Originally Posted by samosa4u (Post 2482112)

It had been widely accepted but never officially proven that the 1948 Leaf cards were mostly issued in 1949. One grading company, SGC, labels the Leaf cards “1948-49,” even on its old labels/grading system that ended in 2018. But the biggest grader, Professional Sports Authenticator (PSA), labels them “1948,” period. The rationale has been that some cards, including the Robinson and the Musial, carry a 1948 copyright.

Originally Posted by samosa4u (Post 2482112)

“We will always consider new information and facts to make sure we’re recognizing cards appropriately, whether that’s the year manufactured or variations,” PSA president Ryan Hoge said. PSA added that it has “nothing new to announce with this particular set right now regarding our labels.”

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2482538)

If PSA "will always consider new information and facts to make sure we’re recognizing cards appropriately, whether that’s the year manufactured or variations" then they would stop lying about the 1948 date.

Originally Posted by BioCRN (Post 2482542)

They will consider new information for cards that have a low population or not graded before, but they have 30,800+ reasons to ignore this one as long as possible.

That said, a money printing machine like PSA should suck it up and deal with it...imo...

Originally Posted by Kutcher55 (Post 2482181)

What a trivial debate. On a more interesting subject (at least to me), can anyone tell me just how “short” the SPs are for 1948-9 Leaf? They seem to get a massive premium suggesting they are much more than twice as rare as their non SP counterparts. Relative pop counts suggest the same. Is there an old net54 thread someone can direct me to that helps answer this question? Why are these SPs so dang short?

Originally Posted by yanks87 (Post 2482284)

The two baseball series were produced the same way, 4X49 cards per sheet. So from a production standpoint, all short prints were produced at the same number. What survived the years, that is another story. The big names always hang around, the lesser knowns sometimes don't as few care about the commons.

Originally Posted by samosa4u (Post 2482588)

I just looked through my book here called TRUE MINT by the late great Alan Rosen (Mr. Mint) and he mentions how he found four sealed boxes of the second series down in Tampa, and after opening three of them (432 cards), he only got one Satch Paige card! This led him to believe that the Paige was one of the hardest postwar cards to find.



Yeah, so this is the part that's obviously confusing. If Rosen pulled only one Paige card after opening three boxes, then how could they have been produced at the same number ?? Very strange!

Originally Posted by samosa4u (Post 2482588)

I just looked through my book here called TRUE MINT by the late great Alan Rosen (Mr. Mint) and he mentions how he found four sealed boxes of the second series down in Tampa, and after opening three of them (432 cards), he only got one Satch Paige card! This led him to believe that the Paige was one of the hardest postwar cards to find.



Yeah, so this is the part that's obviously confusing. If Rosen pulled only one Paige card after opening three boxes, then how could they have been produced at the same number ?? Very strange!

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2482592)

If they were in fact printed in equal numbers the company must have destroyed lots of them before releasing them. Aren't these also skip numbered?

Originally Posted by conor912 (Post 2482524)

I’ll admit, I’ve never totally understood this phenomenon. I would take Jackie‘s ‘52 or 55T over his Leaf card any day of the week.

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards (Post 2482645)

I would argue there are a LOT more ungraded copies than people think. We've graded two Paige cards from original owner collections in 5 years and we're pretty small potatoes.

Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2482644)

The surviving pop counts of 1948/49 Leaf Short Prints is likely somewhere between 200-250 total copies of each card. Each SP was printed on the same 7x7 sheets, so the original pop counts were identical for all SPs.

The PSA pop counts for most SPs range from about 90 to 110 each. But those aren't graded often enough to get an idea of the true total population obviously. With the Paige being worth $20k+ even in low grade, nearly all copies have been graded at least once, with many of them having been graded multiple times. Are there still a handful of raw copies sitting in someone's attic that have never been graded? Sure, of course. But there probably aren't dozens of them floating around unaccounted for. The combined PSA/SGC/BVG pop counts for the Paige is currently 279 (193 PSA, 74 SGC, 12 BVG). It's safe to assume that each of the 12 BVG copies was sent to both PSA and SGC before being sent to BVG, so we can safely remove at least 24 from that pop report. Minus however many of the remaining PSA & SGC copies that were also cracked and resubmitted. Far more have been cracked and resubmitted than raw copies exist in Grandpa's attic today without question though. I would estimate that the true total remaining pop report today for the Paige is somewhere between 200 to 250 copies. And the remaining pop report for the other short prints is likely slightly less due to them being tossed in the trash at higher rates than the HOFers over the years.

