the issue of scarcity re:206 backs

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barry arnold</b><p>Recognizing that Bill Brown's Super Set is a work in progress, I find myself<br />beginning to wonder if we should begin rethinking the scarcity order many of us 'grew up' on,e.g. the one provided by T206 Museum. Certainly, Scot <br />Reader's work has already provided much research in helping us to rethink<br />the order.<br /><br />I'd like to underscore some data from the Super Set which causes me to <br />'scratch my head' a bit and see what your beginning reflections may be<br />regarding a 'new' scarcity order.<br /><br />It strikes me as odd that Sweet Caporal 350-460 fact. 42 is only 35% complete<br />(38 of 109). It stands at 30th on the backs scarcity order of T206 Museum which<br />means it is very common. Similarly,its 'brother' SC 350-460 fact.25 is at<br />41% (45 of 109). It stands at 25th in the order.<br />While EPDG has only 37% completion (175 of 470),standing at 19th in the order,<br />Cycle 460 at 59% completion (64 of 109) stands at 17th in the order.<br />Less conspicuously,yet importantly,Tolstoi has 46% completion (147 of 317)<br />standing at 18th in the order. <br />Very conspicuously, Old Mill black has 42% completion(195 of 461),and stands,<br />I think,a bit glaringly at 26th in the scarcity order. I use this strong language when I note that Carolina Brights at 39% (84 of 214)stands at <br />14th on the list and Piedmont fact.42 40% (44 of 109) stands at 10th.<br />Granted, I recognize from my own collecting habits that C.B. and Pied.42<br />are definitely in a different class from the rest that I have underscored<br />in terms of scarcity/rarity.<br /><br />Given the Super Set data at this point, I am wondering if we should rethink<br />the relatively high position of Cycle 460. Are the SC's mentioned and the<br />OM black too low in the ordering? Does EPDG need to be moved up? Where does<br />Tolstoi belong?<br /><br />As a personal qualifier, let me say that I recognize that our pool of data<br />is still limited, given some collectors who simply have not chosen to be part<br />of this research, which certainly is their right. Further, it may well be<br />that we ultimately may be talking about the rarity of some cards with particular brands rather than the rarity of whole brands of cards. This has<br />been intimated in other threads.<br /><br />Still, it does seem to me that with so many of our forum contributing their<br />data to this important task with the result being the 'surprises' that I<br />have elucidated, we have the exciting opportunity before us to begin the<br />rethinking of the T206 scarcity list.<br /><br />all the best,<br /><br />Barry<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Doug Allen wrote an article several years ago that included a survey of 437,553 T206s from 45 collections. Here is what he found:<br /><br />Broadleaf 460 - 8 cards (1 in 54,694)<br />Drum 350 - 29 cards (1 in 15,088)<br />Uzit - 63 cards (1 in 6,495) * this was before the REA find.<br />Lenox - 112 cards (1 in 3907)<br />Broadleaf 350 - 160 cards (1 in 2,735)<br />Carolina Brights - 368 (1 in 1189)<br /><br />That is as far as it went in the article. I would love to see all the data, but this much is interesting.<br />JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Lee Behrens</b><p>Barry,<br /><br />I do believe that there needs to be some adjustments but Bill's data does not tell how many of each back have actually been recorded. There is a possiblity that each back did not depict all the cards in each series. That is what makes this set such a mystery.<br /><br />Is there anybody out there (Scot?) that has data such as Jim B has pointed with total cards and % of backs? I know Bill is attempting this but I noticed that even my data is not even close to right since i know that I have more than 460 cardsbut that is the data he has so far from me and I have figured out exactly what I do have and send it too him.<br /><br />Lee<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>RayB</b><p>Allen's card scarcity on a pct of the total sample makes sense. I too would be interested in seeing the data from the balance of the different backs.<br /><br />Does Bill's Superset break down the total number of backs submitted for each so we can get a pct of the total sample submitted per each back?<br />RayB

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>joe brennan</b><p>Does this mean that Broadleaf was the worst tobacco out at the time or the most expensive? Has anyone ever done a price comparision on all the different backs? Just food for thought<br><br>People said it was a million dollar wound. But the government must keep that money, cause I ain't never seen a penny of it.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ed McCollum</b><p>unfortunately, even with only 180+ cards, I've neglected to get back to him with how many of each back I have. But I would guess he has asked that of others.<br /><br />Ed

