UPDATED: My Combined PSA/SGC Cracker Jack 1914 Pop Report
 

I've just updated again the June 7 ranking for new figures as of today, January 8, 2015. See my note at bottom on this being only a partial update--for the more scarce cards near bottom of list. As one might suspect, a lot of newly graded cards in wake of price hikes. But some did not change at all, many gained one to three, and a handful (such as Collins +4, Alexander =5 and Milan +8) really came out of the closet. I've included the "Charlie Sheen Collection" (cards, not porn tapes). Of course, HOFers (marked with "x") dominate the top but you will see some HOFers surprisingly lower on the list. The cards near the lower end explain why some of them have drawn record prices in recent weeks. I've started adding key breakdowns for a few cards graded above a "3" and those graded above a "4." Important Note: Numbers are no doubt off for some due to crossovers.
***

NAME TOTAL (>3) (>4)

xCobb 107 (57) (35)
xBresnahan 81 (counting 23 with no number on back)
xJohnson 76 (36) (25)
xLajoie 75 (45) (24)
xSpeaker 71 (32) (22)
xCollins 71 (31) (15)
Gessler 67 (28) (16)
xEvers 65 (34) (22)
xMcGraw 64 (34) (17)
Milan 63
xTinker 62 (23) (13)
xMack 61 (29) (18)
xComiskey 59 (25) (16)
xPlank 60 (29) (21)
xBender 59 (34) (15)
xBresnahan (# on back) 58 (25) (19) no number: 21
Zeider 58

xBrown 57 (32) (16)
Schang 57 (25) (13)
Boehling 57
Rucker 57
McInnis 54
xHonus Wagner 53 (19) (11)
xCrawford 54 (21) (13)
Camnitz 51 (30) (12)
xBaker 50 (23) (10)
Adams 50
Strunk 50
Miller 49
Mullen 49 (24) (12)
xSchalk 48 (25) (11)
Cashion 48

Wilson 48
Hoffman 47
Groom 47
Meyers 47
xAlexander 47 (18) (13)
Oldring 47 (21) (12)
Barry 46
xClarke 46 (19) (14)
Scott 46 (20) (12)
Wood 45 (14) (7)
Gregg 45
Hummel 45
Heinie Wagner 44 (22) (11)
xChance 44 (18) (13)
xE.Walsh 44 (26) (15)
Jackson 44 (23) (16)
xWheat 43 (12) (9)
Lord 43
Thomas 43 (19) (12)

xHooper 42 (24) (16)
J. Walsh 41
Doyle 42
Luderus 41
xMathewson 41 (10) (5)
xMarquard 41 (16) (6)
Stovall 41
Zimmerman 40 (22) (13)
Archer 40
Knabe 40 (11) (2)
Carrigan 40
Sweeney 40
W. Miller 39
Bridwell 39
Gandil 39 (17) (10)
Crandall 38

Hobitzell 37
xJennings 36 (20) (15)
Birmingham 36
Ford 36
O’Toole 35
Murphy 35
xHuggins 35 (16) (10)
Tesreau 35
Devore 35
xMaranville 35
Perdue 34
Russell 34
Simon 34 (19) (12)
Dooin 34
Blanding 34

Falkenberg 33 (16) (11)
Downey 33
Evans 33
Knetzer 33
Perring 33
Bodie 32
Packard 32
LaPorte 32
Zeider 31
Easterly 31
Moore 31
O. Miller 31

Magee 30
Schmidt 30
Callahan 30
Nunamaker 30
Reulbach 30
Daubert 30
Moriarty 29
Baumgardner 29
Leach 29
xRickey 29
Seaton 29

Peckinpaugh 29
Fisher 29
Schulte 29
Austin 28
Merkle 28
Bescher 28
Cicotte 28 (11) (5)
xCarey 28 (13) (10)
Brennan 28
Niehoff 27
Suggs 27
Lavender 27
Delehanty 27
Gowdy 27
Benton 27

Sallee 26
Herzog 26
Killifer 26
Cheney 26
Saler 26
Oakes 26
Raridan 26
Bush 26
Benton 25
Demaree 25 (SGC mislabeled one)
Craveth 25
Blair 25
Konetchy 25
Owens 25
Marsans 25

Caldwell 24
Hendrix 24
Barger 23
Doolan 23
Smith 23
Wingo 22
Pratt 19
Shotten 19
Keating 18
Becker 18
Cady 17

I've now updated with >3 and >4 numbers for HOFers...will do more as time goes on...

Observations
 

It's real interesting to look at this from top to bottom. A few questions immediately come to mind:

1) Why is doc gessler's population so high? He was the manger of a sub par Pittsburgh rebels team in 1914. He hardly did anything noteworthy that year to merit collectors hoarding his card.

