Charleston v. Clemente

[aljurgela]

Hey guys,

A few years ago, I was doing some analysis and came to the conclusion that most negro league HOF cards were undervalued based on a "market cap" type discussion. I realized that many people did not follow my logic at the time and I just let it go.

Recently, I have been working on a "piece" that focuses on all of the negro league cards (all from Latin America) where I rank the cards, discuss value, pop report and issue idiosyncrasies. I am in revisions on the HOF list (63 total cards) and still working on the 250+ most important negro league non-HOF cards.

While I was writing a bit today, I thought that one of my examples would be an interesting discussion topic. Here is an excerpt from my piece:

As of 1/1/18 there are 27 graded Oscar Charleston cards (BTW I would be shocked if there were more than 50 total when adding the ungraded copies). If on average they are worth $20k (obviously some are more and some are less depending on condition), that would mean that all TPG Oscar Charleston cards from three different exceeding scarce 1920’s Cuban issues (Billiken, Tomas Gutierrez & Aguilitas Segundas) would be “worth” about $540k – sounds like a lot, right?

Let’s compare that to another great player who hails from Latin America – how about Roberto Clemente? For a quick comparison, let’s just focus on the 122 PSA 8 1955 Topps Clemente rookies – we will forget about the 11 PSA 9’s, 1 PSA 10 and the other 3,300 PSA graded Clemente rookies – and all of the SGC ones. I pick the PSA 8's because they are reasonably scarce with "only 122" copies, whereas Oscar Charleston cards are more scarce, but still available from time to time.

Even if we take the lowest Clemente price for PSA 8 in 2017 of roughly $20k (PWCC and HA both had sub $21k sales but there were also a number of $40k+ sales as well in 2017), the aggregate value of Clemente PSA 8 rookies would far exceed the cost of all of Oscar Charleston cards extant, by nearly a factor of five ($2.44 million vs. $540k). In fact, even the 11 PSA 9s would, on there own, far exceed the value of all Charleston cards (roughly $4+ million). When we include all Clemente rookies (remaining 3,300 PSA ones and the 1,100 SGC ones and and all of the other Clemente cards issued (1956 to 1973), this gap widens significantly. Let's just ignore all other Clemente cards for now.

It it hard for me to construct a case whereby the total value of all Charleston cards would exceed the value 5% of all the Clemente rookie cards on the market.

I find this a bit odd and my inner math tells me that I should expect to see the price of the Clemente's drop (indeed the PSA 8's had been selling for $40-50k and now have been in the mid $20k range of late), and the price of the Charleston's rise.

In the end, the market will be the market and the are "n" reasons why Clemente cards are more followed than Charleston cards (collectors today actually saw him, he was a hero to many, idol in Puerto Rico, tragic death, etc.), but I could do this analysis with virtually any post war player and / or T206 Hofers and the results would be quite similar, I imagine.

OK, I just put on my riot gear, so let the games begin!

[packs]

I would think the fact that there are so many more Clemente cards is the reason people are more interested in buying them. Set collectors aren't going to chase the Billiken set unless they have some kind of sin to atone for.

[aljurgela]

Originally Posted by packs

I would think the fact that there are so many more Clemente cards is the reason people are more interested in buying them. Set collectors aren't going to chase the Billiken set unless they have some kind of sin to atone for.

Nice!

I guess I am a bad, bad man then! The Billiken is downright easy when I compare it to the 1910 Punch Cigarros. I am only 70% of the way done with that one and have resigned myself to the fact that it will never be completed!

But back to the topic at hand, do you really think that it is the set collectors? I have always thought that the vast majority of collectors are player collectors, HOF collectors or "star" collectors.

[packs]

I don't think it's only the set collectors but I think that's an audience that Charlston and other players like him who have few cards will not attract. I don't know how many complete sets are registered in the PSA registry, but it's probably more than the known copies of Charlston's card.

[Peter_Spaeth]

For better or worse, other than Paige perhaps, the great Negro League players just aren't known or appreciated or desired by most people who collect, let alone the general public It doesn't surprise me at all, or suggest Clemente is overpriced.

[aljurgela]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

For better or worse, other than Paige perhaps, the great Negro League players just aren't known or appreciated or desired by most people who collect, let alone the general public It doesn't surprise me at all, or suggest Clemente is overpriced.