The data suggests that there is approximately a 10 to 1 ratio for the full print run cards to the short printed cards. See counts below.

Notable combined PSA/SGC/BVG pop counts from the set:

Short Prints:
Satchel Paige 279 (193 PSA)
Bob Feller 199 (156 PSA)
George Kell 148 (111 PSA)
Dom DiMaggio 171 (124 PSA)
Larry Doby 215 (162 PSA)

Non-SPs
Ted Williams 2202 (1471 PSA)
Babe Ruth 2328 (1595 PSA)
Joe DiMaggio 2246 (1501 PSA)
Jackie Robinson 2676 (1849 PSA)
Stan Musial 1968 (1339 PSA)

Originally Posted by yanks87 (Post 2482653)

This is great data to have. I geeked out WAY too much on this. Now if I can get you to “run the numbers” on the Kent Peterson variation, we can have an idea of how rare the plate variation second printings are.

Originally Posted by samosa4u (Post 2482147)

However, this is different because New York Times is writing about it!

Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2482656)

Kent Peterson wasn't short printed, so his print runs should be in line with the other non-sp cards above with ~2500 +/- total in circulation today. But the ratios of Red Cap to Black Cap variations that we see in the pop reports should be fairly close to the true ratios. We could also sample Cliff Aberson and pool their ratios to get a more accurate estimate, assuming both variations were created together on the second print run.

Kent Peterson Black Cap = 246 (62.4%)
Kent Peterson Red Cap = 148 (37.6%)

Cliff Aberson Full Sleeves = 249 (61.3%)
Cliff Aberson Short Sleeves = 157 (38.7%)

That gives us ~62%, or ~1550 out of ~2500, Black Cap Petersons and 38%, or ~950 out of ~2500 Red Cap Petersons.

Originally Posted by yanks87 (Post 2482658)

100% right, Peterson was not short printed, but, that variation represents a 2nd printing of the first run of cards that had changes made to the printing plates making them true variations. I have side by side comparisons in my book but essentially the late printing of the main 49 card have both subtractions and additions to the printing plates which create a variant version of those non short printed cards. For those who run down the rabbit hole, like I did, this variation would equate to higher value on a lower population of variant cards. SO, a blue hat DiMaggio should be worth more than a black hat, same for a red hat Musial or a blue hat Jackie. But that is probably an argument for another thread! Thanks for the numbers!

Originally Posted by Brent G. (Post 2482621)

Let’s be honest — the Leaf photo/image is absolutely hideous.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5 (Post 2482476)

That's a long way of saying, "I don't actually have any evidence to back up my assertion."

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5 (Post 2482476)

For someone so verbose, you sure lack logical substance. Comparing collecting mentality to broader consume markets is asinine. They are literally the opposite. Consumers, by definition, are buying to consume. Collectors are buying to keep/hoard/curate/build a collection.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5 (Post 2482478)

...every single collectibles market, be it art, comics, beenie babies, guns, antiques, or sports cards, prefers and values older and earlier to newer. It's been that way for centuries. Card dealers didn't come up with it, as it predates cards. There is obviously more to it than marketing.

If your position is true, that high number cards' perceived scarcity was the reason for collectors preferring the earliest, then this phenomenon would be limited to sports cards. But it's not. It is universal in collecting. If your argument about collecting mentality is based solely on a scenario unique to baseball cards, and begins in 1952, you have already missed the mark. Collectors preferring the earliest pre-dates the very existence of sports cards.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5 (Post 2482478)

Well, which is it? Did collectors prefer rookie cards because older/first cards were more rare, or was it because idiot collectors were told they should cost more? You can't have it both ways.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5 (Post 2482478)

Well, which is it? Did collectors prefer rookie cards because older/first caAll you are doing is trying to rationize why you prefer the cards you do. And you have to do it by denigrating the way others collect.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5 (Post 2482478)

Further, as I explained to the not-so-sly fox....

