T207 back question ?

[RCMcKenzie]

I "collect" these and I see them about as often as T206 Carolina Brights. I have about 8 or 9 of them. There is a collector on here who has scores of them, but I'd say they are very tough. Much tougher than finding a T206 Hindu back. They usually go pretty cheap compared to any T206's.

edit to add...I think I picked up the Chance in a small group, so I'm up to around 12-13..Happy collecting...

[timn1]

Believe me, I wish I was wrong because I have a lot more Naps than Carolina Brights.

But the reason you will see Hindus a lot more often than Naps is that there are roughly 20 times as many T206s in circulation as there are T207s. In terms of proportion, it's a different story.

As I said originally, Naps may be somewhere between Hindu and CBs, but I would say closer to the Hindu. The fact that you know a collector with "scores" of Naps is indicative in itself. How many people own scores of CBs?

Cheers,
Tim

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

I "collect" these and I see them about as often as T206 Carolina Brights. I have about 8 or 9 of them. There is a collector on here who has scores of them, but I'd say they are very tough. Much tougher than finding a T206 Hindu back. They usually go pretty cheap compared to any T206's.

edit to add...I think I picked up the Chance in a small group, so I'm up to around 12-13..Happy collecting...

[RCMcKenzie]

Tim, I know you are an expert on T207 and I am not. My evidence is anecdotal from collecting the Nap cards only. For example there are 11 T206 Elmer Flicks with a Hindu back on the psa pop report. I do not think psa charts T207 Napoleon backs, but I would be surprised to learn that there are 11 T207 Chance Napoleons in PSA holders.

[dabbuu]

He's saying it is relative to pop. So for example if there are 10,000 Flick T206s and 1,000 T207 Chances then the % of cards with that respective back is roughly the same.

I see the other side as well, which is why I said the rarity is equivalent to Uzits. If there is only one known example of a card and it therefore only has one back then the odds of getting that back on that card are 100%, so easier to find than a T206 Piedmont

[RCMcKenzie]

Originally Posted by dabbuu

He's saying it is relative to pop. So for example if there are 10,000 Flick T206s and 1,000 T207 Chances then the % of cards with that respective back is roughly the same.

I see the other side as well, which is why I said the rarity is equivalent to Uzits. If there is only one known example of a card and it therefore only has one back then the odds of getting that back on that card are 100%, so easier to find than a T206 Piedmont

I was an English major. I was told there would be no math. ha-ha. Anyway, I will stand by..."they are pretty tough if you are looking for a specific player with a Napoleon back." Heck, any t207 is tough compared to finding any T206.

[Luke]

When Gary asked me I said in terms of proportions, Napoleons feel like AB460 (minus the 12 easy ones). Which is just one notch below Carolina Brights in my opinion.

The correct answer really depends on what ratio of T206 to T207 we use. If it's 20:1 we're going to get a different answer than if it's 10:1.

The difference in price makes it a little tough to compare as well. I have around 40 Napoleon backs, and a big reason for that is I can afford them when I find one for sale. If I'd had the money, would I have been able to buy 400 or 800 Carolina Brights backs in the same time period that I've been buying Napoleons? I'd guess probably not. In that same time period I have probably owned 30 CB backs, the limiting factor being money.

So, I'm leaning more toward Hindu as a decent comparison after thinking about it a little more.

[dabbuu]

What would be the ratio for T206 to T207? 100:1?

[timn1]

Luke's comments make a lot of sense to me - I too have bought Naps on occasion just because I could afford to.

The ratio of T206/T207 is a fascinating question also. As of a few months ago, when I added the (PSA/SGC only) pop reports up (all backs), I got these figures, FWIW:

total T206s graded: 320754
T207s: 16004

That's a 20:1 ratio in terms of raw numbers of cards. In terms of copies per card, it's roughly 7:65/1

T206: 612.1 (320754/524)
T207: 80.0 (16004/200)

These types of computations will always be approximate, since the pop numbers are constantly changing, and you can reasonably debate what the divisors should be: (522? 524? 523? 525? etc etc.). (In determining the divisor I would tend to count all variations within a single pose as one card.)

Then there are the uncertainties about whether a given set is for some reason more or less likely to be graded than another. I would assume that GENERALLY SPEAKING, the smaller the set, the larger proportion will be graded, since not that many set collectors are going to want to pay to get 500 cards graded, compared to sets of 30 or 50 cards. But with 524 versus 200, it's harder to estimate... And many other factors, such as the unique and enormous popularity of 6s, may impact this.

Tim

Originally Posted by Luke

When Gary asked me I said in terms of proportions, Napoleons feel like AB460 (minus the 12 easy ones). Which is just one notch below Carolina Brights in my opinion.

The correct answer really depends on what ratio of T206 to T207 we use. If it's 20:1 we're going to get a different answer than if it's 10:1.

The difference in price makes it a little tough to compare as well. I have around 40 Napoleon backs, and a big reason for that is I can afford them when I find one for sale. If I'd had the money, would I have been able to buy 400 or 800 Carolina Brights backs in the same time period that I've been buying Napoleons? I'd guess probably not. In that same time period I have probably owned 30 CB backs, the limiting factor being money.

So, I'm leaning more toward Hindu as a decent comparison after thinking about it a little more.

[RCMcKenzie]

Originally Posted by timn1

How many people own scores of CBs?

There is a guy on here with what looks like scores of them. He has posted scans before. I haven't seen him post in quite awhile. Anyway, nice discussion.