[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

First of all, thanks, Mike, for those kind words about my article. Good to know it's still on the radar with some collectors.

The "common" debate:

I think the term is ambiguous. It could refer to common players or to common cards within the set. Clearly there are no common Cycle backs in that second sense. Most of the players found with Cycles are, however, common. Maybe that's what the OP meant?