For 52 T Gray geeks only

[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.

[irv]

Originally Posted by 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.

No offence taken.

I would like to contribute to this thread if I had the knowledge but at this point it's like I am reading from a book gathering as much info as possible.

There was a time or 2 when I thought I may have/own a gray back but that was quickly dismissed, unfortunately.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by irv

No offence taken.

I would like to contribute to this thread if I had the knowledge but at this point it's like I am reading from a book gathering as much info as possible.

There was a time or 2 when I thought I may have/own a gray back but that was quickly dismissed, unfortunately.

We can now further debunk the "Canadian" theory!

Also, the 5th series sps are 280-300, not the last row of 10! Why would the 3rd be different?

[Zach Wheat]

One possible explanation for the difference in print ratios could be related to the initial crude design. It has been documented many times that Cy Berger created this set over his kitchen table, and some half sheets still in existence support this contention. Examples of sheets exist where the borders don't even match up...resulting in notoriously poor centering when the sheets were cut.

Taking this one step further - maybe some of their 3rd sheet mid-series production was never distributed due to poor centering. The only gray backs I seem to find are the ones that are off center 95/5!

Z