Beckett complete set values: an analysis
 

As a postwar set builder, I was curious about how Beckett assigns their values to complete sets. Decided I'd do a little analysis on how they value a complete set versus the sum of its individual cards.

A couple caveats:

1. Yes, I know the Beckett price guide is pretty much useless as anything other than a checklist.

2. I used the HI column values for all listings in the 2008 Beckett Almanac (I don't think anything has changed since then).

3. I didn't include variations as part of them complete set (I don't think they're figured into the complete set value anyway) i.e. Bakep, Herrer, red/black back, white/cream back, yellow letters, white letters, etc.

4. I only looked at Topps issues from '52-'72.

Below is what I found:

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/i...percentage.jpg

My observances:

-Seems like a complete set value is usually around 50-70 % of the total value of each individual card in the set.

-The '72 set value is way out of line with the others. The total book value of all cards in the '72 set add up to more than, or nearly as much as, the cards from each year '68-'71, yet the set value of a '72 set is much less. Beckett guide says a '69 set is 2x as valuable than a '72 set; however, the individual cards in '72 are valued more than those in '69.

-The '59 and '69 sets seem to be overpriced. Individual cards from '59 add up to significantly less than those of '58, yet the '59 set value is $2,000 higher than '58!?!?!?

So in summary, I analyzed a bunch of meaningless numbers and came to some meaningless conclusions. But, all the same, it was somewhat interesting to me and thought I'd share. Any thoughts?

Set Values
 

Robert- as someone who has built all these sets, up to 1971, I found your analysis fascinating and informative. After 1971 I started buying complete set and upgrading as needed. Buying sets is definitely cheaper, but I had the most fun when building the sets. Thanks for your effort

I am going to have to give the set value discrepancies you pointed out some more thought

So buy a bunch of 1972 Topps high grade sets and split them up for singles........

Great stuff...I love to analyze by the numbers and have a couple of excel sheets myself.

Definitely cheaper to buy the sets (even the 50s & 60s) to Al's point, and for me it's not about value but the hunt for the set. I see people/dealers buying sets all the time to break them up on Ebay. The only set I have sold was a high grade 57 set that I first offered here whole and got a whole bunch of low ball "offers" and others telling me it was basically worthless as a couple of the stars were VGEX (95% of the set was EXMT). I was SHOCKED at how much I was able to get breaking it up card by card online. I actually more than tripled my investment and got over twice as much as I offered it here for whole.

Your study validates why so many dealers buy sets and break them up. Nice margins. I think your value numbers from Beckett are certainly too high based on ebay reality, but I would argue the percentages are right on. Now add that the dealers who buy the sets to break most likely were successful in a low ball offer as well...increasing their profit on the set break.


Don't get me wrong...I love set breaks...one of the best ways to build a set with singles needed off ebay after the lots are done...lol.

Its being done for a big profit every day on ebay...lol.

That's a great breakdown and analysis. Well done.

I gotta be honest. Never for the life of me did I ever understand where Beckett got their 'values' from. It seems they pull a base number out of a hat for commons and then up it for the stars, up it further for superstars and then establish a multiplier for the high series and what not.

You pointed out the discrepancies in the 1972 set. I put together two of them, and by far the hardest part of completing those suckers was finding high numbers in nice shape. But I never, NEVER, paid $12 for one of the common highs, yet that was always the Beckett value. Where in heck did they get that number from?? So I used their guide for basic logic purposes instead. For instance, if a low numbered common was listed in Beckett at $1, then I would assume that there were basically 12 of those around for every high number card out there. Not perfect science or anything, but a good rule of thumb.

The one flaw in the concept is the issue of ease of sale/shipping costs/listing fees etc. The total value of individual cards will clearly add up to more than the set, but the likelihood of selling every single common card from the entire set is not a given.

If you have the time and patience to wait for years before you unload the entire set card by card then go for it. Or you can sell the set at one time and walk away with cash in your pocket.

Lew Lipset was doing this in the 1980's in his old judge newsletter, he called that the Break Value IIRC/

59
 

I used to get Beckett every month. I remember about 5 years ago or so the 59 complete set jumped from high book of $5,000 to $8,000 in one month. Thought that to be very strange.

Having broken a number of 1972 sets over the years, my normal goal is to spend around $1k for an EX-MT to NM 72 set. After listing fees, FVF, shipping costs, etc, then selling off the unsold commons in a lot, my profit is around $800-900. As far as my time. it takes me about 10 hours to scan and create the listings, then the time to ship when it sells ( I can ship on average 100 cards an hour when multiple singles are sold to one buyer, and 30 or so an hour when sold just as singles) which is probably about 15 hours total.

Having broken many sets over the years, the 72 is one of the best in regards to profit compared to original expenditure(nearly equal). Having broken other sets (61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67), midgrade copies of these sets yield about the same profit as a 72 set, but with an original cost twice (or more) of a 72 set. For me, the 60, 65, 68 and 69 sets have the worst yield of profit versus original expenditure. However, the 70-71, and 73-76 sets all provide a decent return as compared to the original investment(not quite as good as the 72 set though).

For me, breaking sets from the 50's profitably is harder because the cards from these sets are not as liquid as the cards from the 60's and early 70s.

Fascinating stuff! Thanks for putting this together. :)

The more I've thought about it - the more reasons I can see that the '72 set is so underpriced as a complete set. With 130 high numbers, commons of which are $12/each, it makes sense.

From a breakup perspective, solid EXMT or so '72 high # commons generally sell for $4-6 or so on eBay. Not even counting the stars (Carew, Cey, Alston, Traded cards, etc.) that sell for more if you can get $5/ea for 130 cards that's $650 right there and that's a very conservative estimate. I'd say a closer guess if you were to individually list each '72 high on eBay, I would think they'd sell for close to $1,000 just by themselves which is about what a complete set sells for.

I agree with this. I haven't put a whole lot of focus on my 72's, but still need a small chunk of the hi numbers. You RARELY get any type of steal deal on Ebay and local shops are pretty savvy to the prices. Those hi numbers simply are a good investment, and still very much in demand.