Logorithmic Set Collecting

[egbeachley]

Using a logorithmic scale, how would you rate a set based on how easy it is to complete. For example, I assume the easiest sets would be something like 2012 Topps since you can go to the nearest Walmart or Target and just pick one up for $20 or so. They get rated a 1. A 2008 Topps set may require looking on Ebay and using a Paypal account. Not as easy as the 2012 set but certainly not hard. Give it a 2 since it technically is around 10 times harder to acquire just for effort. 1975 Topps might get a 3 since the price is a bit higher and there may not be sets ending every day.

1934 Goudey? How about a 4. None of the cards are hard to find.

T206? A 5? Yes it very very expensive. But several Wagners appear every year and you don't even need to go more than a couple years to pick up a Doyle Nat'l. Maybe that should be a 6 just because of the price.

So what is 10 times harder than the T206? E107? Should it be a 7?

Where does the Old Judge fit in?

What is the hardest? For me it's the T231 Fan set. Isn't it a couple hundred cards of which only 2 are known? I guess that is "beyond category". But it's possible a set may exist with a relative of a former employee.

The reason I ask is that I am trying to complete the N224 Kinney military set and after 12 years I am still 10 cards short. Mostly because there are 6 cards where there are less than 4 cards known. That's why nobody has completed it, although Tiger-Wharton was just 1 short. It would be far easier for me to work extremely hard, save my money, and pay for the T206 Wagner and Doyle then to actually find the N224 cards I am looking for. That set gets an 8.

Thoughts? T205 folks? Cabinets?

[Jantz]

Eric

I would think the 1893 Just So set would be worthy of a high number since only one example of Ewing has ever been discovered.


Jantz

[Sean]

There was a 1931 set in which the manufacturer only produced 2 of the Fred Lindstrom card, so far as we can determine, so that set is nearly impossible to complete. I can't remember the name of the set, but if Barry reads this he can tell us. I remember that he handled the sale of the second Lindstrom about 15 years ago.:confused:

[novakjr]

I'd think the "at will" sets would receive the 1, on this hypothetical scale. 2012, 2008, 1992. What's the difference? Anyone who wants one probably has one, or could get one "at will"..

Stage 2, to me would be the sets that are more often collected than simply bought. I'm not sure where the cut-off would be. But I'd probably place it right around '78 and older(if it doesn't fall into another stage), because honestly, anything newer than that, I'd just buy complete without a second thought.

Stage 3 would probably be very similar to Stage 2, but with a bigger $ card or two. Maybe '68(Ryan). '67(seaver and carew). 63(Rose). so on and so on. Often combined with SP high series and the such.. I'd think many of the smaller pre-war sets would also fit here. I'd put '48 bowman in this category only because it's a small set.

Stage 4 would be similar to Stage 3, but this time with HUGE $$$ cards. '49, '51 Bowman. '52, 54, 55 Topps and maybe '57(No Huge $$$ cards, but a seemingly abnormal amount of high $ ones.) Also, the more common pre-war sets, without any crazy expensive cards. like a 40 Playball 41 double play. sets like that.

Stage 5 would probably be similar pre-war issues that are a little harder to come by. Or smaller issues that probably have a few high $ cards. '39 '41 Playball, 34 goudey, some of the smaller E's and T's would probably also fit this mold..

Stage 6 would be the same as 5, but would have a card or two that would probably be out of most people's price range. Maybe '33 Goudey with the Lajoie. T206. You get the idea. Or the Larger and/or more obscure pre-war sets.

Stage 7, should take us to the rarer early 1900's sets, and the smaller(somewhat attainable) 19th century sets.

Stage 8, would probably be the Larger 19th century sets, or sets that contain a few insanely priced(yet attainable) cards.

Stage 9, sets that there's just a card or two that may be near impossible to get..

Stage 10. sets that people would be happy just to ever get 1 card from(not to mention complete it). 1893 Just So Tobacco comes to mind.

[novakjr]

Eric

I would think the 1893 Just So set would be worthy of a high number since only one example of Ewing has ever been discovered.


Jantz

It's funny. I started writing my mess before you posted. Unfortunately, it took me about a half-hour to write. I was happy to see that I wasn't the only one who mentioned the Just So set. It was the first thing that came to my mind when I thought 10.

[Jantz]

It was the first thing that came to my mind when I thought 10.

Me too! :)


Jantz

[Matthew H]

Cool thread!

I would put old judge at a nine, same with just so. There are many unique player cards in the old judge set so IMO it would have to be on the same level as just so... Not on the same level as fan's cigeretts though.

[novakjr]

Cool thread!

I would put old judge at a nine, same with just so. There are many unique player cards in the old judge set so IMO it would have to be on the same level as just so... Not on the same level as fan's cigeretts though.

I think the distinguishing factor between the two is that almost EVERY card in the Just So set is like that.. With OJ you could at least simplify "your set" to just not include the unique cards, with the JS, good luck even getting one.

