Andrew...I read it (and honestly, with your tone, probably going to be the last thing I read of yours)
"While researching another group of cards I noticed a pattern emerge from a group of cards. After going through the entire list it became clear that I may have found the cards that gave up their spots for the ML's in the set. It has been long theorized that the SP's in the set were the sacrifice for the ML's and I had also thought this to be the truth. The following cards I believe are part of that group:"
And then you list a bunch of commons...this sentence seems to indicate that these are part of the SPs AND/OR were given spots to the minor league cards. I could be wrong but honestly...this is not very clear.
You speak of single prints and super prints and then use SP interchangeably. You often say people are hoarding and then use pop reports to support or disprove theories and then say the reports are meaningless. You have confused the issue greatly.
I feel my list of the 12 single prints that are missing the PB and Hassan 649 backs are the most obvious swap for the Minor League cards. You say, wait...there are sixteen single prints (or more) I think. I bet if you line those up, they will replace other single prints quite nicely (Shean Cubs with Shean Rustlers or Collins open with Collins open).
I agree there are patterns to the backs. This is due in large part to the number of cards printed but as Ted has shown us. Some of the single prints were often double printed (or more) on one sheet. It is impossible to know rarity just using advertising backs. Was Piedmont 42 more rare because there were less print runs? Of course. That only works though when you compare any one card with any one back. If talk about a card with multiple backs that breaks down. Austin is one of the most common cards in the set and often easily found. Does that mean the Broadleaf Austin is a common? No, of course not...what it says is that the print runs for the other backs, combined with the quantity of the backs makes Austin a common. NOT because he has more advertising backs than say, Ames...who is just as common when collecting in general.
Joshua
|