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards (Post 2482645)

I would argue there are a LOT more ungraded copies than people think.

Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2482644)

Notable combined PSA/SGC/BVG pop counts from the set:

Short Prints:
Satchel Paige 279 (193 PSA)
Bob Feller 199 (156 PSA)
George Kell 148 (111 PSA)
Dom DiMaggio 171 (124 PSA)
Larry Doby 215 (162 PSA)

Non-SPs
Ted Williams 2202 (1471 PSA)
Babe Ruth 2328 (1595 PSA)
Joe DiMaggio 2246 (1501 PSA)
Jackie Robinson 2676 (1849 PSA)
Stan Musial 1968 (1339 PSA)

Originally Posted by Balticfox (Post 2482667)

I agree. I believe the number of ungraded cards in private collections still dwarves the number of graded specimens.

Originally Posted by Balticfox (Post 2482667)

Actually, could you provide comparative numbers for the topps 1952 Mickey Mantle card to put the above figures into perspective?

:confused:

Originally Posted by Balticfox (Post 2482665)

I brought out Adam Smith and P.T. Barnum. Who more do you want? Taylor Swift? I'm happier to leave her in your corner.

And had not my contention been intrinsically sound, you wouldn't have been immediately compelled to simply obfuscate by calling upon my "sources".



Oh?! Here. Let me give you a quick lesson in both logic and set theory. Only some consumers are also collectors. But all collectors are nonetheless consumers. Therefore collectors are a subset of the set of consumers. Collectors therefore share the traits of consumers.

My apologies though for venturing into set theory which is a subset of mathematics. I know many of you individuals in the legal field went into law because math isn't your strong point. But numbers very often intrude into the real world, they really do.



I won't ask you for your "source" because that's absolute, unmitigated nonsense that can be dismissed with one or two quick counter examples.

The very oldest semi-organized field of collecting may be that for coins. Coin collecting predates the Roman Empire. The coins most prized by collectors are those which best combine scarcity and aesthetic appeal. Those coins are rarely the oldest. For example, coins picturing the Emperor Decius postdate those picturing the Emperor Tiberius by nearly 250 years but Decius coins are more highly prized because they're rarer.

And in the art world it's not a painter's earliest pictures that fetch the biggest bucks, it's his best.



Actually he can. It may come as a surprise to you, but those two factors can go hand-in-hand.



After your long-winded characterizing of collectors as those who inherently prize the old, you now have the gall to accuse another poster of denigrating the way others collect? What about all those collectors snapping up the new 2025 releases of sports cards? You've implied that they're not proper collectors because they're not going after the oldest.

Incidentally the word is "rationalize". Yes, yes, I make mistakes too. But at least I have sufficient consideration for my fellow posters to read over my posts with a view to editing out any mistakes.



Hey, despite your many and varied personal deficiencies, you too can have an impact (at least on this board)! How do you like my "new" old avatar which I'm resurrecting to better showcase the sly side of my character?

https://hosting.photobucket.com/85c5...0fa17e98fe.jpg

;)

Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2482676)

Sure, for something like 1962 Topps Sandy Koufax, that's obviously true. But it's certainly not true for T206 Eddie Plank or even 1948 Leaf Jackie Robinson.

The percentage of graded vs ungraded copies of any particular card is largely a function of its value. The number of ungraded T206 Wagners still floating around is likely very close to zero these days. Perhaps there are one or three yet to be discovered, but the likelihood that there are dozens of them sitting around in attics is almost certainly zero.

There are still some collectors out there who, as a point of pride or preference, like to keep their prized cards like 52 Mantles and 48 Leaf Paiges raw, but there aren't very many of them left in terms of percentage of the population. And every time those cards come to market, they still get graded (or regraded). And any time you have a vintage card that is so valuable that it must be graded regardless of condition in order for it to be transactable on the market for anything other than pennies on the dollar of its true value, you can be pretty sure that the pop reports for that card reflect something close to it's true population, if not slightly exaggerating it due to resubmissions (which are MUCH higher than most people here realize). So this would work for something like estimating the true population for 52 Mantles, but definitely not for estimating the 53 Mantle population (there are other sampling techniques we could use to estimate that, but that's another discussion and one I'd prefer not to get into here).