I just happen to believe that more SHOULD care, but I guess that is a matter of personal opinion and preference...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by aljurgela

I just happen to believe that more SHOULD card, but I guess that is a matter of personal opinion and preference...

no disagreement there

[quinnsryche]

MOST collectors/fans DO know who Clemente is.
MOST collectors/fans DON'T know who Charleston is.
Plain and simple, fame dictates pricing & availability.

[Exhibitman]

I don’t think it is fair to compare anyone with Clemente and Robinson. They aren’t just loved they are revered for reasons that transcend sports.

As for the NL cards, it is part of the obscurity vs rarity debate. It is a spectrum that often frustrates me. Why does a card that is so much rarer sell for less?

[aljurgela]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

no disagreement there

it is what it is though... at least we are on the same page there....

[aljurgela]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I don’t think it is fair to compare anyone with Clemente and Robinson. They aren’t just loved they are revered for reasons that transcend sports.

As for the NL cards, it is part of the obscurity vs rarity debate. It is a spectrum that often frustrates me. Why does a card that is so much rarer sell for less?

Fair point Adam... but if I did the analysis on someone else (let's say Reggie Jackson or Nolan Ryan), I am pretty confident that the results would be the same.... no?

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by packs

I would think the fact that there are so many more Clemente cards is the reason people are more interested in buying them. Set collectors aren't going to chase the Billiken set unless they have some kind of sin to atone for.

The post quoted above alarmed me!

[packs]

Haha I thank you for your sacrifice.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by aljurgela

Fair point Adam... but if I did the analysis on someone else (let's say Reggie Jackson or Nolan Ryan), I am pretty confident that the results would be the same.... no?

All of the points made are very good ones (and great research and debate too.) It really comes down to what has already been mentioned, demand. I have collected a few rare cards but rarity alone just doesn't escalate the value the way demand does.

.

[aljurgela]

Originally Posted by Leon

All of the points made are very good ones (and great research and debate too.) It really comes down to what has already been mentioned, demand. I have collected a few rare cards but rarity alone just doesn't escalate the value the way demand does.

.

absolutely Leon, absolutely...

[Scocs]

I bought a beautiful replica of a 1924 Atlantic City Bacharach Giants jersey from Ebbets Field Flannels recently. When people ask me about it and I tell them it’s a Negro League Jersey, they look at me funny. I might as well say it’s an ancient Sumerian fertility cloak. But that’s where we are in the 21st century.

Almost everyone knows Jackie Robinson’s story, but no one knows what existed before him. I guess that’s where we come in as collectors and historians. We are the ones who have to educate the public. But folks are receptive to it. When I tell people around me that I have written letters directly to the President of the Baseball Hall of Fame to petition for more Negro Leaguers and I finally got a personal response, they think that’s very cool!

[aljurgela]

Originally Posted by Scocs

I bought a beautiful replica of a 1924 Atlantic City Bacharach Giants jersey from Ebbets Field Flannels recently. When people ask me about it and I tell them it’s a Negro League Jersey, they look at me funny. I might as well say it’s an ancient Sumerian fertility cloak. But that’s where we are in the 21st century.

Almost everyone knows Jackie Robinson’s story, but no one knows what existed before him. I guess that’s where we come in as collectors and historians. We are the ones who have to educate the public. But folks are receptive to it. When I tell people around me that I have written letters directly to the President of the Baseball Hall of Fame to petition for more Negro Leaguers and I finally got a personal response, they think that’s very cool!

Wow... and so do I ... that is pretty dang cool!

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

For better or worse, other than Paige perhaps, the great Negro League players just aren't known or appreciated or desired by most people who collect, let alone the general public

I would add Josh Gibson to that list as well.

[darwinbulldog]

This isn't going to advance the discussion probably, but the OP reminded me of this chart I saw a couple of years ago (and which is back in the news this week).

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

I would add Josh Gibson to that list as well.

The general public knows Jackie Robinson. They do not know Satchel Paige. And they definitely do not know Josh Gibson.

Edited to add: I see you meant among people who collect. There I don't know. Could be. Most of them know who Derek Jeter is, probably Paige, maybe Gibson, but I didn't know about Gibson until I was an adult, so if I had to guess I would still say that most collectors don't know of him and, in particular, aren't interested in adding a Gibson card to their collections.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by quinnsryche

MOST collectors/fans DO know who Clemente is.
MOST collectors/fans DON'T know who Charleston is.
Plain and simple, fame dictates pricing & availability.

