1914 CJ question

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rob</b><p>some backs have the number "10,000,000" on the back, and others have "15,000,000" on the back (i think those are the numbers). why the difference?<br /><br />Sorry if this question has already been asked/answered.<br /><br />thanks,<br />Rob<br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dave S</b><p>Hey Rob..the low-numbered cards show 10 mill, the high numbers show 15 mill. Not exactly sure without checking just where/who the "cutoff" number was (of the 144)

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rob</b><p>thanks Dave. so does that mean there were 10M of the "low" series created, and 15M of the "high" series created, making the lower numbers harder to find?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mike</b><p>Actually, the hardest ones to find are in the 80's and 90's. Most of the lower numbered cards are easier to find then high numbers, but the 80's and 90's seem to be especially tough.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dave S</b><p>Rob: theoretically 10 and 15 million respectively "were printed"....realistically, don't think it can be verified and don't think population reports show that much of a significant difference..<br /><br />Mike, no doubt that #88 Matty is the toughest and #99 Chance semi-tough, but other than those two and possibly Pratt, personally don't think the 80s-90s are nearly as tough as the #30's and #60'...IMO

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anthony</b><p>Mike- do you think the cards numbered from 80 thru 99 are tough just in '14, or '15 as well? I didn't have a tough time with those numbers in '15, but the ones from about 110 to 130 were a lot tougher (in '15) than any others, including all the high numbers. In fact I think the scarcity of the high numbers in '15 is overstated- they were easier than the rest of the set.<br /><br />edited to clarify and add my name.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dave S</b><p>E145-2's are a different ball of wax, don't really think there are any overly tough ones, none I'd consider scarce. You might have to dig deep in the bankroll to get a few, but they're out there. Some of the commons actually tougher to find than the big money, big name cards. Think if you look at pop. reports you'll find some crazy numbers, possibly because the average guy may not want to slab a common as often as a HOF'er. I've found these 4 commons to be tougher availability-wise than most of the big guys of the set: Fisher (102), Lavender (105), Suggs (113), and Barger(141). Suggs and Barger in particular REALLY tough in decent shape. Maybe most kids threw the commons in the trash?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mike</b><p>Dave, for me the #'s 30's and 60's weren't that tough at all. Now, none of my results are very scientific but I concentrated solely on this set for 6 years. I would buy just about anything in my affordable range when they became available(vg). After 5 years and needing my last twenty cards, I needed one #30(Hooper) and one #60(Wagner). However, I needed three #80's and three #90's. Ironically enough, the HOFers seem to be easier to find than some commons. But, with no doubt in my mind, the portrait shots in the first twenty cards are the EASIEST to find. Just my findings.