Diamond Stars release schedule...maybe!

[SAllen2556]

Fun stuff - enjoyed the article. It backs my theory that the first 24 cards are rarely found in excellent condition or better and should be valued much higher than the supposedly rare "blue backs" of 1936. A 1934 version of Dick Bartell in PSA 6 is way rarer than a 1936 version, yet the "blue back" is typically considered rarer, and priced higher, than the "green back".

I've also noticed how frequently PSA mis-labels the cards. They tag the cards with a specific year like "1934 Diamond Stars" but then the back will be a 1935 version. A way too large percentage of PSA Diamond Stars on ebay are mis-labeled. SGC calls it "1934-36 Diamond Stars" then below that they label the specific year - which is often incorrect.

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

Fun stuff - enjoyed the article. It backs my theory that the first 24 cards are rarely found in excellent condition or better and should be valued much higher than the supposedly rare "blue backs" of 1936. A 1934 version of Dick Bartell in PSA 6 is way rarer than a 1936 version, yet the "blue back" is typically considered rarer, and priced higher, than the "green back".

I've also noticed how frequently PSA mis-labels the cards. They tag the cards with a specific year like "1934 Diamond Stars" but then the back will be a 1935 version. A way too large percentage of PSA Diamond Stars on ebay are mis-labeled. SGC calls it "1934-36 Diamond Stars" then below that they label the specific year - which is often incorrect.

I agree on the relative scarcity. And DEFINITELY with regards to the classification and grading by PSA. For example, there are cards from the 1935 release only where PSA has labeled a small percentage as 1936. There is also the case of Lew Fonseca where PSA has graded nearly all of his 1935 cards as 1934 (age 35). For the most part I just rolled with the PSA pops for 1935 but I did have to add in those Fonseca cards for the data to be sensible.

If all the cards were just labeled 1934-36 it wouldn't bother me as much as the current case where a year is specified but may be incorrect.

[Mutton Chop Yaz]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

I agree on the relative scarcity. And DEFINITELY with regards to the classification and grading by PSA. For example, there are cards from the 1935 release only where PSA has labeled a small percentage as 1936. There is also the case of Lew Fonseca where PSA has graded nearly all of his 1935 cards as 1934 (age 35). For the most part I just rolled with the PSA pops for 1935 but I did have to add in those Fonseca cards for the data to be sensible.

If all the cards were just labeled 1934-36 it wouldn't bother me as much as the current case where a year is specified but may be incorrect.

I've run into a similar issue with my Dixie Walker. It's very clearly the 1936 because the back is blue, but because it has no stats and the copyright says 1934, SGC kept labeling it 1934.

Conversely, my 1934 Fonseca is labeled correctly, but probably for the wrong reasons.

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by Mutton Chop Yaz

I've run into a similar issue with my Dixie Walker. It's very clearly the 1936 because the back is blue, but because it has no stats and the copyright says 1934, SGC kept labeling it 1934.

Conversely, my 1934 Fonseca is labeled correctly, but probably for the wrong reasons.

Yep, the PSA pop report for 1936 Dixie Walker makes it evident that they whiffed more than they hit on getting that card right. My brand new article on the 1936 release spills some ink over that point. https://sabrbaseballcards.blog/2021/...stars-release/

[Mutton Chop Yaz]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

Yep, the PSA pop report for 1936 Dixie Walker makes it evident that they whiffed more than they hit on getting that card right. My brand new article on the 1936 release spills some ink over that point. https://sabrbaseballcards.blog/2021/...stars-release/

Very cool, and great analysis. Thank you!