Clearly that's it. Also add in the fact many many more fans have seen Clemente play. So, while I like the market capitalization theory you posed, you should only compare players from the same era. And if you compare to a Yankee, drop them 30% because they get overhyped

I consider myself an average baseball fan. So, without looking, I tried to name as many players primarily from the Negro Leagues as I could. Josh Gibson, Satchell Paige, Cool Papa Bell, ummmmm that's it. Dang, I must have forgotten some. But Oscar Charleston - never heard of him. Looked him up in Wiki and see that Bill James lists him as 4th best player ever. Really? OK, that may be too high because the reason Wiki mentions that is because it was the highest. But I respect Bill James' work so if not 4th it's likely high nonetheless.

Regarding the sets mentioned like Punch, is there a dedicated thread to those sets on this Board? Like number of known cards in the set, how many known cards exist of each player, any short prints, scans all in one place, etc. I love it when the obscure sets are documented in one thread. Of course the experts may want to hold back on some information as they may still be trying to complete the set.

[darwinbulldog]

I don't think "short print" really has much meaning when you're discussing sets like Punch. http://www.oldcardboard.com/foreign/...cardsetID=1016

[obcbobd]

I don't think this is the main reason(s), which others have outlined in this post, but the 1955 Topps Clemente is a beautiful card, and in a well loved set that many collectors are pursuing. I don't think any of the Charleston cards can aesthetically compare.

Now if he had been in the 33 Goudey set...

[Scocs]

We should keep things in perspective, however. It’s not just Negro League baseball, but all old time baseball.

Sure, everyone has heard of Babe Ruth (cultural icon) and Lou Gehrig (disease). How many people know who Christy Mathewson was? Nap Lajoie? Hell, even Honus Wagner if they’ve never collected baseball cards. The same could be said for the vast majority of baseball players who played prior to 1980. Maybe even prior to 2000.

That’s the truth. But at least as far as reference material goes, there’s no shortage of it — people just have to experience it. Not to sound geocentric, but I wish the Negro League Baseball museum were on the east coast and not in Kansas City because I would absolutely love to visit it in a regular basis, and get all my friends to join me.

[triwak]

These are my cards. Which one do you think, that I value more? (Sorry, just being silly - good discussion, here).

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

I don't think "short print" really has much meaning when you're discussing sets like Punch. http://www.oldcardboard.com/foreign/...cardsetID=1016

Agree and I hesitated when typing that. Just because there are fewer examples of a card doesn't mean it isnt from random distribution and random survival rates. But I wasn't referring to just the Punch set.

[Scocs]

I don’t know, Ken.....that Clemente doesn’t have a worm hole in it!

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

Clearly that's it. Also add in the fact many many more fans have seen Clemente play. So, while I like the market capitalization theory you posed, you should only compare players from the same era. And if you compare to a Yankee, drop them 30% because they get overhyped

I consider myself an average baseball fan. So, without looking, I tried to name as many players primarily from the Negro Leagues as I could. Josh Gibson, Satchell Paige, Cool Papa Bell, ummmmm that's it. Dang, I must have forgotten some. But Oscar Charleston - never heard of him. Looked him up in Wiki and see that Bill James lists him as 4th best player ever. Really? OK, that may be too high because the reason Wiki mentions that is because it was the highest. But I respect Bill James' work so if not 4th it's likely high nonetheless.

Regarding the sets mentioned like Punch, is there a dedicated thread to those sets on this Board? Like number of known cards in the set, how many known cards exist of each player, any short prints, scans all in one place, etc. I love it when the obscure sets are documented in one thread. Of course the experts may want to hold back on some information as they may still be trying to complete the set.

The problem with ranking Charleston that high, to me, is that there is really no evidentiary foundation to justify that ranking, through no fault of the negro league players themselves. The negro league teams included, in their schedules, games against semi-pro teams, as well as against other negro league teams. What we are left with, to the best of my knowledge, is hearsay 10-20X over, myth, and legend. Not a basis for actual ranking of the greatest players of all time (which certainly does not impute any fault to the players themselves, as they would be the very last ones to blame for this deficit). While James disclaims political correctness in his rankings, I believe, respectfully, that inclusion of such players on his list is precisely the result of that factor. I saw Mantle play in his prime in the early '60's, and you simply couldn't convince me that Oscar Charleston was the better player.

