|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Monster Number, and intriguing idea. Thanks for posting it.
1000 is a intrinsically pleasing maximum number; it's like batting a thousand. I agree with that back there about not counting zero, 1 to 1000 is 1000 possibilities, 0 to 1000 is 1001 possibilities. If zero were to count, then everyone on the planet would have a set, most of them zero sets... Methinks we begin the count at one, like Brother Maynard read from The Book of Armaments, Chapter 2... Would a fellow with 80 common cards swap them for a Plank? Yes. Then the Plank should count more than 80, the commons less than 1, or both. Similarly, would someone swap 240 commons far a Wagner? Oh, Yes. Then that should be adjusted, too. And aside from dollar value, the Demmitt and O'Hara cards would limit the number of 1000 sets, they should have a bit of weight, too. I figure this process is way too far along for folks to readily accept a recalibration of the process. But it is justified, don't you think? |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Monster? Really? | DanP | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 27 | 07-05-2011 07:20 PM |
Most home runs by number | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 13 | 09-14-2008 07:12 PM |
Irrational Exuberance Low Number High Grade 1933 Goudeys | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 241 | 09-23-2007 09:19 AM |
Using a PSA number to find out about a card | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 1 | 08-10-2007 09:21 AM |
PSA Certification Number Question | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 3 | 09-04-2006 04:38 AM |