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mike</b><p>The problem with collecting data in this manner is that people will be hesitant to give data for the rarest backs if they own several of them as this would make them seem "less rare".<br /><br />For example, what incentive does somebody who ONLY collects the super rare backs have for giving this data? It will only make their collection look less rare.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Lee Behrens</b><p>One thing that must be remembered with Bill's data is that he is looking for only one of each back, not the total number of cards and backs. For all we know there could be only one of each back 460 in the 460 (say Sovereign) only series 48 total, or 25 each of 0nly 20 (500) (say AB) of the cards. By using Bill's data collection it looks like the Sov would be the easiest but yet there are plenty more AB's. <br /><br />So using Bill's data does not work the best for this scenario of back rarities. What it may show is that not all cards exist with each possible back.<br /><br />Lee<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brian Weisner</b><p><br /> Lee is right. The superset data will help isolate which cards were "Really" produced with which brands versus the cards that "should have been possible" with each brand or factory. I think we are going to find out what some of us have thought all along, that T206's were not distributed as a set, but by Brand, so many "possible" front/back combinations simply don't exist. Be well Brian<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bill</b><p>Initially I was asking for data to find out which front/back combinations existed. Once a cell on the spreadsheet was filled it didn't matter if 10 other collections had a Bill Graham with a EPDG back. I then expanded my request for each collector to send me all their data for each front/back combination so I could tabulate a total for each front/back combination for all that elected to participate. Unfortunately, only half of the collectors that initially sent me data have responded to my 2nd request. Also, collectors buy and sell cards, so their data changes all the time. The only data that I can be sure to be accurate is mine. I have no problem if collectors want to email every week to change their data. The more data we can gaither, the more we can learn about this great set. Thanks, Bill

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barry arnold</b><p>Very helpful reflections,T206 scholars.<br /><br />With Lee, I do believe that there is a need to make some adjustments to<br />the 206 backs scarcity order. With JimB and others, I would like to see<br />further delineation of Allen's research. This would help tremendously in our<br />endeavors.(Any leads,JimB?) Similarly, we, ourselves, do need to contribute to Bill's data<br />regarding the total # of cards we have for each back and need to provide<br />him with our ONGOING data. Fortunately, Bill is eager to keep tabs on this<br />even on a weekly basis.<br />I do want to underscore other 'tributaries' which have already come to light<br />on this thread which are providing new foci as we do our research. Lee's point that the research is indicating that not all cards exist with each possible back accompanied by Brian's belief that T206's were not distributed<br />as a set, but by brand,such that many 'possible' front/back combinations <br />simply DON'T exist ARE very important early steps in our reenvisioning of the<br />T206 Backs Landscape as a whole. <br />Continuing the super set,checking out Allen's research,and posing these issues/questions in a systematic way via this forum are MUSTS methinks.<br /><br />p.s. also Joe's point re: prices of various brands may prove to be quite<br />illuminative for our purposes.<br /><br />all the best,<br /><br />Barry<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Scot Reader</b><p><br />Barry, Thanks for starting this thread. Some important points have been made by Lee, Brian and others as to the value and limitations of Bill's superset data. I personally think its greatest value will ultimately prove to be isolating hundreds (if not thousands) of theoretically possible front/back combinations that do not exist in fact. This will result in an improved T206 checklist that is less over-inclusive than the current one. Better still, patterns may emerge among the theoretically-but-not-really possible front/back combinations that will enable us to better understand the set. Scot

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barry arnold</b><p>many thanks,Scot.<br />I do believe that the super set along with work done with individual brands<br />such as Trex's present research/survey will help us redo the T206 checklist<br />and add much to our understanding of the set as a whole,as you have suggested. Did you ever think that your T206 tome would lead to so many<br />fascinating unfoldings?!<br /><br />all the best,<br /><br />Barry

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>RayB</b><p>Agreed. It would be interesting in a systematic way to explore this in much greater detail on the Board. <br />Choose a Back variation and run a thread on it to explore card counts, Series nuances and most decidedly, percentage of this card Back as a part of one's collection.<br />Speaking of percentage's, can anyone link me back to the entire thread on EPDG Back's and the findings?<br />RayB

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barry arnold</b><p>thanks, Ray. a great idea.<br />I'm not sure how you link the thread but it began with my name <br />Barry Arnold on<br />June 2,2006 11:31 pm. Ted Zanadakis followed up with a great EPDG summary <br />thread as well. <br />After your read, do let us know what you think some next steps might be in <br />the plan for tackling this new task which you have raised up for our community's <br />reflections.<br /><br />all the best,<br /><br />barry<br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>RayB<br /><br />The two Threads Barry is referring you to are.....EPDG (Barry Arnold) on Page 24 (8/12/06;<br /> 362 posts).<br /><br />and, EPDG Summary & Piedmont Primacy (Ted Zanidakis) on Page 11 (10/14/06 - 88 posts).<br /><br />Both these Threads really get into the "nitty-gritty" of T206 front/back analysis and theory.<br /><br />TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Scott Mosley</b><p>Bill,<br /><br />It has taken a while but I just sent you the data for my collection of T206 cards.<br /><br />You can knock another 20 front/back combinations off of your super set checklist.<br /><br />Can't wait to see the data as (hopefully) more and more collectors from this board participate in your survey.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barry arnold</b><p>Trex,<br /><br />many thanks for the help.<br />you're surely no dinosaur in the computer department.<br />Obviously, I am.<br /><br />we're at the Shakespeare festival but will make sure to check my sovereigns<br />a wee bit more when i return and get back to you!<br /><br />all the best,<br /><br />barry<br />