Mike Trout comes the closest I've seen to Mantle, yet while very, very fast, isn't quite as fast (Mantle was clocked running from home to first at 3.0 seconds from the left side, and 3.1 from the right); has fine power, but certainly not equivalent to the Mick's (Mantle homered every 12.5 times at bat for ten years, from '55 through '64, when still in his prime; Trout is clouting them once every 17 times at bat while in his prime; and Trout doesn't have the tape-measure power to all fields that Mantle had. Combine Trout with Judge re the latter, make Trout a bit faster, and you'd have Mantle in his prime. Oscar Charleston a better player than that? I truly doubt it.

Just sayin',

Larry

[Exhibitman]

The problem isn't just one thing. In no particular order:

--Rarity vs. obscurity: The Charleston v. Clemente example is extreme but there are plenty of examples among the Clemente cards that are rarer than a 1955 Topps. The early Kahn's cards and the 1962 Pittsburgh Exhibit come right to mind. But those are relatively obscure cards and people don't chase them except as needed for a registry quest. A Topps RC will slaughter them at auction despite the relative rarity. Rare is fun but when it shades into obscurity, you are SOL.

--Set significance: 1955 Topps, one of the Topps Golden Age sets. 52-56 Topps is about as high profile as T206 and 1933 Goudey. These are the classics, the 'Yellow Submarine' of cards. When I saw Ringo and his allstar band some years ago, he prefaced YS with a speech about how everyone knows this song from grandmums to their grandkids. Same idea in card-world.

--Lack of population: call this the collectability factor. People just don't value what they can't hope to own. I've never gotten into NL collecting because I know that I will never own a Cuban Charleston card, a vintage Josh Gibson RPPC, a Punch card, etc., unless one falls into my lap. I have no deep interest in what I cannot ever collect. Casual interest as a curious collector, sure, desire to know what it is in case I stumble across one in a junk shop, absolutely, but not more than that. But a 1955 Clemente, I have one, and I could conceivably find a nicer one in some collection I purchase.

[aljurgela]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

Clearly that's it. Also add in the fact many many more fans have seen Clemente play. So, while I like the market capitalization theory you posed, you should only compare players from the same era. And if you compare to a Yankee, drop them 30% because they get overhyped

I consider myself an average baseball fan. So, without looking, I tried to name as many players primarily from the Negro Leagues as I could. Josh Gibson, Satchell Paige, Cool Papa Bell, ummmmm that's it. Dang, I must have forgotten some. But Oscar Charleston - never heard of him. Looked him up in Wiki and see that Bill James lists him as 4th best player ever. Really? OK, that may be too high because the reason Wiki mentions that is because it was the highest. But I respect Bill James' work so if not 4th it's likely high nonetheless.

Regarding the sets mentioned like Punch, is there a dedicated thread to those sets on this Board? Like number of known cards in the set, how many known cards exist of each player, any short prints, scans all in one place, etc. I love it when the obscure sets are documented in one thread. Of course the experts may want to hold back on some information as they may still be trying to complete the set.

I have a YouTube Video on the Punch cards and there are less than 100 graded, yes so every card is a super short print.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khfYeqNzrAk&t=25s

By the way, I have most of the scans of the Punch cards that I have (roughly 70% of the set) on the SGC registry.

Also, a few other points. Bill James mentions the talent in the Negro League and defers to the experts who pretty uniformly choose Oscar Charleston as the best the league had to offer. Recall that we are talking about a league that, shortly after its demise produced, Aaron, Mays, Jackie Robinson, Ernie Banks, etc.... meaning that certainly all the negro league players at the turn of the century and prior to integration had some amazing talents. Even the Major Leaguers themselves are quoted as saying as much. But in the end few people know about this sub segment of baseball.

Based on some of the other conversation, it may make sense to compare Charleston to another player that a lot of current baseball fans do not know... like Eddie Collins or someone like that to see the results.

Anyway, lots of great conversation and opinions and I thank everyone for sharing.

