R305 Tattoo Orbit and a population meditation

[timn1]

I've always found this set intriguing and started it in earnest last summer.

One thing I find puzzling is this comment from the SCD big book:

"Cards of Bump Hadley and George Blaeholder are the most elusive, followed by those of Ivy Andrews and Rogers Hornsby."

However, I have found Andrews cards to be extremely plentiful, and the other three named here also easy to find.

It only takes a glance at the PSA/SGC pop reports to verify this impression.
Here are the MOST frequently slabbed cards in the set as of today's Pop Reps:

NAME/PSA/SGC/TOTAL
Hadley 33 23 56
Tinning 30 26 56
Seeds 36 21 57
Jurges 40 18 58
Mack 33 26 59
Blaeholder 39 21 60
Hafey 35 28 63
Lyons 36 28 64
Simmons 36 28 64
Hartnett 39 27 66
Hornsby 38 29 67
Dean 46 25 71
Andrews 45 30 75
Foxx 51 28 79
Grove 48 35 83

I've been playing around a lot with Pop Reports lately and the distribution of HOFers at the plentiful end of the list is totally typical of most sets, since collectors and sellers are much more likely to have HOFers graded.

But if you remove the HOFers, Blaeholder and Andrews are the MOST frequently graded commons in the whole set, with Hadley just behind, and that's a little weird.

Even if you grant that because those three have the rep of scarcity, people may have tended to grade them somewhat more often, I think it's obvious that they are not at all scarce - at most quite common, at least average.

More broadly I don't see any significant rarities in the set. Obviously there are commons that are graded less often (the lowest are Levey 35, Collins 39, English and Porter 40), but those numbers don't seem low enough to be beyond the realm of chance.

Makes you think that in certain sets some of the presumed rarities must be akin to urban legends. I imagine they got started a long time when Burdick or Barker or one of the other pioneers had random difficulty finding a certain card, and concluded that that card was a scarcity, when it's clear with a larger sample that the reverse is true.

Thoughts? Other instances of these "false rarities"? I would welcome actual discussion of cards

[felada]

I believe the characterization of those cards as scarce is the result of a find in which those cards were found with less frequency than the others.

[Stonepony]

I collect R305s and love them. An underrated set IMO with a unique style,pics and coloring. It boast some nice HOFs as well. I'm not sure i can attest to any particular players as being scarcer than others but I find Hadley, Hartlett and Earnshaw a little more elusive in higher grades. I have a registry set and try to upgrade as I can afford. The key to this set however is condition. Those bright white borders and backs are easily smudged and the stock makes the corners susceptible to wear. High grades come at a significant premium and often the asking prices on Ebay are quite inflated in relation to demand ( which is lower than where it deserves). Good luck with the set!

[Orioles1954]

I've done the Tattoo Orbit set twice and was interviewed for an article regarding the issue. The idea that Andrews, Blaeholder & Hadley are supposedly tougher than others in the set is one of those 1970s era hobby myths that should be shelved forever. It originated from ONE old find where those three players were found in somewhat lesser quantities than other players. We have further knowledge now in the decades since which confirms that assumption is simply not true. However, I found the following cards to be the most challenging in completing my sets: Alexander, Bartell, Cochrane, Levey (Jewish player premium), Lombardi and Whitney.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by timn1

Makes you think that in certain sets some of the presumed rarities must be akin to urban legends. I imagine they got started a long time when Burdick or Barker or one of the other pioneers had random difficulty finding a certain card, and concluded that that card was a scarcity, when it's clear with a larger sample that the reverse is true.

Thoughts? Other instances of these "false rarities"? I would welcome actual discussion of cards

I believe Tim is correct in this statement, and the other members pointing out the possible source of this scarcity legend. I believe that folks have graded more of these 'believed to be' rarities just because they have been identified as such. My guess is that if these cards had not been identified as scarce, their grading numbers would fall more in line with the rest of the set.
I found the Levey and Bartell cards to be somewhat more difficult to locate, but as they say, nothing to write home about.

The E90-1 set with its various levels of scarcity and long standing ideas on which cards are tough would be another example, as can be seen on the Kraken thread and other threads that have been posted here about the set.

Brian