[Leon]

Hard to say what all of our beauties would be in rarity scales. It's sort of relative. I sometimes think of them in how many years it is between seeing one for sale.

http://luckeycards.com/pt231.jpg

http://luckeycards.com/pe222awa.jpg

http://luckeycards.com/ph998miller2.jpg

[irishdenny]

Stage 3 would probably be very similar to Stage 2, but with a bigger $ card or two. Maybe '68(Ryan). '67(seaver and carew). 63(Rose). so on and so on. Often combined with SP high series and the such.. I'd think many of the smaller pre-war sets would also fit here. I'd put '48 bowman in this category only because it's a small set.

Stage 4 would be similar to Stage 3, but this time with HUGE $$$ cards. '49, '51 Bowman. '52, 54, 55 Topps and maybe '57(No Huge $$$ cards, but a seemingly abnormal amount of high $ ones.) Also, the more common pre-war sets, without any crazy expensive cards. like a 40 Playball 41 double play. sets like that.

Stage 5 would probably be similar pre-war issues that are a little harder to come by. Or smaller issues that probably have a few high $ cards. '39 '41 Playball, 34 goudey, some of the smaller E's and T's would probably also fit this mold..

Stage 6 would be the same as 5, but would have a card or two that would probably be out of most people's price range. Maybe '33 Goudey with the Lajoie. T206. You get the idea. Or the Larger and/or more obscure pre-war sets..

Hey there David,
NiCe Write~uP! So, I'm curious... of the above Stages, where would You put the E90-1 Set? Just thought I'd ask Your opinion since You created this neat little "Log Stage Write~uP".

This Thread is Brilliant!!! I Love Statistic's...

[novakjr]

Hey there David,
NiCe Write~uP! So, I'm curious... of the above Stages, where would You put the E90-1 Set? Just thought I'd ask Your opinion since You created this neat little "Log Stage Write~uP".

This Thread is Brilliant!!! I Love Statistic's...

Honestly, it's not a set that I have a whole lot of experience with. But from looking through the Standard Catalog, I'd probably say that it fits in as a lower level Stage 6. Nothing insanely priced, but there's quite a few higher $ cards.

[buymycards]

Ed, there are many ways to go about this. I would prefer using the scarcity of the set and the scarcity of individual cards with in a set, without taking into account the price of the set or the price of individual cards within the set, and without taking into account the condition of the cards, since some sets are rarely found with individual cards grading higher than a two.

So, without pricing and condition, I would have to put:

Weil Baking at a 7 or 8
Holsum Bread at 8 or 9
Coupon Type 2 at 6 or 7
Coupon type 3 at 8
Coupon type 1 at 9.
Kotton at 8
Virginia Extra at 9

[Eric72]

For the sake of keeping things in perspective, should modern sets be considered? In recent years, the card companies have taken manufactured scarcity to the extreme...1 of 1's.

They produce cards which differ in some way from the base card. They might have a different color scheme, a die-cut shape, etc. Occasionally, they have inserted actual printing plates into packs. Then they stamp the card with 1/1...as in the only one in existence. And they will do this for all 100 players (or however many cards there are in the set.)

So there are dozens (hundreds, maybe...it seems like they put five or ten of these damn things out every year) of modern sets which contain nothing but one-of-a-kind examples.

Back to my original question...should they be considered in this discussion?

[egbeachley]

I forgot that the Old Judge set has 19 Califormia league players, roughly half of which are 1 of 1. That set gets a 10.

[Jacklitsch]

1911 Zeenut set is a 9 due to the nearly impossible Bohen.

[familytoad]

Whether fiction or fact, until Dr. Frank replies with his number...its all speculation to me:D

E210 York Type 2 needs a tough ranking...that's all I know.

[ValKehl]

I believe there is only one known example of the Roger Peckinpaugh card for the 1925 Holland Creameries set.

The T214 Victory Tobacco set supposedly consists of 90 subjects (as stated on the backs of these cards), but only about 60 subjects ahve been checklisted.

Would these sets be rated as 10s?
Val

[E93]

N167 Old Judge, Just So, 4 Base Hits, Kalamazoo Bats, Gypsie Queen are all 10's imho.
JimB

[egbeachley]

1911 Zeenut set is a 9 due to the nearly impossible Bohen.

One sold just 6 years ago. This set gets a 7...8 at the highest.

[Jacklitsch]

Maybe I should have said "intact" Bohen. The one that sold was a cutout.

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g5/jacklitsch1/Personal/Bohen.jpg

I still think its a 9.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Zeenut?

[Matthew H]

1911 Zeenut set is a 9 due to the nearly impossible Bohen.

I've heard there are more difficult years then 1911. Some years have player cards with only one known, some have cards that used to be known(lost), also period checklists with cards that haven't been found. (there were no chase cards in Zeenut)