Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan
Where is your " data" that you are referring to ? Useless pop-reports, or what ? Show us your so-called "DATA" !
At least I have data from my numerous experiences as a dealer/collector for 40 years.
TED Z
T206 Reference
. |
A direct link was provided already in my first post. There are mid 200's to 300 of each common card in the series, fluctuating within this range about equally in the series.
Hall of Famers and stars are of course higher, but we have a massive sample size of 1953 Bowman's here. Crack and resubmit is a thing, but there is no reason to think Jim Hegan is less susceptible to this effect than Bill Serena. Calling a database compiling over 10,000 cards from this series "useless" and "so called DATA" is an absurdist proposition. It would cost someone tens of thousands of dollars to silently manipulate it 0 gain. Personally, I don't like grading and crack every single PSA case I get, but it's very large sample size of cards.
If you have created a properly verified and curated database of 1953 Bowman examples over those 40 years, I'd truly love to see it. That would be a very helpful and large data point too. Otherwise, this is an anecdotal appeal to authority.
It should not be about people being right or wrong or thinking that some narratives should not be examined or questioned on evidentiary grounds. We should follow the data and apply logical principles to arrive at truth. Otherwise, we aren't doing anything useful but repeating stories. Data often shows things I used to think were true are not, or proves that something is not true that I wish was. That's why data is valuable; it isn't emotional. The publicly available data does not support this narrative; no data has been brought to light that does support it. Reason tells me that it would be unwise of me to persist in its belief in the face of the data.