View Full Version : 1957 Topps - What would be considered a "low pop?"

Archive

09-23-2007, 11:12 AM

Posted By: <b>jackgoodman</b><p>So, as an example, I've looked at the 1957 Topps Baseball set on the PSA Pop Report.<br /><br />I'm trying to determine what cards would be considered "low pop." I know PSA 9 & 10 would qualify easily, but let's look at the PSA 8 (no qualifier) category.<br /><br />There are 37811 cards graded PSA 8. If I divide the number of different cards in the set (let's say 415 for ease), that would give an average of 91 of each card graded as such.<br /><br />Would it be appropriate then to consider any card with less than 91 examples as a "low pop" card? Or is there another method to use.<br /><br />Your input will be appreciated. Thanks.<br /><br />

Archive

09-23-2007, 12:01 PM

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>I would say for 1957 Topps pop 50 or less. Probably means ex checklists and contest cards, 25 cards or so could be classified as this--most of which come from the series(3rd) that goes from roughly 260-340. Last time I checked I think Garcia and Kellner are lowest pops in set--both around 30.<br /><br />Jim

Archive

09-23-2007, 12:04 PM

Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>I think using the average population gives way too many low pops. Using 58% of the average pop in 1957 gives the following list. Since Don Bessent was expensive for me, I couldn't see leaving him out. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Low Pop PSA 8s for 1957 (53 or less):<br />310MAX SURKONT30<br />300MIKE GARCIA32<br />335GRANNY HAMNER35<br />319GINO CIMOLI36<br />307JACK PHILLIPS39<br />126BOB WIESLER40<br />350EDDIE MIKSIS40<br />280ALEX KELLNER41<br />347HAL NARAGON41<br />406BOB HALE41<br />303BILLY GOODMAN42<br />171RED SOX TEAM43<br />291WINDY McCALL43<br />265HARVEY HADDIX44<br />299CHUCK HARMON44<br />343TAYLOR PHILLIPS44<br />352ELLIS KINDER44<br />177EDDIE YOST45<br />99BOB KEEGAN46<br />139LOU KRETLOW46<br />292BILLY KLAUS46<br />298IRV NOREN46<br />276JIM PYBURN47<br />279BOB THURMAN47<br />287SAM JONES47<br />240HANK BAUER48<br />270SENATORS TEAM49<br />340BILL WIGHT49<br />346DICK LITTLEFIELD49<br />290ANDY CAREY50<br />6HECTOR LOPEZ51<br />331RAY KATT52<br />178DON BESSENT53<br /><br />All of the "special" cards would be considered extremely low pop in 8:<br />CHECKLIST 4/5BAZOOKA 0<br />176GENE BAKERERROR "EUGENE W. BAKEP"2<br />CHECKLIST 2/3BAZOOKA 2<br />CHECKLIST 4/5BIG BLONY 2<br />CHECKLIST 3/4BAZOOKA 3<br />CHECKLIST 2/3BIG BLONY 4<br />CHECKLIST 3/4TWIN BLONY 4<br />CHECKLIST 1/2BAZOOKA 7<br />CONTEST CARDSATURDAY, MAY 25TH7<br />LUCKY PENNY INSERT 7<br />CONTEST CARDFRIDAY, JULY 19TH9<br />CHECKLIST 1/2BIG BLONY 11<br />CONTEST CARDSATURDAY, MAY 4TH11<br /><br />

Archive

09-23-2007, 12:05 PM

Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>Jim beat me to it. <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

09-23-2007, 12:29 PM

Posted By: <b>jackgoodman</b><p>Thanks Jim and Bob. <br /><br />Why did you use 58% of the average number to determine a "low pop" number? <br /><br />Would the same method (number of cards graded divided by number of cards in set) times 58% work for PSA 7's too?<br /><br />Would this calculation work for any post-war (1950s/1960s) set to determine the "low pop" numbers in high grade (7 - 10)?.<br /><br />This is really educational - thanks in advance for your continued input.

Archive

09-23-2007, 07:22 PM

Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>58% was reached by working backwards. Nothing at all magical about it. Somewhere around 50 or so would be considered low pop for 57 PSA 8s. I'm sure it varies tremendously from year to year or grade to grade.

Archive

09-23-2007, 07:29 PM

Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>I wouldn't get too attached to trying to come up with a rule of thumb for low pops. Some cards are legitimately hard to find in a certain grade based on centering issues, registration, print dots, etc. Others are hard to find because demand exceeds supply (i.e., a large enough number haven't been submitted yet). Learning to differentiate between the two categories is crucial if you're going to compete for lower population cards.<br />

Archive

09-23-2007, 08:19 PM

Posted By: <b>Frank Evanov</b><p>In terms of acquiring cards Jack, the 1957 set is screwy. You can't always go by the pops. <br /><br />For example, the #270 SENATORS TEAM [49] and #346 DICK LITTLEFIELD [49] are equal in population, but the PSA 8 Senators averages $350 per card while a PSA 8 Littlefield sells for $90. <br /><br />Look at #340 BILL WIGHT [49]...easily had for $150, while #139 LOU KRETLOW [46] will run you $400!<br /><br />There are over 30 active sets on the 1957 Topps baseball PSA Registry with high completion rates/grades. Plus I know of a number of high grade PSA sets not on the Registry. Getting a card for this set in many cases is more influenced by who needs it, rather than its pop.<br><br>Frank

Archive

09-23-2007, 09:59 PM

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Jack,<br /><br />Nobody knows more about the 1957 set than Frank--he helped me finish mine. Any specific questions you have I would contact him directly. He will be more than willing to help.

Archive

09-25-2007, 07:27 AM

Posted By: <b>Al</b><p>Bob---did you know that 67 % of all statistics are made up on the spot

Archive

09-25-2007, 08:06 AM

Posted By: <b>Paul S</b><p>Al -- You got the numbers to back that up? <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>

vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.