Posted By:
robert aGuys,
One thing I find interesting as I look at Tim's comprehensive population report is that hofers are mainly at the bottom of the list meaning they're more likely to be found by us collectors.
Now, do we attribute this to:
1.) The theory that says more hofers survived because old time collectors/consumers were more likely to hold onto a popular player of the time.
2.) Were more hofers printed and distributed with Recruit backs then common players similar to what we see with Scot Reader's "superprint theory?"
3.) Is it purely reflective of the hofers being present with Recruit backs which were just more common than the other backs?
4.) Is it a combination of all these ideas?
I have found the first theory to ring true with small caramel sets where all the different players were printed together on sheets, but of course the sets that I'm thinking of don't have back variations like this larger set.
Any ideas?
Rob