Not sure this is going to be a full fledged post, but it was something I thought was interesting as I am slowly working through my Sweet Cap census, based on a comment Steve B made.
There are a few interesting SweetCap patterns I've noticed before, but here is one in Print Group 2 that I find interesting. There are a batch of cards that seem to be a lot more scarce than the other SweetCaps within the print group, along with 2 more extreme cases.
Lundgren KC has 37 SC 350s at PSA and 22 SC 350s at SGC for a total of 59. Compare that to his P350 (187 at PSA, 137 at SGC)
Knight (Portrait) has 25 SC 350s at PSA and 16 SC 350s at SGC for a total of 41. Knight has 352 combined (PSA+SGC) Piedmonts.
The average number of combined (PSA + SGC) SC 350s for a Print Group 2 subject is 147. The average number of P350s is 388. That ratio is about 2.6:1 Piedmont to SC. For Lundgren, the ratio is 5.5:1 and Knight's is 8.6:1.
This below group of cards are more than 2 standard deviations from the average of a 2.6:1 ratio, Piedmont to SweetCap (the ratio is in the column next to the SweetCap population total). But there doesn't appear to be any real pattern here in the other backs. Their populations just look like outliers. Was there a reason these cards have a lot more Piedmonts than Sweet Caps, or in Tannehill's case, almost the exact same number of Piedmonts and SweetCaps? Lundgren was traded from CHC to KC, so we know why his card is special. What about the rest?
(note, the numbers in the chart below are slightly different for Lundgren and Knight, they haven't been updated in months, but I just got their updated totals from PSA/SGC now for the above paragraphs)
09-01-2022, 04:12 PM
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode