1952 Topps Baseball - Perspectives

[Avardan]

Hi everyone! First post here on the forums, so please go easy on me. Over the past few months I've done a lot of research on the 1952 Topps baseball card set with the intent to provide something new, perhaps unexplored.

I would attach a pdf, but it's 100x the file size limit. Instead, there is a link to my free Substack for both parts. (This is not an advertisement for my Substack... it's free!) Please comment with insights and discussion. If I made any errors in my analysis, I'd like to know that as well, but not with flaming troll comments... those are so hurtful (LMAO).

Enjoy the read!

1952 Topps Baseball Cards - Perspectives (part 1) (part 2)

[swarmee]

Saw it posted over on CU/PSA boards, figured you might end up here.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Avardan

If I made any errors in my analysis, I'd like to know that as well, but not with flaming troll comments... those are so hurtful (LMAO).

Since you asked, I think the big problem here is the repeated assumption that all cards are likely to be graded the same, which the entire rest is based on before you get to the uncut panels, leading to false conclusions.

Series 1 is heavily graded because it is littered with superstars. If one goes over the checklist for series 2 and series 3, there are a couple big name but mostly a dearth of anything but commons. Series 1 is stuffed with superstars and many of the other subjects are not commons, cards that are more popular for being minor stars or carrying a value more related to sequencing or picture (like Pafko and Zernial). It costs money to grade; the entire point of grading is to make money off the end result. The incentive to grade commons is much, much lower.

This is the same reason that series 6 doesn't look that rare in the grading analysis - high numbers are valuable cards, fairly expensive even in low grade and thus worth grading whereas they are not in previous series. The conclusion that "that there is no real scarcity that warrants their current market value" is not true. They exist in far lower quantity as anyone who has handled tons of these cards knows; but they are graded much more often precisely because they are tougher. You can see this in every set; look at the PSA population for Demmitt NY vs. Demitt St. Louis and you won't think Demmitt is all that tough. Is the easier card only twice as common? Not, not even remotely close. It's just expensive and thus worth grading more. The population of graded cards is an inherently biased sample towards $$$, not an unbiased count as you treat it.

"I don't believe there is a a significantly sized raw card pool to move the market, let alone affect the overall proportions of the graded population" is not true, for the same reasons. The comparison between Mantle and Mays to show that the highs are not really any tougher is heavily misleading - Mantle is a DP with 2x the quantity printed of all but 2 other of the highs and, again, while Mays is likely to be graded Mantle is even more likely to be graded as the biggest card in the post-war hobby and the most famous cash in.

"Total: 6220 raw cards readily available on the open market... maybe add 1000 from eBay and you can see there aren't very many remaining, let alone pristine examples that still need to be graded". I'm sorry, but there are a ton of ungraded 1952 Topps. The majority of 1952 Topps cards are not graded. The majority of pristine cards are graded, because that's where the cash is at, but you have gone far beyond the evidence to assert that the graded population is close enough to complete for all of the cards to use it as you have used it.

[swarmee]

In terms of analysis, there are a lot of untrue assumptions, I agree. Same type of thing for the 131-190 gray backs. Much higher percentage of those are graded for the same reasons. Each one is worth about 40x the value of the white backs. Graded commons in mid-grade sell for $500. So there is more incentive to grade them and verify that they are gray backs (because sometimes it's not so easy to determine on the internet based on a scan/photo).

[Gorditadogg]

Are you really a data analyst? We should find something to collaborate on. I am a professional photographer.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[Republicaninmass]

I'd agree with Greg's sentiment regarding the grading of low grade gray backs and high series. You'd have to have you head examined if you don't belive high series are available in the same quantities. If you prerouse a local you are likely to find none, at the national you are likely to find 3 or 4 dealers with them one being 707 sportscard museum.

As far as the gray backs, yes they were printed first, but I'm not sold on the leftover stock idea. They key to grays being printed first is the Frank House yellow tiger variation and error. However they sometimes have a muddled or grayish front which previous series did not have.

[Avardan]

Awesome responses folks! I expected to arouse some very strong comments and I was not disappointed!

So, here's my take. We have in this particular Topps distribution a lot of assumption and predisposition to observations that were made long ago (most specifically The Find by Al Rosen). When he tallied up the contents of the case, the COUNT(1) of distribution was interesting...some had double the numbers!

But my friends, ONLY one case? And we base the entire "rarity" on this! I submit that PSA/SGC numbers are more representative and concrete.

Here's a question: what if the case contents varied by region? Perhaps Mr. Rosen was only looking at part of the puzzle. As good analysts, we should strive to eliminate region as an independent variable.

Another Q: If the first three series 6 cards were "double printed", wouldn't it be fair to accept that besides 311, 312, 313, there might have been others? Say 314, 315 that would complete the "double printed" row, just like in Series 1? I daresay that the printing sheets are detrimental to this analysis.

But alas, I was only able to find two examples for Series 6 online. Perhaps if someone in this community had additional - I postulate there were 8 different sheets for Series 6. Also, if you have pictures of any Series 3 and 4 better analyses could be conducted.

I completely agree with sentiment though, finding Series 6 cards is difficult. Same with Series 5 - in my collection (sample size one lol) I have 25 Series 5 and ... 26 Series 6.

So, with theories that have persisted for so long, I expect that there will be mass resistance to any other theory (even if backed by data) that calls them into question, and perhaps worthy of a re-look.

And to my fellow collector who doubts my data analysis skills/experience, I doubt them as well. I've been in the business several years in determining ROI for online marketing and have lots to learn still, but this is (honestly) a very simple distribution analysis and I didn't get into crazy detail.

The bottom line is this: Is our long-held theory backed by actual numbers like my discussion? An honest answer may be difficult...

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Avardan

Awesome responses folks! I expected to arouse some very strong comments and I was not disappointed!

So, here's my take. We have in this particular Topps distribution a lot of assumption and predisposition to observations that were made long ago (most specifically The Find by Al Rosen). When he tallied up the contents of the case, the COUNT(1) of distribution was interesting...some had double the numbers!

But my friends, ONLY one case? And we base the entire "rarity" on this! I submit that PSA/SGC numbers are more representative and concrete.

Here's a question: what if the case contents varied by region? Perhaps Mr. Rosen was only looking at part of the puzzle. As good analysts, we should strive to eliminate region as an independent variable.

Another Q: If the first three series 6 cards were "double printed", wouldn't it be fair to accept that besides 311, 312, 313, there might have been others? Say 314, 315 that would complete the "double printed" row, just like in Series 1? I daresay that the printing sheets are detrimental to this analysis.

But alas, I was only able to find two examples for Series 6 online. Perhaps if someone in this community had additional - I postulate there were 8 different sheets for Series 6. Also, if you have pictures of any Series 3 and 4 better analyses could be conducted.

I completely agree with sentiment though, finding Series 6 cards is difficult. Same with Series 5 - in my collection (sample size one lol) I have 25 Series 5 and ... 26 Series 6.

So, with theories that have persisted for so long, I expect that there will be mass resistance to any other theory (even if backed by data) that calls them into question, and perhaps worthy of a re-look.

And to my fellow collector who doubts my data analysis skills/experience, I doubt them as well. I've been in the business several years in determining ROI for online marketing and have lots to learn still, but this is (honestly) a very simple distribution analysis and I didn't get into crazy detail.

The bottom line is this: Is our long-held theory backed by actual numbers like my discussion? An honest answer may be difficult...

You leave completely unaddressed the actual issue raised - your obviously false assumption that the PSA pop report is an unbiased and nearly complete sample. Instead you choose to argue people won’t listen to a new theory, presumably because that’s a lot easier than dealing with the actual glaring logic problem. I have debunked hobby lore numerous times, what the hobby says is often wrong. You prove this via actual research however, not pretending all cards are graded equally. Data analysis that ignores the ignores the nature of the dataset is not useful data analysis, it’s fiction. The issue isn’t ‘mass resistance’ to your genius groundbreaking work, it’s that it’s built on a series of blatantly obvious false assumptions.

There were 8 different sheet layouts for series 6? Based on what? It would be a lot of extra work to accomplish absolutely nothing. It does not make sense that 314-315 are DP’d like 311-313, how are you going to fit 102 cards on a Topps sheet? This is ridiculous and groundless, to put it lightly. You can believe whatever you want, but nobody else is going to buy into this fantasy when you’ve just completely made it up.

[ALR-bishop]

Remember the instruction in post 1, Greg....go easy

[G1911]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Remember the instruction in post 1, Greg....go easy

That was easy

[swarmee]

One of the other reasons we know what the double prints are is due to minor discrepancies in the image/printing plate from the first card on a sheet to the second. With how studied the 1952 set has been, we would know of many more copies with laces going different directions, missing pixels, etc if there were more.

Data analysis in a vacuum will not be accepted unless it is backed up with primary and secondary sources.