2) Why is Wagner so low? This is really shocking. All the elite players are right up there in population, yet Wags is near the bottom of HOFers by population. I wonder if fans and kids interests had shifted by that time to the newer stars like Cobb, Johnson and speaker. Certainly seems that way. Wagner was deep into the back nine of his career by 1914 whereas the others were getting started.

I pointed this out on the other thread and will say it again here. 31 cards or 21% of the set have a combined pop at or below 25. These cards will reach astronomical levels in the next year+ due to the influx of new 14 CJ collectors in the market. In fact, most of the cards that have been commented upon in recent posts as having inexplicably high prices paid on them all fall into this 21%.

Many current 1914 Cracker Jack collectors I talk to are upgrading their sets. This, along with the fact that many have started the set in the past year, is driving costs to record highs.

Thanks, and there are many other areas to analyze, such as the higher percentage of mid-grade or better cards for some stars (see Lajoie and, far down the list, Jennings, for example). If collectors are mainly out to get some sort of example of each card, they can just look at total pop for guidance, but if looking for a decent or high grade it's often a different matter. There are plenty of Eddie Collins cards out there, for instance, but not so many at higher levels (and fewer than for Jennings, whose population is half of Collins'). And so on. Then there's the matter of less popular HOFers being tougher to find, such as Wheat and Carey and Huggins and Jennings and Marquard. Their prices have always been depressed but now take on new life as "scarcity" counts for more and more...

Good info, guys. One question from a non-'14 set collector (though I have about 10 cards myself):

How many of these "low pop" commons are just a matter of folks having them ungraded? It's understandable that due to the price, more Cobbs and Johnsons would be submitted. But as Erich said before, a handful of new Pratts came to the market of late, once folks realized the premium for that "common".

So, are these <25 pop commons really that much scarcer? Or, if they start to achieve premiums, would you see a spike in those cards being submitted?

I would trust the pop 22 on the Bresnahan no number much more than I would some of the other commons, since I would think most are aware of the premium for this card and have submitted them already. But I could see more Cadys, Shottens and Beckers coming to market if people see high premiums on those cards.

Good point. The "ungraded" often forgotten by some of us. Hick Cady, Hick Cady, come on home! I wonder what someone more expert on the ungraded scene would say. Obviously the print run on this set tailed off in second half, where most of the low pop cards reside....

Thanks for the research Greg. Really a great job and great effort. It confirms what all of us 1914 CJ collectors already knew - that nearly every card in the set is scarcer that a T206 Wagner. Apples and oranges I know, but still, many cards are just plain hard to find. And if a collector wants certain cards in a 5 or 6, it may not matter how much money he or she is able to throw at the situation. The cards just are not around, and the ones that are out there are not available. I believe the 2nd highest Psa registered 1914 CJ set owner also owns the Pittsburgh Steelers. I'm pretty sure I'm not going to be able to tempt him into selling any of his cards with any amount I'd be able to offer.

As far as patterns of scarcity with this set, I have observed that #'s 73 and up were lesser produced. Also, stars from #'s 1-72 are more available because people hung on to the stars ( a whopping 107 Cobbs apparently survived). Extraordinarily minuscule in comparison to how many were printed in a nationally distributed set, as far as we know. When I was completing the set I thought maybe Del Pratt's great grandnephew or something must be hoarding all of his cards, same with Cady, Caldwell, Becker, Frank Owens, Frank Smith, etc... The so-called commons....but the probable fact is that these cards were just thrown out. And as many others before me have remarked, it's amazing that any 1914's even survived their trips in the popcorn boxes to be pulled out in 1914. ,let alone still be here 100 years later. Anyone who has held a 1914 can tell you that the cards are barely there. Like brittle, red, 100 year old tracing paper.

I think sets have peaks and valleys. The 1914's are at a peak, but plateau might be more appropriate than valley for these. They are too cool, too famous, and too valuable at this point especially, to nosedive.

Good points but I'd be careful making assumptions about little chance for major price decline....And one point on collectors--yes, more may be trying the 1914s but perhaps just as many may be exiting to collect 1915s because they can't afford the 14s now...I know a couple in this category already....

me as well...

A Jimmy Austin "2" on ebay today, ending tonight, already at $565...so trend far from over...but will be interesting to see if rush to grade low-grade cards this month...I'm still wondering, if anyone can guess, if there are a lot of ungraded low pop cards or, as claimed, they were simply tossed out long ago as not worth it...similarly, have we seen nearly all the more popular cards graded by now, inflating those numbers, which now will not grow much...

Greg, do you know where the #120 Doolan card ranks on the pop list? I don't think you listed that one.

My bad. Just saw it!!!