[aljurgela]

By the way, here are the other two cards of Charleston (the Aguilitas one was already shown)

Pop reports (to the conductibility issue) from both PSA and SGC

Billiken 10
Tomas Gutierrez 7
Aguilitas 10

[Bigdaddy]

I simply boil it down to supply and demand. You cant separate one from the other when talking about prices. Your analysis focused mainly on the supply discrepancies of the two cards, but without demand in the equation, a Piedmont T206 Cobb would be the same price as any other Piedmont T206 card.

And I think we regularly see the demand of a given card is not only based on the players ability, but other (non supply based) factors like the market and era he played in.

So while it's a good, and very interesting analysis, I don't think you can draw any conclusions about cards being over or under valued or whether there is room for price escalation (or deflation) based on those numbers.

So I'll go ahead and make a stab at how we value a card:

CV = f(PG, PF, CN, MK, ER, AV, MF, SP, VA, RC, FF)

where:
CV = value of the card
PG = Player's Greatness - Babe Ruth or Buddy Biancalana?
PF = Player's Following - explains why Roger Maris (non-HOFer) costs more than Early Wynn (HoFer)
CN = Condition of the card - since graded cards have entered the market, this is now an exponential factor (ie high grade cards now demand a higher % premium)
MK = Market the player played in - New York or Milwaukee?
ER = Era that the player played in - how familiar are folks with this player?
MF = Manufacturer of the card - Topps or Hostess or Goudey?
SP = Supply - how many were produced?
VA = Visual Appeal - is the card visually appealing and therefore more collectible?
RC = Rookie Card - does it carry the RC premium?
FF = Fudge Factor - was it a corrected error, printing flaw, an iconic card or some other strange factor?

All of these factors, except Supply, are really related to Demand. Am I missing any major factors here? Anyone care to try to put coefficients to these factors?

[aljurgela]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

I simply boil it down to supply and demand. You cant separate one from the other when talking about prices. Your analysis focused mainly on the supply discrepancies of the two cards, but without demand in the equation, a Piedmont T206 Cobb would be the same price as any other Piedmont T206 card.

And I think we regularly see the demand of a given card is not only based on the players ability, but other (non supply based) factors like the market and era he played in.

So while it's a good, and very interesting analysis, I don't think you can draw any conclusions about cards being over or under valued or whether there is room for price escalation (or deflation) based on those numbers.

So I'll go ahead and make a stab at how we value a card:

CV = f(PG, PF, CN, MK, ER, AV, MF, SP, VA, FF)

where:
CV = value of the card
PG = Player's Greatness - Babe Ruth or Buddy Biancalana?
PF = Player's Following - explains why Roger Maris (non-HOFer) costs more than Early Wynn (HoFer)
CN = Condition of the card - since graded cards have entered the market, this is now an exponential factor (ie high grade cards now demand a higher % premium)
MK = Market the player played in - New York or Milwaukee?
ER = Era that the player played in - how familiar are folks with this player?
MF = Manufacturer of the card - Topps or Hostess or Goudey?
SP = Supply - how many were produced?
VA = Visual Appeal - is the card visually appealing and therefore more collectible?
RC = Rookie Card - does it carry the RC premium?
FF = Fudge Factor - was it a corrected error, printing flaw, an iconic card or some other strange factor?

All of these factors, except Supply, are really related to Demand. Am I missing any major factors here? Anyone care to try to put coefficients to these factors?

Now the difficulty comes in on those coefficients! I guess the Charleston would score low in PF, MK, ER & MF.

I guess my original post was mainly focused on the fact that these cards were focused on PG and SP (which Charleston likely would win).

Very good and thoughtful analysis. Thanks!

[h2oya311]

Very nice equation!! Now you just need to apply it to certain players/cards to get the R-squared and to determine the coefficients! As an fYi, you mentioned RC in your analysis, but it was inadvertently left out of the equation. For me, the RC is a very large factor.

Demand technically just needs to be two guys though for something with a supply of <10. And that demand has to come from folks with relatively deep pockets.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by aljurgela

I have a YouTube Video on the Punch cards and there are less than 100 graded, yes so every card is a super short print.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khfYeqNzrAk&t=25s

By the way, I have most of the scans of the Punch cards that I have (roughly 70% of the set) on the SGC registry.

