1952 pafko question

[baez578]

Can someone explain to me why the Andy pafko card is so expensive compared to other 1952 cards? Not familiar with the set but I'm curious.

Thanks

[brookdodger55]

The main reason is that the card is #1 in the set and not many in high grade. Check PSA and SGC
population #'s. Also take into account the # of high grades that are raw in private collections.
Also cards put in # order first card and last card were always jammed into box causing
damage/ condition sensitive.
Mike

[39special]

Back then kids would put rubber bands around the stacks of cards they had and the first card would always have the damage from the rubber band.Pafko being #1 card.they are hard to find in good shape.

[baez578]

Makes perfect sense. Thanks for the explanation

[KCRfan1]

'52 Topps is an iconic set, and as mentioned before, nice cards are hard to come by. The '52 set is Topps first jump in the card business ( there are also '51 Topps red and Blue backs ). Nobody knew if the set would be popular, or flame out. The Black Back is likely more difficult to come by and more expensive. The Black Back was the very first print run, and contained cards 1-80. The second print run, and subsequent series, are Red Back. Add this in with the previous comments, and you arrive at some fairly expensive prices for the card.

[SMPEP]

It's also an undisclosed short print.

It was printed half as many times on the sheet as say a Jim Russell card.

Cheers,
Patrick

[darkhorse9]

I've always thought the "first/last card got more damage" theory to be more conjecture than fact. If that was the case and most sets had high number series that went uncollected, then the last card in the preceding series should get the same considerations.

That's not the case in sets like 1961 (#522 Dick Ferrell) or 1966 (#522 Phil Linz) or 1967 (#533 Jack Fisher). None of those cards see a value increase for high condition over any other cards from that series.

The 1952 set does get that consideration for #310 George Metkovich, but mostly because the legend of the "last card" theory shows up there.

[baez578]

Speaking of black back, I noticed someone on ebay trying to sell a Pafko black back for $97000!!!

Seems crazy. I'd rather spend that on a ruth goudey, mantle, or a couple of clemente rc's

[JollyElm]

I always hated the 'number 1 card accrues more damage' theory. Growing up in New York, there was not a single kid I ever knew who put the cards in number order. They were always sorted by team and then what we used to call 'junk' - league leader cards, checklists and other stuff that couldn't be classified by team - was put together in the back of the stack. Checklists were plentiful and everyone hated getting them, so we'd actively check them off. That's how we'd know when we finally had a full set.

[Volod]

You may have a point there with the "last card" not getting as much damage as commonly supposed. However, the first card in early '50's sets definitely did get rubber-banded. There was no other way for kids to carry their collections around at that time, without fear of losing them. A friend of mine tried to beat the problem by hauling his stacks of '52 Bowman cards in his lunchbox. Then, opened it one day at noon to find jelly leaking from a sandwich onto the cards...not good. I guess you could have carried separate bags or boxes to the schoolyard, but 8-10-year-olds can only haul so much baggage around.

[tedzan]

There were many ways kids collected and stacked 1952 TOPPS back then. For example, if you were a Dodger fan, you most likely did not have rubber band indentations
on your Pafko card. In 1952, I grew up in Hillside, NJ just two blocks away from the "Scooter" Rizzuto. So, I was a Yankees fan; and, I treated my 1952 TOPPS cards of
Yankees player better than the other cards in my collection. So, my Pafko did have rubber band indents.
Those who were unlucky to live in areas where Hi #s were not distributed, then card #310 (George Metkovich) probably was at the bottom of their rubber-banded stack.

If you did get Hi #s, then the Eddie Mathews (#407) card was at the bottom of the stack. However, its been my experience over the years and having a few Mathews's
cards that rubber band indents are not that plentiful on this last card in the set. However, I've seen pin-holes, tape, etc. damage to this card.

In any event, my point here is that rubber-band effects could be found on any of the 1952 TOPPS cards. And, especially the 1st and last cards of the various series......

1st series (#1 - #80)
Andy Pafko & Herman Wehmeier

2nd series (#81 - #130)
Vernon Law & Sheldon Jones

3rd series (#131 - #190)
Morrie Martin & Don Johnson

4th series (#191 - #250)
Yogi Berra & Carl Erskine

5th series (#251 - #310)
Chico Carrasquel & George Metkovich

6th seies (#311 - #407)
Mickey Mantle & Eddie Mathews

NOTE......I have never seen a Mickey Mantle card with rubber band damage.


TED Z

[steve B]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

I always hated the 'number 1 card accrues more damage' theory. Growing up in New York, there was not a single kid I ever knew who put the cards in number order. They were always sorted by team and then what we used to call 'junk' - league leader cards, checklists and other stuff that couldn't be classified by team - was put together in the back of the stack. Checklists were plentiful and everyone hated getting them, so we'd actively check them off. That's how we'd know when we finally had a full set.

Not 50's, but early 70's when I started collecting (At least started buying more than one pack a year) I started putting them in order by teams. Having the 74 team checklists helped. But I didn't have all of them, and even tually gave up and started putting them in number order, with a few I thought were special going in pages and a binder that one of the stores carried.