And while yes, I agree with those who say there are still plenty of 52 Mantles out there to be graded, the reality is that those numbers are dwarfed by the number of copies that are/were cracked and resubmitted.



1952 Topps Mickey Mantle = 2863 total pop (2040 PSA, 673 SGC, 147 BVG, 3 CGC)

The 52 Topps Mantle likely has a very similar print run as the 48 Leaf Jackie Robinson. Maybe 10% or so higher at most.

Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2482676)

Sure, for something like 1962 Topps Sandy Koufax, that's obviously true. But it's certainly not true for T206 Eddie Plank or even 1948 Leaf Jackie Robinson.

The percentage of graded vs ungraded copies of any particular card is largely a function of its value.

And while yes, I agree with those who say there are still plenty of 52 Mantles out there to be graded, the reality is that those numbers are dwarfed by the number of copies that are/were cracked and resubmitted.



1952 Topps Mickey Mantle = 2863 total pop (2040 PSA, 673 SGC, 147 BVG, 3 CGC)

The 52 Topps Mantle likely has a very similar print run as the 48 Leaf Jackie Robinson. Maybe 10% or so higher at most.

Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2482646)

I would argue that getting two raw Paiges to grade graduates to you at least medium potatoes land.

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards (Post 2482861)

LOL so I got that going for me, which is nice.

Originally Posted by raulus (Post 2482870)

Time to put this testimonial on your marketing materials. “Certified medium potatoes!”

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5 (Post 2482687)

404 Error: Logic not found

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5 (Post 2482687)

Case in point, I never denigrated people who do not collect the earliest.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5 (Post 2482415)

Many collectors prefer the first/earliest issue. This isn't unique to sports cards, and it wasn't dreamed up by a bunch of dealers.... It's literally human nature.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5 (Post 2482415)

If you knew anything about me, you'd know I don't collect the earliest.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5 (Post 2482415)

My argument was just that you can't support your assertion that collectors like rookies because dealers duped them into it.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5 (Post 2482415)

And I've been right all along.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5 (Post 2482415)

In all your walls of text, you've yet to even attempt to prove that claim. You keep making irrelevant arguments using poor logic about statements I made....

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5 (Post 2482415)

By the way, since it's clear it went over your head, "[citation needed]" is a meme based in wikipedia, meaning you have posted something without supporting evidence.

Originally Posted by yanks87 (Post 2482608)

This is the legend and lore that I love around this set. First off, yes, skip numbered, all LEAF sets were except for the 1948 Football offering.

As far as the pack assortment and distribution of cards. This was not modern printing, there was not an order that things came off the press, these cards were printed, cut, and placed into packs by hand. Then the boxes were packed randomly by hand. It would be like taking 40 decks of cards, throwing them in the air and trying to play blackjack guessing when you would hit 21.

Originally Posted by yanks87 (Post 2482658)

100% right, Peterson was not short printed, but, that variation represents a 2nd printing of the first run of cards that had changes made to the printing plates making them true variations. I have side by side comparisons in my book but essentially the late printing of the main 49 card have both subtractions and additions to the printing plates which create a variant version of those non short printed cards. For those who run down the rabbit hole, like I did, this variation would equate to higher value on a lower population of variant cards. SO, a blue hat DiMaggio should be worth more than a black hat, same for a red hat Musial or a blue hat Jackie. But that is probably an argument for another thread! Thanks for the numbers!

Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2482676)

Sure, for something like 1962 Topps Sandy Koufax, that's obviously true. But it's certainly not true for T206 Eddie Plank or even 1948 Leaf Jackie Robinson.

The percentage of graded vs ungraded copies of any particular card is largely a function of its value. The number of ungraded T206 Wagners still floating around is likely very close to zero these days. Perhaps there are one or three yet to be discovered, but the likelihood that there are dozens of them sitting around in attics is almost certainly zero.