Also, a few other points. Bill James mentions the talent in the Negro League and defers to the experts who pretty uniformly choose Oscar Charleston as the best the league had to offer. Recall that we are talking about a league that, shortly after its demise produced, Aaron, Mays, Jackie Robinson, Ernie Banks, etc.... meaning that certainly all the negro league players at the turn of the century and prior to integration had some amazing talents. Even the Major Leaguers themselves are quoted as saying as much. But in the end few people know about this sub segment of baseball.

Based on some of the other conversation, it may make sense to compare Charleston to another player that a lot of current baseball fans do not know... like Eddie Collins or someone like that to see the results.

Anyway, lots of great conversation and opinions and I thank everyone for sharing.

What experts are those? It certainly isn't a point that I have ever heard expect from Bill James. Everything that I have heard was that Josh Gibson was the best player and Paige was the best pitcher. They were the 1st two elected to the HoF. Charleston was 7th although he probably should have been elected sooner.

I agree with the point above about relying too much on reputation or opinion. Orlando Cepeda who played with Mays and Aaron, said Clemente was the best player that he ever saw. Mays said that other than himself, Clemente was the best player he had seen. There are others who offer similar praise about Mays, Mantle, Aaron, Clemente, etc. We also hear similar praise for top Negro League players.

The price of Clemente's cards are a product of his greatness on and off the field. Charleston's prices have nothing to do with Clemente or any comparison to him. It is a combination of not having a card in an iconic set, not playing in the majors and a lack of information in general about him or his career.

[ls7plus]

Just a point to add to my earlier post: I'm absolutely sure that Charleston was indeed a great player. But James, who I respect immensely (I have all of his books and have read each of them at least twice!) and believe is the best at sabermetric analysis, has Willie Mays at #3, and Mantle just a bit behind Charleston at #6 (hence the earlier reference to Mantle). Once more, I find it difficult to believe that that is where Oscar would fit in among the greatest of all time. I avidly followed Willie's 1965 season through the Sporting News, box scores and televised games (then limited to an occasional Saturday game of the week or the All-Star game), and he was truly awesome.

I guess I'm from Missouri on that one--you'd have to show me!

Great posts all,

Larry

[triwak]

Originally Posted by Scocs

I don’t know, Ken.....that Clemente doesn’t have a worm hole in it!

True, lol!!!

[esd10]

I really think its a travesty that oscar charleston is not as well known as clemente and that really affect the prices of his cards.

[orly57]

This absolutely IS a supply and demand issue. Guys love t206 and guys love Topps. Guys don't love small, unpolished, black and white cards with Spanish on the back. It's not one of the cards they saw in their Beckett Magazines and coveted when they were 12 years old. (Please note that I personally think these cards are awesome)

This isn't an Oscar Charlseston vs Clemente issue at all. This happens with cards of the same player too. Look at Jeff Lichtmann's collection as an example. Jeff just dropped a ton of money on a Cobb-back with a population over 20. Within Jeff's own Cobb collection are cards that I find far more attractive and cool than the Cobb-back. Cards that have unique images that aren't used in any other set. (Compared to the common red Portrait image on the Cobb-back). Jeff has Postcards which also happen to be FAR more rare and attractive than the Cobb-back. Jeff has a D381 Cobb with coupon that is the only one known. Why aren't these worth more than the Cobb-back? They are more rare, more unique, more attractive, AND THE SAME PLAYER!!! The answer is demand.

[aljurgela]

Originally Posted by orly57

This absolutely IS a supply and demand issue. Guys love t206 and guys love Topps. Guys don't love small, unpolished, black and white cards with Spanish on the back. It's not one of the cards they saw in their Beckett Magazines and coveted when they were 12 years old. (Please note that I personally think these cards are awesome)

This isn't an Oscar Charlseston vs Clemente issue at all. This happens with cards of the same player too. Look at Jeff Lichtmann's collection as an example. Jeff just dropped a ton of money on a Cobb-back with a population over 20. Within Jeff's own Cobb collection are cards that I find far more attractive and cool than the Cobb-back. Cards that have unique images that aren't used in any other set. (Compared to the common red Portrait image on the Cobb-back). Jeff has Postcards which also happen to be FAR more rare and attractive than the Cobb-back. Jeff has a D381 Cobb with coupon that is the only one known. Why aren't these worth more than the Cobb-back? They are more rare, more unique, more attractive, AND THE SAME PLAYER!!! The answer is demand.