What a project that first sorting was! I laid out all my 74s in one several lines across the floor of my room, leaving room for each number. it mostly covered the floor and took a long time.

The kids I knew sorted them a bunch of different ways. probably about half did it by number, the rest by team, except a couple kids who had "different " systems. One seemed to just keep them all disorganized in a shoebox. The other had some sort of system I think based on how much he liked the player. Oddly neither had much trouble finding a particular card for a trade.
We didn't usually bring a whole bunch of cards to school. Maybe 50 or so for flipping or trading.

The kids that did things by number did wreck a lot of first and last cards with rubber bands.

The other thing about number order is wether you stack with the #1 card face up or face down. I never noticed until I started buying sets that many people do it what's to me backwards. When I box them, #1 is in front facing front, and whatever is last is at the back. But most of the sets I've bought have #1 in the back facing forward and the last card in front. It takes a while for me to reverse them to my way of stacking.

So stacked like that, the #1 card is the bottom card and will also get exposed to spills and stuff like that a bit more often. (I lost a few last cards from that when I was a kid, a 75 Aaron being the worst loss. )

Steve B

[Cardboard Junkie]

It Detroit, we were unconcerned with condition. Rubberbands, yep, we used em. And Tigers (our favorites) were truly abused. We liked to carry the tigers with us all day. So after strapping them with rubber bands we would sit on the sidewalk and grind down those horrible sharp corners so they were soft and round...then they would slide easier into our back pockets. Dave.

[sago]

How many 52 Pafko's, or any other cars for that matter, have been listed with a "rubberband" mark designation? How many cards have telltale dents in the center of the borders? An urban myth for sure. I don't doubt the relative scarcity; just the reason for it.

[Brianruns10]

Okay so here are my two or three cents on the Pafko question. I'm a historical researcher and filmmaker by trade, and I've often had to investigate issues of popular lore. And what I've often discovered is that there is a grain of truth usually present. So while I think the rubber band theory has currency not to be discounted, it is a contributing factor, one of several. Here are my thoughts

1) Pafko is part of the first series of the first major Topps release. Since they were embarking into new territory for them, and for the first time going into direct competition with Bowman (who had previously sued Leaf out of existence for supposed infringement), I think it makes perfect sense that the print run of the first series, cards 1-80, were limited compared to the print runs of subsequent series of cards. The first series was a test, and when they sold well, they printed more of the later series. PSA 6 commons of Series one are valued by PSA at twice that of a common card of series 2 (80 versus 40 on average), and the population reports on average suggest twice as many cards graded of the second series as the first. Therefore, I think it would be reasonable to deduce that the print run of series 1 was roughly half that of series 2, and this would include the Pafko.

2) Pafko was apparently a single print card, and therefore even less well represented in Series 1 than cards that were printed twice, like the Glaviano or the Zarilla. So he therefore constitutes an even more limited percentage of the whole of the print output of Series 1.

3) Pafko is the number 1 card and subject to condition issues. I don't think this can be discounted. From the anecdotes given, it seems that while some kids grouped cards by team, others DID group in numerical order, while a minority didn't organize them at all. Even if only a third of the kids who collected these cards organized them numerically, that would mean 1/3 of the Pafkos in circulation would be subject to the first card syndrome...rubber-bands, strings, being banged up in boxes...etc. The fact that #2 Runnels also has condition issues and scarcity in higher grades bears this out, given that if a kid never found a Pafko, then the Runnels would be next in line. The population reports also bear this out...there are nearly identical numbers of survivors of Red Backs across grades of PSA 3-PSA 5: 140 to 150 examples in each grade. But PSA six drops by more than half, to just 60...and then half again to just 31 examples in 7...and then plummeting to a mere 4 examples in PSA 8, with none in 9, and a lone example in 10, which survived under highly unusual circumstances...being pulled from an unopened pack, AND being sandwiched in the middle of the stack, protected from gum stains and corner dings. This incredible drop in population according to grade is without equal in the 52 Topps series, and I think the primary, reasonable conclusion is that this relates to its position as the first card in the set, albeit with mitigating factors:

4) Pafko is not a Star Card. As has been noted by others in this thread, Star Cards were given special treatment. Kids valued these cards for obvious reason, and they tend to fare better condition wise...whether because kids kept them in the middle of the stack where they'd be safe, or kept them separate entirely. To give a personal anecdote, I've viewed two large collections of cards held by their original owners...one is my Dad's collection, spanning '57 to 63, and another was a family friend, whose collection spanned 53-56. And in BOTH cases, they had their "traders" kept separately. So I think that Pafko, being an unremarkable player and a "common" wouldn't have received special treatment or consideration. He would've likely been used to protect the star cards, or would've more often been carried in stacks of "traders," and subject to more handling than a star card, which would've been kept close to a kid's vest, or at home in a drawer or box under the bed. Pafko is a neglected card in this regard.

5) The Aura. Pafko has benefited from the Aura of the 52 set. This is a LEGENDARY set, which established the modern baseball card, and really is what launches baseball cards in the postwar era. And Pafko is the first card of this vaunted set. So for that reason, he is naturally going to command a bit more interest, despite being a lackluster player. More collectors, even those who don't collect '52s, are going to be drawn to him because he is the first card, the inaugural card of the modern era.

6) A positive feedback loop of supply and demand. Pafko benefits from the same phenomenon that impacts the 311 Mantle card. By all logic, the Mantle card should not be as valuable as it is, given it is a double print, and survives across all ranges of grades, including no less than three PSA 10s. Yet he is prized because the card has transcended collecting. It is an ICONIC card, chock full of Americana...Norman Rockwell and Coca Cola wrapped up in one. This card represents wealth and prestige, and you have many non-collectors who want one simply because it is valuable, and they're drawn to that. So while the population of Mantle cards is greater than other high numbers, the demand is far greater. And so too goes for the Pafko. Because of the story of the rubber banding, because of the aura of being Card 1 in the set, because he is perceived as valuable, more people, even non-collectors, want the Pafko, and the demand goes up, along with the price, which only enhances the aura of unobtainability, which enhances the demand, and on and on, until a PSA 6 fetches $2000 or more.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by sago

How many 52 Pafko's, or any other cars for that matter, have been listed with a "rubberband" mark designation? How many cards have telltale dents in the center of the borders? An urban myth for sure. I don't doubt the relative scarcity; just the reason for it.

Rubber band damage isn't always dents. And isn't a qualifier with TPG. It's also something most sellers won't mention, the overall grade covering it.

This one was obviously rubber banded for a long enough time for the band to break down, leaving a nice diagonal stain and a bit of paperloss.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-Topps-1...ht_1215wt_1399

This one has no dents or stains, but does have a group of fine creases at the left center area that's not unusual for a top card of a banded stack. it gets snagged, or sticks out and gets pulled a bit rougher and gets creased. Not guaranteed to be from banding, but likely given the decent corners.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-TOPPS-A...item232c7f75b3

This one has teltale worn sections near the middle of the sides. Usually caused by loose banding, allowing the cards to slide against the band.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-Topps-1...ht_1826wt_1399

This one has obvious water damage at the lower right. Probably from being face down too close to a spill, or simply spilled on.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-Topps-1...#ht_818wt_1399

Those are just a few exaples from the roughly 75 or so on ebay right now. There were maybe 5 others with similar damage, but worse scans, and probably half of the cards listed have scans too poor to make out the details.

So 9 out of 75, or at best 12% with the sort of damage expected from bands or being on the top or bottom of a stack. drop out the half with bad scans, and the higher grade cards, and it gets closer to 30%.

As Jamie and Adam would say.....confirmed!

Steve B

[tedzan]

The 1952 Topps 1st series (80 subjects) was printed on sheets of 100 cards. Their printing press track was wide enough to print 2 identical 100-card sheets.

Shown here is the lower 1/2 of this 100-card sheet (cards #51 - 80). Since the 1st series consists of 80 subjects, TOPPS Double-Printed (D-P) two rows in
order to fill out the sheet. Evident in this 1/2 sheet are the top row and the 3rd row D-P cards (#51 - 60).

I seem to have misplaced my picture of the top 1/2 of this 100-card sheet....but, I can tell you that the D-P cards on that sheet are cards #31 - 40.


Double-Prints in top row and 3rd row (cards #51 - 60)




TED Z

[SMPEP]

Those sheets are great. Definitely post the top half if you find it!

Cheers,
Patrick

Ps - Pafko is card in top left corner I assume?

[novakjr]

I can't think of too many baseball cards that have pretty much been the central focus of the plot of a movie, like this one was for Cop Out..

I know, I know, it's not the reason it's expensive. BUT it does add to the card being one of those that transcends the hobby, and into the mainstream..

"Paul Hodges: What's with the box?

Jimmy Monroe: I gotta sell the Pafko.

Paul Hodges: I heard that. I know that's right... I'm lying. What's a Pafko?

Jimmy Monroe: It's a baseball card.

Paul Hodges: Jimmy, if you need twenty bucks...

Jimmy Monroe: A$$hole, I don't need twenty bucks."

[Volod]

Originally Posted by steve B

Rubber band damage isn't always dents. And isn't a qualifier with TPG. It's also something most sellers won't mention, the overall grade covering it.
So 9 out of 75, or at best 12% with the sort of damage expected from bands or being on the top or bottom of a stack. drop out the half with bad scans, and the higher grade cards, and it gets closer to 30%.

As Jamie and Adam would say.....confirmed!

Steve B

Good points, Steve - and would not that percentage climb even higher considering the total number of rubber-banded Pafkos that have probably just been discarded over the years due to the horrified reactions of condition-obsessive dealers and collectors who came upon them?

[ZenPop]

...Pafko watched Bobby Thomson's Shot Heard 'Round the World sail over his head... Pafko At The Wall... title of the mini-novel excerpted from Don Delillo's Underworld.