Most rare 1914 CJ?

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

I was talking to a fellow collector today about which card he thought was the hardest to find in the 14 CJ set. Obviously Del Pratt is the first to come to mind with at last check only 19 total PSA/SGC cards graded, but that is not the whole story is it, because there are others with fewer cards graded (Shotten, Cady, Keating, Becker). Does anyone know the real story behind the mysterious Pratt card and why it's prices are exponentially more than the other low pop players?

[Brian Van Horn]

My guess would be the obvious that it's pose differs from the 1915. Unlike the Lord, Zieder and Mathewson cards which also vary between the 1914 and 1915, the Pratt is simply harder to find. Low population is one thing on SGC and PSA reports, but if the same card exists in both sets such as the Cady, this knocks down the price.

[rainier2004]

....

[btkpath]

Well, seeing that everybody is showing their Pratt's…..

Granted the Cady is represented in both the 1914 and 1915 sets, but it is still numerically the least common 1914 CJ. Just sayin'……..

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

This is just turned into a show me your D*#@ I mean Pratt contest. haha
I wish I had one to whip out (like in real life it would be far below average). lol

seriously...anyone know why these are so expensive? So far the best reason is there's no same pose in 15's. Gotta be more to this....could it be that this card was hyped at one point and prices have stayed inflated from this false hype?

Originally Posted by btkpath

Well, seeing that everybody is showing their Pratt's…..

Granted the Cady is represented in both the 1914 and 1915 sets, but it is still numerically the least common 1914 CJ. Just sayin'……..

[btkpath]

I had heard from a VERY reliable source at one time that the Pratt family bought up all the cards that they could find, and this source had sold the Pratt family several of the cards in the past. I know this was the case with other families of players' cards from other sets.

[GregMitch34]

I'm the one who did, and updated, the recent "combined pop report," which only focuses on the numbers, but I have to say--how much difference is there between a card with 19 pop and, say, 27? Especially since you could have more listed but more of other never graded; or even if graded not likely to be circulated any time soon; or in a Titus-itis move, someone is collecting and keeping a large number of one player. I wonder if going by how many have been put for sale in past decade is better gauge...

[btkpath]

Originally Posted by GregMitch34

I wonder if going by how many have been put for sale in past decade is better gauge...

Valid point…..

Cady sales recorded on VCP 3
Shotten sales reported on VCP 7
Pratt sales reported on VCP 9

Obviously does not include private sales or raw card sales, but, as Greg mentions, might be another gauge to use to assess rarity.

[GregMitch34]

Also, in my combined pop report, I added listings for graded cards greater than '3" and greater than '4" and there are some stark differences. However, I mainly did the HOFers and a few others before running out of gas so did not do for the really scarce cards...so, again, if you're looking for, say, a "5" for someone that card could be virtually the highest graded where a less common card could have several 5s or better...

[darwinbulldog]

Lou Lowdermilk called. He says you should stop prying into things you weren't meant to know.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

lou lowdermilk called. He says you should stop prying into things you weren't meant to know.

This is funny.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by GregMitch34

... I wonder if going by how many have been put for sale in past decade is better gauge...

I have been saying this for a while now. With cardtarget and vcp it makes sense to look at past sales along with pop reports. Pop reports can be wrong due to cards being submitted multiple times and some cards never getting slabbed. Yet when you use that info along with the sales reports you can get a better picture of what you may see in the future. Neither method alone can give you a full picture. Because past sales don't show cards sold in lots or just because you see 3 sales lately doesn't mean they are 3 different cards it could just be two buyers that tried to flip the same card until it ended up in a collection.

There is so much more info now that can be used to come up with a full picture.

As far as the pratt I fully believe the value is higher because of the particular image is rarer due to only being in the '14 set. There are many collectors that don't give priority to the back that just want one of each image. So the images that are only found in either set go for higher prices, then you add on top of that the limited sales of the '14 Pratt it will lead to higher prices.

[sniffy5]

I heard that the Rueckheim Bros. and Eckstein were so overloaded with unpurchased Cracker Jack boxes containing 2nd series cards that in the Fall of 1914 that they rented a barge and dumped 14,999,900 boxes into New York harbor.

I think anyone who wants to collect this set needs to have his head examined. Everyone please report to Barry, stat!

[Jacker_ Cracks]

Originally Posted by sniffy5

I heard that the Rueckheim Bros. and Eckstein were so overloaded with unpurchased Cracker Jack boxes containing 2nd series cards that in the Fall of 1914 that they rented a barge and dumped 14,999,900 boxes into New York harbor.

I think anyone who wants to collect this set needs to have his head examined. Everyone please report to Barry, stat!

Funny chit Tom!

[GregMitch34]

They only dumped them in harbor to "soak" them. So there should be some millions of high-grade 2nd series out there. Check the piers along the West Side Highway and the Battery.

[sniffy5]

The time has come for the collecting world to realize that so few 1914's survive because they were produced in extremely limited quantities. And also probably regionally as well. We all point to the fragile nature of the 1914's. But let's face it, all cards are fragile, no matter the brand, especially before plastic sleeves and acrylic. They are all just thick paper. Is the reason that there are piles of t206's everywhere you look at a show because they are of heartier composition? We all have 1914's. They don't melt over time. There are nice ones a century later, and there are mangled ones, but they are still here, stains and all.

There were collectors back then. Cards were a huge selling point for products. Folks did collect. The reverse of the cards told a lie about production numbers to project an immense image for the burgeoning company. They certainly lied about the 2nd series. No doubts there. More would have survived if more could have been collected. There were not a lot around, or not around for a long period of time, or only around in certain boxes in certain areas. That's what I think...

[GregMitch34]

Tom, I think we both predicted a couple of months back that the current CJ craze would NOT produce a lot of higher-grade examples suddenly getting graded and going up for sale but that we'd see a lot of low-graded ones go through that process. So far, I think we are on the money (so to speak). And now it will be easier than ever to spot the newly-graded at SGC at least.

[Tcards-Please]

Originally Posted by GregMitch34

And now it will be easier than ever to spot the newly-graded at SGC at least.

Could be "newly" regraded as well.

r/
Frank

[Theo_450]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

As far as the pratt I fully believe the value is higher because of the particular image is rarer due to only being in the '14 set. There are many collectors that don't give priority to the back that just want one of each image. So the images that are only found in either set go for higher prices, then you add on top of that the limited sales of the '14 Pratt it will lead to higher prices.

A reasonable theory, but it does not explain the 1914 Zeider throwing pose. There was also a portrait pose of Zeider in the 1914 set. The throwing pose was dropped in 1915, and by your theory should command a higher price than it actually does.

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

Good point....I think Pratt is one of those hobby hypes that is a self fulfilling

Originally Posted by Theo_450

A reasonable theory, but it does not explain the 1914 Zeider throwing pose. There was also a portrait pose of Zeider in the 1914 set. The throwing pose was dropped in 1915, and by your theory should command a higher price than it actually does.