I would guess there are some 1914 and 1915 sets be handed down within families and those cards would be raw, but may not see the market for decades. It seems you see a large set break every so often including 1914s, there was one by a member here sold thru LOTG 12 months or so including a nice Pratt. So its long dry spells with sudden large bursts...followed by long dry spells.

I have a HOFer with the highest PSA grade and so tempted to sell now--but not sure if prices at highest end also going up (no way to tell, really). Could be more of mid-grade and low-grade trend...

I am a VERY casual pre-war collector. I have never considered paying to have a card in my collection graded. I have to believe there many other collectors here such as I that have a least one ungraded 1914 CJ in their collections. I am always curious when I read threads discussing population reports. Perhaps I am naïve but I have to believe that the population numbers aren't necessarily reflective of the quantity of individual cards out there. I have a decent Sam Crawford from this set that I have held onto for more than 20 years. I believe it would grade a 3-4. This would raise the number of Crawford cards on this list to 52. Does anyone else here have any 1914 CJs that have never been graded? I'm curious how much we could raise the numbers in this combined population report?

Most of the vintage cards I acquired during the 1990s and early 2000s were raw when I acquired them, and I very seldom get cards graded, unless I intend to sell/trade them.
Val

I guess I was answering in relation to the rare no names of the set like cady, shotten, pratt, etc. Crawford is a HOF but none of those others are so who held onto them? They would of had to been collected in the day and I think that explains part of the huge difference in major HOFer pop numbers. I, also, have never paid to have a card graded.

I absolutely agree with your theory as it pertains to the non HOF player cards. The first three non graded cards posted depict members of the HOF. So far this serves to support your theory.

That PSA 2 Jimmy Austin just went for $828 at eBay....

Also note, a PSA 3 Ed Walsh went for $705 on Tuesday night. Surely a record but less than the PSA 2 Austin, again showing drive for the more scarce cards.

I see this thread has become the blow-by-blow 1914 CJ auction monitor.

In any event, it will be reviewed years in the future and I bet the prices will be shocking to the viewer. The question is whether they will be because they are high, or because they are low . . .

I'm very sure there are plenty of ungraded 1914 CJ's out there and thus unaccounted for in the pop reports. Plenty of collectors and forum members alike see no need to get cards graded, obviously. The thing I'm a bit dubious about is the notion that there are a bunch of 1914 raw sets out there, in the hands of old-time collectors, hobby pioneers, or or the great grandchildren of original collectors. Sets hidden away from the world for one reason or another, on purpose, by the owners. And this is not just CJ's, but any elusive, pre-war set. I sorta think that anyone who owned a nice-looking complete set of 1914 CJ's, and knew enough about them - knew enough, for instance, to know that the set was special, collectible, and valuable - in short, a hobbyist to some degree - would at least be proud enough to have let the hobby world know what they have. Here on the boards or somewhere, at some point...

I know there are a lot of raw card collectors, and advocates for same, on this board but I wonder how representative they are in the "outside" world. Yes, a strong number among this board's passionate members but I would guess that most out there long ago started getting their cards graded to make a buck on eBay, or just to know what they have, or protect them, or have them ready for the future. In other words, my guess is that the number of ungraded cards, for top sets, is overstated here. But I could be wrong. Your views?

I have a different perspective. I think there are more raw cards than you believe there are. Old-timer collectors are still around and many despise grading companies. Of course as time goes on there will be fewer raw cards but today I think there are almost as many, or more, raw pre-war cards as there are graded ones. That is just my opinion so take it for what it's worth. ;)

Well, what's funny is that if there are as many raw 1914 CJ's out there as there are graded ones, and that very well might be, it is somewhat counterbalanced by the fact that the PSA and SGC pop reports for the 1914's are very inflated by crossovers. I don't know a single 1914 collector who has not crossed over some of their cards, and I know several that have crossed over dozens and dozens. Are they retiring labels? Not sure. But I've never retired any.

In the main, what are they crossing to -- SGC to PSA or vice versa? And why, in your opinion?

Also, I don't know what is meant by a person "retiring" a label. How would that effect pop report? How would PSA or SGC know that you sent their graded to the other? Surely they don't delete from their pop report--how would they know?

They do if you return the flip I believe...I have never cross a single card, but I have broke more than my fair share free!

SGC has told me that when they cross a PSA card they notify them. I'm not sure if PSA does the same.

I'm not really proud of bulking up the overall population of the 1914's. And it certainly does nothing to help out a card's value from my perspective as an eventual seller. But for instance, the #120 Doolan card. I bought it about 5 years ago as a Psa 1.5. When it arrived in the mail, it had its old Sgc flip (Sgc 40) taped to the back of the holder by the seller. He obviously cracked and crossed it. I eventually cracked it and sent it back to Sgc, receiving a (30). Greg's total pop tally has Doolan at 23 I think. So that is obviously inflated partially thanks to me, sadly. So Doolan is really in Pratt territory. And I realize these are not profound points I'm making, b/c the crossover situation is no secret. But when we are talking about cards with uber low populations to start with, and they are also inflated populations, it is worth noting.

