Sorry if I offended; I wasn't getting any comments, so I figured there was no interest and I would just answer the one who showed interest. No hidden message.
If my data are representative (a legitimate IF), then conventional wisdom about the print run could be in error. There are two premises in the current model Patrick suggested 18 months ago: 1) the cards are generally in numerical order and not randomly placed on the sheet, and 2) Two 100-card sheets constitute a full cycle, which is then repeated. Over enough data, this should lead to a 2:1 ratio and not the ~1.2 that the data show.
Seems to me premise 1) is probably correct. Looks like the way Topps did it over several years and it makes sense. That leaves premise 2). Perhaps there is a third 100-card sheet as part of one printing unit. This third sheet could over-represent the last 20 cards and adjust the ratio downward from 2:1. Indeed three sheets could have 5 of each number. Since the data do show that there is a fall-off in population for 171-190, something else might be going on.
Also, it is interesting to remember that the 20 lowest pop cards are NOT just the last 20, but also some numbers from the first 40, e.g. #161 Rogovin.
All-in-all, I really don't know the answer, Zach. Maybe the cards are randomly placed on an unknown number of sheets, then repeated.
And feel free to entertain yourselves--might be more productive.
|