Good point on the Cobb's. I happen to find these cards AMAZING (and generally believe that most people who have seen one in person concur). I guess that I am partial to photographs, though, and the fact that he is on the famed 1923-24 Santa Clara team makes me love it even more.

The reality is that most people do not know about him, the Santa Clara team and will never know about them, which leads to the ultimate limited demand.

[aljurgela]

Originally Posted by rats60

What experts are those? It certainly isn't a point that I have ever heard expect from Bill James. Everything that I have heard was that Josh Gibson was the best player and Paige was the best pitcher. They were the 1st two elected to the HoF. Charleston was 7th although he probably should have been elected sooner.

I agree with the point above about relying too much on reputation or opinion. Orlando Cepeda who played with Mays and Aaron, said Clemente was the best player that he ever saw. Mays said that other than himself, Clemente was the best player he had seen. There are others who offer similar praise about Mays, Mantle, Aaron, Clemente, etc. We also hear similar praise for top Negro League players.

The price of Clemente's cards are a product of his greatness on and off the field. Charleston's prices have nothing to do with Clemente or any comparison to him. It is a combination of not having a card in an iconic set, not playing in the majors and a lack of information in general about him or his career.

All fair points... I am not as sophisticated with Mr. James on the stats side of the equation, so I generally will trust his opinion.. but this quote from him gives you some insight:

"It’s not like one person saw Oscar Charleston play and said that he was the greatest player ever. Lots of people said he was the greatest player they ever saw. John McGraw, who knew something about baseball, reportedly said that. . . . His statistical record, such as it is, would not discourage you from believing that this was true. I don’t think I’m a soft touch or easily persuaded; I believe I’m fairly skeptical. I just don’t see any reason not to believe that this man was as good as anybody who ever played the game."

I also tend to be somewhat moved by this opinion:

Bill James, than whom no one has ever more carefully or impartially considered the historical evidence. In his New Bill James Baseball Historical Abstract, James ranks Charleston the fourth-greatest baseball player of all time.
Only Ruth, Wagner, and Mays were greater. Cobb, Mantle, Musial, Aaron, Williams, and other elite members of the tiny, last-names-only club don’t quite measure up.

Think about it. Bill James said that. Not a random fan or family member. Not a sportswriter ginning up a story. Not a basement-dweller blogger at Bleacher Report. Not an attention-seeking talking head. Not a revisionist historian with a social or political agenda. Bill James. The father of sabermetrics. The man who brought a new level of rigor in our thinking about baseball—indeed, about sports generally. The man who launched the analytics revolution. A walking baseball encyclopedia. A man who prides himself on not giving a damn what other people think.

He is the one who said that Oscar Charleston was the fourth-greatest player of all time, which of course makes Charleston one of the greatest athletes in American history.

Anyone who is interested in this may find this page (and the ones generally about him) helpful.

https://oscarcharleston.com/tag/bill-james/

[packs]

The problem is Bill James is as random a person to a lot of people as Oscar Charleston is.

[aljurgela]

Originally Posted by packs

The problem is Bill James is as random a person to a lot of people as Oscar Charleston is.

Great point. Sometimes we get wrapped up in our own view of the world. Fair enough.

[packs]

I really do hope that one day players like Charleston get their due because it's undoubtedly deserved. But I think in order for that to happen Major League Baseball would have to play a large role in raising awareness. There are turn back the clock nights where teams will wear Negro League uniforms, but there isn't really an effort made to educate the public about anything related tot he Negro Leagues or its players. Even the HOF only votes sporadically for Negro League players, which to me marginalizes them further.

[aljurgela]

Originally Posted by packs

I really do hope that one day players like Charleston get their due because it's undoubtedly deserved. But I think in order for that to happen Major League Baseball would have to play a large role in raising awareness. There are turn back the clock nights where teams will wear Negro League uniforms, but there isn't really an effort made to educate the public about anything related tot he Negro Leagues or its players. Even the HOF only votes sporadically for Negro League players, which to me marginalizes them further.

+1

[rats60]

Originally Posted by aljurgela

All fair points... I am not as sophisticated with Mr. James on the stats side of the equation, so I generally will trust his opinion.. but this quote from him gives you some insight:

"It’s not like one person saw Oscar Charleston play and said that he was the greatest player ever. Lots of people said he was the greatest player they ever saw. John McGraw, who knew something about baseball, reportedly said that. . . . His statistical record, such as it is, would not discourage you from believing that this was true. I don’t think I’m a soft touch or easily persuaded; I believe I’m fairly skeptical. I just don’t see any reason not to believe that this man was as good as anybody who ever played the game."

