.
Dave
<< <i>You CAN cut and paste the pop report into a spreadsheet
and then just sort on the column for the grade level of interest
I've done it many times. >>
I guess just sorting on the combined 9/10 population would paint a pretty good picture. I think a percentile ranking would be nice, but I guess that could be easily obtained by just normalizing by the set size. I.e. For 1972 once you've sorted, you would just generate a column for (787 - rank + 1)/787. Does that sound right?
relative scarcity within the set itself across all grades, versus other years,
at the same grade levels, etc.
I've used the results for both slabbed card evaluation, and also as input to unopened
product valuation and comparison.
The possibilities are almost limitless.
Dave