For 52 T Gray geeks only

[ALR-bishop]

They do look different, thanks Zach

[Zach Wheat]

Bill,

According to G Vrecheck in this link:

http://www.pjdenterprises.com/baseba...pps_print.html

the 3rd series was printed such that the 1st 40 cards (#131-170) were double printed while the remaining 20 cards (#171-190) were single printed. This seems to follow with the commonly accepted mid-series scarcity for gray backs.

Did you notice the same quantity in glossies i.e did they follow this same pattern?

Z

[flkersn]

Great question! The answer appears to be "yes." The ratio of GB/WF to all GB for the first 40 cards is 11.8%. The same ratio for the last 20 cards is 11.2% (well within the accuracy of the data). So I would propose that the white front have a uniform scarcity throughout the 60 cards--about 1 in 9.

But your question took me down a couple of other rabbit holes and kept me up until the wee hours this morning.

I will compose two more responses. The first will cover my take on the distribution of cards with the subset (relative scarcity) and the second will cover relative scarcity of the GBs and GB/WFs when compared to the CBs.

ALERT--52 T GRAY GEEKS ONLY!

Bill

[flkersn]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

Bill,

According to G Vrecheck in this link:

http://www.pjdenterprises.com/baseba...pps_print.html

the 3rd series was printed such that the 1st 40 cards (#131-170) were double printed while the remaining 20 cards (#171-190) were single printed. This seems to follow with the commonly accepted mid-series scarcity for gray backs.

Did you notice the same quantity in glossies i.e did they follow this same pattern?

Z

As promised, here is the second of three notes. The URL you posted posits 200 cards in a print run, with 20 cards quadruple-printed (80) and 40 cards triple printed (120). This would suggest a scarcity ratio of 4:3 or 1.33 between the more scare 40 (unidentified) and the less scare 20 (also unidentified).

Alternatively, about 18 months ago, Patrick proposed the following:

"Here is the layout:

3rd series:
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170
171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180

181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170

Patrick"

This assumes the same 200-card run, but has a different scarcity ratio. Quadruple prints of the first 40 (160) and double prints of the last 20 (40), or a ratio of 2:1.

What do the data say? If you look at the pop report from PSA for CB 3rd series, you get the following average pops:

131-140 483
141-150 489
151-160 487
161-170 492
171-180 467
181-190 390.

The average for 171-180 is probably inflated by about 1000 pop for Martin. If you back out the Martin, you get an average of 410 for those cards.

The data would seem to suggest that there is a clear break in scarcity between the first 40 and the last 20.

The conundrum is that the ratio is about 1.2 between the first forty and the last 20, and not 2.0, as Patrick's scheme would suggest.

I welcome any thoughts.

Bill

[flkersn]

For those who are still interested, here is my third post in response to Zach. The final rabbit hole I explored is the relative scarcity of GBs and GB/WFs compared to CBs.

Comparing the average pop of CB and GB in the PSA pop report reveals the following: 28,179 CBs and 1055 GBs--a ratio of 1 GB for every 27 CBs. I surmise that this is probably conservative; i.e. collectors are more likely to send in a VG GB Kluttz that a VG CB Kluttz, resulting in a relative over-reporting of GBs.

From this point on, you can make you own assumption about the relative over-reporting of GBs.

So I made the assumption that the pops of Billy Martin may be more representative of the printed universe of 3rd Series. That is, collectors MAY BE just as likely to send in a VG CB Martin as a VG GB Martin. (I welcome other thoughts about this assumption.)

Martin CB-959 pop
Martin GB-19 pop

A ratio of about 50:1. One GB for every 50 CBs.

And from my original post, 1 GB/WF for every 9 GBs

So, my tentative hypothesis:

For every 500 3rd series CB, there are 9 GBs, and 1 GB/WF.

That's it. As always, I welcome feedback.

Bill

PS. If you think I am still too conservative, make your own assumption. Are GBs twice as scare as I postulate? Then for every 1000 CBs, there are 9 GBS, and 1 GB/WF.

[Zach Wheat]

Bill,

Interesting. Actually I was wondering if the 131-170 and 171-190 groupings follow the 80%/20% distribution posited by others.

If your data is without bias, your data suggests a distribution of 69% / 31%. Is your data random?

Z

[flkersn]

Zach,

Since you and I seem to be the only ones interested in this, I have PMed a response to your question.

Bill

[irv]

Originally Posted by flkersn

Zach,

Since you and I seem to be the only ones interested in this, I have PMed a response to your question.

Bill

I am also interested so if you don't mind, please keep all your correspondence public.
I know very little about these gray backs, other than what I have read here, since joining back in Jan of 2016, and being a 52 Topps collector, I find this info very interesting.