Half-baked t206 monster registry idea

[parkerj33]

Ok, I admit up front this is half-baked, but its been baking for awhile in my thoughts so why not start yet another t206 thread and get some input....

We all love Frank's Monster number thread...its beauty is its simplicity for sure. So at the expense i was thinking of ways to better capture a t206 set measurement. We all like to compare and strive, and improve our sets....

I was recently also inspired by both James detailed research thread on back scarcity based on pop counts, as well as Ryan/Sonny's thread showing Sonny's incredible Mississippi monster.

My thought is to have some kind of numeric measurement on the uniqueness or difficulty of a set, which takes into account the back scarcity of a monster set.

maybe we need more granular levels for commons / sps / SL / HOF / rarities

Maybe its a second dimension, with card values and back values multiplied. Just as an example, maybe a common with a piedmont/sc back is x1. But if you have that same common with say an Uzit back, then you've got an x20.


Its not meant to exactly convey $$ Value. Just maybe difficulty. And i am still thinking its totally self-reporting. this is not meant to be official. some measurements would have to be arbitrary.

another potential dimension is the grade....(raw could just be estimated on same 10 pt scale). or maybe grade is just on 3-4 pt scale:
1 = beater (psa 1 ish ).
2 = presentable - could have creases, rounded corners, light stain (1.5->2.5)
3 = no stain, no creases, (3-4 ish)
4 = sharp with no staining (5 and up)
(could be weighted)

like i said its half-baked, but is it worth baking further? any interest?

[53toppscollector]

I'm sure this will come as a surprise to you, but I have thought about this topic as well, lol.

Ultimately I think you need to start with some way to put a "value" on each front/back combination. There are multiple variables that go into that for the front and back

Front:

* how many total copies are available of the card? For a super print, we are talking 1500+ copies graded. for Demmitt/O'Hara STL we are talking less than 300 or so.

* how desirable is the player on the front? HoFs, short prints and rarities would command a higher score, while commons would have a much lower score

Back:

* how scarce is the back overall. We are talking 177,000 Piedmont backs, compared to, say 2400 Cycle 350 backs.

* how scarce is the back relative to other subjects available with that back. Big difference between 3 total copies of an EPDG Leach Bending Over and 56 copies of an EPDG Bresnahan With Bat

I have too many other things eating away my brain to tackle this in any detail, but I think you'd want to strive for simplicity, something that is easy to calculate and maintain, and something easy enough to solicit help from others to turn it into a community project.

My instinct is to say you need to leave condition out of it, because condition is super subjective, and I can see that causing a bit of consternation.

Just thinking roughly, I think you develop a potential scoring system for each card factoring in the front/back

Front: 1-5 points depending on the population of the card. 1 being the lowest score for the cards with the highest population, 5 being cards with the lowest population

Front: 1-5 points for the "prestige" or demand of the player on the front. 5 for HoFs, 1 for commons, 2 for tougher commons (Titus?), 3 for short prints, 4 for very tough short prints, 5 for HoFs

Back: 1-5 points for the brand difficulty...think 5 for Uzit, Broad Leaf, Hindu Red, 4 for Carolina Brights and Lenox, 3 for Hindu Brown, AB 460, Cycle 460, 2 for AB 350, Cycle 350, EPDG, Old Mill, 1 for Piedmont/SC, etc.

Back: 1-5 points for scarcity within the subset. 5 points for a card in the bottom 20% of the population for that card (for example, all PG 1 Old Mills), 4 for the second 20%, 3 for the next 20%, etc.

Then you have a scale where the lowest value cards are worth 4 points, and the top tier, toughest cards would be worth 20 points. You can set your scales/weights however you see fit. Anyway, thats just kind of how I thought about this idea in my head before, but never actually tried to theorize how you'd do it. It would require a lot of work to get it set up, but its doable.

[stutor]

Hi Jim! Thank you for the nice comment. Have you ever visited Scot Reader’s t206insider website? Scot is a pioneer of t206 research and his website has a registry that accommodates PSA and SGC entries. It uses some sort of scale that adds points for grade and back difficulty. I really wish more people would use that site. I started adding mine but haven’t updated it lately. His ebook Inside T206 is a must read...I have quite literally read it a dozen times.

https://oldcardboard.com/t/t206/Insi...al-edition.pdf

http://www.t206insider.com/store/c1/insider#home/

[parkerj33]

Hi Sonny. I have been all over his site and have read his paper multiple times over the last 10 years or so its been available. I did miss however that he had a registry with a formulaic number based on back, condition and subject....so maybe this has been tried, but i would say that it has not particularly caught on. Which might tell us all we need to know about the interest in such a thing.

[stutor]

Agreed. Sadly, it never caught on. The PSA registry is all that really matters at this point. If you guys ever decide to give it a shot, please let me know if I can help.

[Bobbycee]

Originally Posted by stutor

Hi Jim! Thank you for the nice comment. Have you ever visited Scot Reader’s t206insider website? Scot is a pioneer of t206 research and his website has a registry that accommodates PSA and SGC entries. It uses some sort of scale that adds points for grade and back difficulty. I really wish more people would use that site. I started adding mine but haven’t updated it lately. His ebook Inside T206 is a must read...I have quite literally read it a dozen times.

https://oldcardboard.com/t/t206/Insi...al-edition.pdf

http://www.t206insider.com/store/c1/insider#home/

Thanks Sonny for mentioning T206 Insider. Scot's site is outstanding. I have my set listed in there & it's fun to update it periodically. I believe though, it doesn't account for POP status, on the individual cards. That would be a huge lift for Scot to do, I imagine. But, I would encourage any Net 54 user, to check out the site & register their set. The "Price Check" is especially useful.

[parkerj33]

I think scott's site has captured the in-depth way to do it with all factors considered and multiplied together: scarcity, back, and grade, with every front having a nearly-unique scarcity...problems with this approach:

1. requires entry of every single card to come up with a result.
2. requires grade evaluation of every single card
3. submit to a website and then let it calculate formula.

In my mind, these make it great as a "Registry" if people want to take the time to enter every card, but poor as a simple yet slightly more nuanced alternative to the monster number.