I also tend to be somewhat moved by this opinion:

Bill James, than whom no one has ever more carefully or impartially considered the historical evidence. In his New Bill James Baseball Historical Abstract, James ranks Charleston the fourth-greatest baseball player of all time.
Only Ruth, Wagner, and Mays were greater. Cobb, Mantle, Musial, Aaron, Williams, and other elite members of the tiny, last-names-only club don’t quite measure up.

Think about it. Bill James said that. Not a random fan or family member. Not a sportswriter ginning up a story. Not a basement-dweller blogger at Bleacher Report. Not an attention-seeking talking head. Not a revisionist historian with a social or political agenda. Bill James. The father of sabermetrics. The man who brought a new level of rigor in our thinking about baseball—indeed, about sports generally. The man who launched the analytics revolution. A walking baseball encyclopedia. A man who prides himself on not giving a damn what other people think.

He is the one who said that Oscar Charleston was the fourth-greatest player of all time, which of course makes Charleston one of the greatest athletes in American history.

Anyone who is interested in this may find this page (and the ones generally about him) helpful.

https://oscarcharleston.com/tag/bill-james/

I don't doubt that Charleston was a great player, at worst top 5 Negro League player. However, I have a problem with rating any Negro League player that high for the fact that they never played in the Majors, to no fault of their own. Ty Cobb hit .367 with 4191 hits, 892 stolen bases and won 12 batting titles. Could Charleston have done that? We will never know, but Cobb did. Ted Williams hit .344 with 521 HRs, despite missing 5 season to military service, with an OPS+ of 190. Could Charleston have done that? I don't think there is enough data to say that Oscar was better than all time greats like Cobb and Williams.

Babe Ruth said Pop Lloyd was the best Negro League player. Monte Irvin said Josh Gibson was the best. So who is right? McGraw? Ruth? Irvin? All see are are conflicting opinions. Also, some stories are exagurated like the one that Oscar would have made "the catch" in the 1954 World Series, but would have been waiting for the ball to arrive instead of making the catch on the dead run like Mays.

[Scocs]

Cobb and Williams never faced black players....is Cobb still hitting .366 lifetime? You see the flawed argument on both sides...

[orly57]

Originally Posted by Scocs

Cobb and Williams never faced black players....is Cobb still hitting .366 lifetime? You see the flawed argument on both sides...

Ted Williams actually faced Satchel Paige. He went 1-6. It was, of course, very late in their careers, but your point is well taken.

[aljurgela]

Originally Posted by Scocs

Cobb and Williams never faced black players....is Cobb still hitting .366 lifetime? You see the flawed argument on both sides...

And when they did play (like Cuba in 1909 and 1910), the black players did very well against the MLB teams. There has been a story about Bruce Petway throwing out Cobb three times while trying to steal, but I think that it has been refuted. Regardless they were good... Pop Lloyd hit .313 against MLB pitching albeit a small sample size and that is pretty consistent with the .318 that he had in the Cuban League.

http://www.seamheads.com/NegroLgs/pl...rID=lloyd01joh

In the few games that Charleston played against MLB players he raked with an .347 average and OPS of 1.224.

http://www.seamheads.com/NegroLgs/pl...rID=charl01osc

Could he have kept it up? Who knows, but intuition tells me that it is highly likely that he would have been elite if ever given the chance to shine. Why? Because he shined anyway! He basically had the same number (but a lower slugging percentage) when he played against the negro league players on a more consistent basis.

I tend to believe that the negro leagues and the MLB leagues are closer in talent and depth than most people do. Think about it.... this was basically the only professional sport than African Americans athletes played. There was no football and basketball to siphon the talent pool. Anyway, just my 2 cents.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Scocs

Cobb and Williams never faced black players....is Cobb still hitting .366 lifetime? You see the flawed argument on both sides...

Ted Williams hit .388 in 1957 when blacks could pitch in the majors. Besides Bob Gibson, what great black pitcher has their been since 1947? How many pitchers post intregation were as good as Walter Johnson or Cy Young? My opinion is yes he still would have hit .366 if mlb was integrated.