Trend toward collecting "scarcity" in t206 continues?

[frankb22]

>>1. What percentage of vintage cards have ever been submitted for grading?
No one knows but estimates on previous threads here vary greatly. If the majority
of the commodity out there is not included in the pop reports, what conclusions
can anyone draw from the data?<<

Here's the reality of it. You are dealing with a pretty significant sample size
of front/back graded cards. I will leave it to you to supply the approximate
pct of cards that are ungraded vs graded but it is pretty certain that you
have at least a useable figure now to work from. Any statistician will tell
you that you will not have that much variance if they were all graded due
to the already large sample that exists. Consider also that the more valuable
a card is perceived, the more likely it is to be graded. You could reasonably
argue that a greater percentage of the existing Sweet Caporal and Piedmonts
are ungraded than are the tougher backs. Most would get a battered Lenox
backed card graded before they would a similar shape Piedmont. A properly
constructed spreadsheet that allowed for the ungraded cards (which is not
hard to do) would show just how out of kilter the prices were IF you were
solely using scarcity of the back as the multiplier.

Either the common backs are over-priced or the tougher backs are
under-priced. It has to be one or the other if you go strictly off of
scarcity. I'm not saying you should price the cards that way. I'm saying
when it comes strictly to the backs and their varying availability that
the scale is off. In some instances way off.