Options
Question about Vintage Football
Morgoth
Posts: 3,950 ✭✭✭
Most people have told me that football in the 50s thru 80s was not very popular to collect. Therefore Topps produced much less of it than baseball cards. Does anyone have any proof this did happen? And on what order of magnitude was it less?
Some vintage sets to me appear to be young/low in graded card amounts but is it just because there isn't the same volume as baseball gto send in or is there still alot of apathy about football cards?
Some vintage sets to me appear to be young/low in graded card amounts but is it just because there isn't the same volume as baseball gto send in or is there still alot of apathy about football cards?
Currently completing the following registry sets: Cardinal HOF's, 1961 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1972 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1980 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, Bill Mazeroski Master & Basic Sets, Roberto Clemente Master & Basic Sets, Willie Stargell Master & Basic Sets and Terry Bradshaw Basic Set
0
Comments
Jim Brown maybe best player ever in the sport, certainly iconic and at least top 10.
Clemente, while he is my guy, not even top 50.
Football would come out in Sept and be just about done by the middle of November.
Then Hockey and Basketball.
IMO the 3 other sports combined would not approach the baseball card sales.
(For that time period)
Steve
Possibly the best RF to ever play the game!
I agree he is top 50.
His card is very popular not only for how well he played but the person that he was.
Steve
I've heard the card production would rank like this:
1. Baseball
2. Football
3. Basketball
4. Hockey
Again, I have no legit production numbers to back this up, just what I've heard over the years.
When Bill James did his HOF rankings using I believe the HOF monitor test Clemente came up exactly in the middle of the pack, or to put it another way he is the average HOF player.
25% is a number I would believe. I know even in the late 80s dealers didn't care at all about football cards so I think alot more got tossed out compared to baseball. I remember buying 1984 Topps FB packs in 1988 for a quarter a pack.
IE if a set was 1/3 as big and had 1/3 the cards printed as the larger set, every player in the smaller set would have as many cards printed as the players in the larger set.
Does this negate the theory that FB cards were printed in less quantities PER PLAYER than baseball?
<< <i>Would that smaller set size make up for the total amount of each card printed.
IE if a set was 1/3 as big and had 1/3 the cards printed as the larger set, every player in the smaller set would have as many cards printed as the players in the larger set.
Does this negate the theory that FB cards were printed in less quantities PER PLAYER than baseball? >>
Not a good theory. It more like this, numbers rounded:
Baseball 500 cards times a print run of 100, that gives you 100 cards of each subject, 50,000 total cards.
Football 100 cards times a print run of 33 (one 3rd), gives you 33 cards of each subject, 3300 total cards.
It's all based on the print runs, not the number of cards in the set. Now you'll have to throw in series print runs, which differ, and the fact that some cards are double printed but the basic premise still holds true.
Bottom line is that Baseball has more subjects and more cards printed per subject.
<< <i>I've often heard the Football card production was 25% of the Baseball card production. I don't have any hard proof on this, just info I've gathered by talking to some old time dealers over the years.
I've heard the card production would rank like this:
1. Baseball
2. Football
3. Basketball
4. Hockey
Again, I have no legit production numbers to back this up, just what I've heard over the years. >>
I read the 25% number in an interview with Sy Berger in one of the old hobby rags.
If they made 100,000 cases of baseball then they would of made 75,000 cases of football regardless of how many cards made up the set. Unless the number of cards per case changed between the two set then it would mean that there could be more of each particular football card printed than a particular baseball card.
If we took the 50,000 number you gave.
Baseball: 50,000 printed at 500 per set= 100 per card.
Football: 37,500 printed at 100 per set= 375 per card. (Numbers show a 25% reduction in total printed amount.)
However, I don't believe it's 75% and I don't believe more cards were printed of each FB subject than BB subject.
I don't claim to know the production numbers, I don't think anyone does, but there's no way FB card total numbers or even numbers per subject are greater than baseball.
At best, I think the numbers per subject would be equal, with the lower number of cards in the FB set representing the lower total production. i.e. 154 cards vs 407 = about one third production IF the numbers per subject are equal, and that's a big if.
Example
For 1,250,000 baseball cards at 660 per set= 1,900 per player.
For 500,000 football cards at 264 per set = 1,900 per player.
This would be 2.5 times more baseball than football printed. Based on set sizes it still comes out the same printed per player. Inversing the relationship it shows that with these set sizes topps would have to print less than 40% of the total baseball run to have less cards per player in their football runs.
So if the 25% number is real, which we don't know for sure, it would lead to there being more printed per player for football than baseball.
Interesting to think about. I still say due to the unpopularity of FB cards many more were thrown away or sent back to topps than BB cards.
<< <i>Another reason, one I think is most important is that BB would come out in March and end in September.
Football would come out in Sept and be just about done by the middle of November.
Steve >>
I think this is the best explanation as well as Football not being as popular as BB.
<< <i>I've often heard the Football card production was 25% of the Baseball card production. I don't have any hard proof on this, just info I've gathered by talking to some old time dealers over the years.
I've heard the card production would rank like this:
1. Baseball
2. Football
3. Basketball
4. Hockey
Again, I have no legit production numbers to back this up, just what I've heard over the years. >>
I remember reading roughly the same thing written in the 70's, 75% of the total cards produced was baseball, 15% was football and 10% was basketball, hockey and nonsport stuff.
Current obsession, all things Topps 1969 - 1972
<< <i>
<< <i>I've often heard the Football card production was 25% of the Baseball card production. I don't have any hard proof on this, just info I've gathered by talking to some old time dealers over the years.
I've heard the card production would rank like this:
1. Baseball
2. Football
3. Basketball
4. Hockey
Again, I have no legit production numbers to back this up, just what I've heard over the years. >>
I remember reading roughly the same thing written in the 70's, 75% of the total cards produced was baseball, 15% was football and 10% was basketball, hockey and nonsport stuff. >>
As far as the 70's go, Wacky Packs alone actually outsold baseball a couple of years.
Wack Packs selling more than BB is pretty funny. I bet Garbage Pal Kids cards outsold all sports combined some years.