Thanks, Tom. Would still like answer to question--does SGC really notify PSA about re-grades? Does PSA notify SGC?

Steve mentioned that Sgc tells Psa when they are re-grading a Psa card, then Psa supposedly pulls said card from their pop. Who knows if they do? I have no idea what the companies do b/c I have always cracked before I sent.

while I'm a teen tiny fish in the '14 collector world, I've never crossed any over nor sent any in for grading. But I have cracked a few out (kept the flips - didn't report to PSA/SGC) which are in binders now, including Knabe, Oldring, Grover Cleveland, Speaker, Bresnahan, Strunk, Thomas, Crawford, Comiskey, Bush, Doyle, Rusell, Evans, Rariden, Laporte, and Reulbach. I have around 70 of the 144 cards (most of the less expensive commons) almost all in lower condition. About 1/2 my set is graded (purchased that way) mostly 3's which I'd be happy to downgrade to pick up some tougher cards, but I enjoy cracking them out on rainy days to put in binders.

I'm hoping the set goes down a little in price so I can buy some more - I've been dabbling the past few years but never gone in head first and certainly not doing that now haha

edited to add - thanks Greg for your hard work in putting together the pop reports!

Rob
:)

Rob, thanks for good post. But it still seems to sustain my view--that is, my guess--that there may be relatively few mid- or high-grade CJ 14s out there...

I would be shocked if there was a plethora of raw 1914's that would grade out as 5's or 6's. The fragile nature of the cards would be one reason. The other is that the first 100 years of the existence of these cards have yielded the current pop report data. Yes the data is somewhat flawed due to crossovers, and there are also plenty of raw 1914 cards in the hands of collectors. However, I don't think many people would crack out a Psa 6 1914 CJ in an effort to stand on principle. So I doubt there are many awesome looking raw 1914's via that route. And to Greg's point about the likelihood, or lack thereof, of the existence of a surprisingly large number really nice 1914's out there...I reiterate the point: If they are out there, where are they?

I guess this is the ultimate request--as we often see the titles of threads here--to "show 'em!" Would love to see someone post a clearly 5 or better raw CJ 14...

gotta be close...thanks again Tom.

my best looking raws ... technically i don't think any are 5s though, prob not even 4s

p.s. Beautiful Zeider Steven! I think I remember seeing that for about 10 seconds on the 'bay :)

Nice-looking 5s or 4s or whatever...proves their out there

Yeah, that was from a so-called "estate find" that turned out to be a really cool lot. Still, the lot was bought in a very pedestrian from eBay. And the other cards from the lot graded 4 and under.

I think many of us, me included, cling to the romantic and optimistic idea that there are RAW sets of 1914's, and Ramly's, and other really cool pre-war sets, out there somewhere, in decent grade, in the hands of shadowy, Gedde-esque wealthy heirs that do not deign to dabble in the hobby as we know it, but rather in their own circles of collecting that no one here in these forums knows anything about. But I just don't think that is so.

Badly-stained Leach SGC 40 just went for $494 on ebay....

August 8--I just total numbers and re-ranked for each card...You're welcome...Accepting raw CJ 14s as rewards....

I added note that you can't take the pop numbers as gospel, although no doubt close to the mark. As we know, some people do cross overs and the two top grading companies not great about changing numbers or in many cases don't even know about it. One fella tells me the numbers for one card may be +4 because he attempted multiple breaking out and crossing over attempts. But that's got to be unusual...

Folks, I was thinking of doing another monthly update, but after checking a few numbers it seems that the pace of grading cards--after the Big Boom--has slowed considerably. Wasn't much to update from 5 weeks earlier so will wait another month. Still no evidence that many "5" or better are being graded--it's almost all far, far lower in grade.

I updated those with 33 or fewer ONLKY in the pop reports today. The ones above that obviously have gained in numbers as well, or more so….

As usual the reminders: some cards may appear double when graded by both PSA and SGC--and, of course, others never graded.

Folks, I've updated this again--although only for the lower half. So the more scarce cards are current but less so are not. I will try to do the rest soon. There's been some re-shuffling in the ranking of the lower numbers. As usual: some of these numbers no doubt a little off thanks to re-gradings. And, of course, does not cover ungraded cards...

I guess the first 72 cards were we can say double printed because I have 2 cards of number 60 and where it states stars from all 3 leagues the s is lower case on 1 card and upper case on the other. Rob