For 52 T Gray geeks only

[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.

[ALR-bishop]

We will just have to keep ourselves amused Dale

[irv]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

We will just have to keep ourselves amused Dale

I suppose that's all we can do, Al?

I guess I could look at some of my cards and pretend some are grey.

[flkersn]

Sorry if I offended; I wasn't getting any comments, so I figured there was no interest and I would just answer the one who showed interest. No hidden message.

If my data are representative (a legitimate IF), then conventional wisdom about the print run could be in error. There are two premises in the current model Patrick suggested 18 months ago: 1) the cards are generally in numerical order and not randomly placed on the sheet, and 2) Two 100-card sheets constitute a full cycle, which is then repeated. Over enough data, this should lead to a 2:1 ratio and not the ~1.2 that the data show.

Seems to me premise 1) is probably correct. Looks like the way Topps did it over several years and it makes sense. That leaves premise 2). Perhaps there is a third 100-card sheet as part of one printing unit. This third sheet could over-represent the last 20 cards and adjust the ratio downward from 2:1. Indeed three sheets could have 5 of each number. Since the data do show that there is a fall-off in population for 171-190, something else might be going on.

Also, it is interesting to remember that the 20 lowest pop cards are NOT just the last 20, but also some numbers from the first 40, e.g. #161 Rogovin.

All-in-all, I really don't know the answer, Zach. Maybe the cards are randomly placed on an unknown number of sheets, then repeated.

And feel free to entertain yourselves--might be more productive.