There are still some collectors out there who, as a point of pride or preference, like to keep their prized cards like 52 Mantles and 48 Leaf Paiges raw, but there aren't very many of them left in terms of percentage of the population. And every time those cards come to market, they still get graded (or regraded). And any time you have a vintage card that is so valuable that it must be graded regardless of condition in order for it to be transactable on the market for anything other than pennies on the dollar of its true value, you can be pretty sure that the pop reports for that card reflect something close to it's true population, if not slightly exaggerating it due to resubmissions (which are MUCH higher than most people here realize). So this would work for something like estimating the true population for 52 Mantles, but definitely not for estimating the 53 Mantle population (there are other sampling techniques we could use to estimate that, but that's another discussion and one I'd prefer not to get into here).

And while yes, I agree with those who say there are still plenty of 52 Mantles out there to be graded, the reality is that those numbers are dwarfed by the number of copies that are/were cracked and resubmitted.



1952 Topps Mickey Mantle = 2863 total pop (2040 PSA, 673 SGC, 147 BVG, 3 CGC)

The 52 Topps Mantle likely has a very similar print run as the 48 Leaf Jackie Robinson. Maybe 10% or so higher at most.

Originally Posted by Brent G. (Post 2482621)

Let’s be honest — the Leaf photo/image is absolutely hideous.

Originally Posted by samosa4u (Post 2483360)

Here in Toronto, we have the biggest card show in the country twice a year. I have these American buddies of mine that always come down, and whenever they do, they ALWAYS get a 52T Mantle ... or two. I also have some dealer buddies who live in Quebec and they find this card every now and then as well. And this is just Canada I'm talking about !! Imagine the US ?? Wayyy bigger population and wayyy more cards !! In the next ten years or so, I believe that we’re gonna’ see hundreds and hundreds of these cards come outta’ boomer collections. It's gonna' be wild, bro.

Oh, and in the last REA auction, I was checking out the Leaf Jackies and noticed how most of the PSA-graded examples had new serial numbers. It's starting ... lol

Originally Posted by Exhibitman (Post 2483615)

The first American Musial was the 1946 Sears postcard.

Originally Posted by samosa4u (Post 2483364)

The set just screams Andy Warhol and I love it !! But the Paige card is fugly !! What the hell was Leaf thinking choosing this image below to make his card ?? The Bowman blows it outta' the water !!

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/7~wAA...yo/s-l1200.jpg

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/c...8/images/1.jpg

Originally Posted by LincolnVT (Post 2483613)

Regardless, it’s a pretty cool set with some great cards.

Originally Posted by GeoPoto (Post 2483651)

Thank you to Samosa for showing the Paige. Ugly, or not, beautiful example of a hard-to-get card. I'm guessing they had the right to use that image and Paige was a tough negotiator. Or hard to find.

Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by LincolnVT (Post 2483613)

Regardless, it’s a pretty cool set with some great cards.

Originally Posted by jason.1969 (Post 2483675)

The discussions of Robinson, Musial, Spahn, and others only emphasize the fact that there is no universal definition of rookie card. In truth, there is not even a universal definition of “baseball card.” On one hand, the inherent subjectivity of it all creates ambiguity and chaos. On the other hand, it creates freedom and choice.

Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2483733)

That's a beautiful copy! Someone did a really nice job cleaning/conserving that one! Looks great.

Originally Posted by LincolnVT (Post 2483743)

Haha! It’s really sharp and nice to look at. Thanks. Nicer than most 7s, some 8s and even a 9 or 2 in my opinion. Tough condition card…like many in the set.

Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2483733)

That's a beautiful copy! Someone did a really nice job cleaning/conserving that one! Looks great.

Originally Posted by samosa4u (Post 2483842)

The scan is just very bright and so it looks that way. Here is a better one on the PSA website:

https://d1htnxwo4o0jhw.cloudfront.ne...4TLa6KqgaA.jpg

If you zoom in then you can see the oxidation, especially the top border.

It looks good.

Originally Posted by BigfootIsReal (Post 2483859)

I might regret it, but I would trade straight across for my BB Portrait in a 5.5

Originally Posted by calvindog (Post 2483860)

That's very generous of you!

Originally Posted by BigfootIsReal (Post 2483863)

I think so too. A Rook for a second year card

Originally Posted by calvindog (Post 2483871)

Wait. I thought you sold that card on the BST?

Originally Posted by samosa4u (Post 2483113)

This was a product of the 40s and everything back then was so different. A person could've purchased five boxes and pulled maybe one Paige and another guy could've pulled five Paiges in one box!!