1952 Topps Baseball - Perspectives

[Avardan]

Awesome responses folks! I expected to arouse some very strong comments and I was not disappointed!

So, here's my take. We have in this particular Topps distribution a lot of assumption and predisposition to observations that were made long ago (most specifically The Find by Al Rosen). When he tallied up the contents of the case, the COUNT(1) of distribution was interesting...some had double the numbers!

But my friends, ONLY one case? And we base the entire "rarity" on this! I submit that PSA/SGC numbers are more representative and concrete.

Here's a question: what if the case contents varied by region? Perhaps Mr. Rosen was only looking at part of the puzzle. As good analysts, we should strive to eliminate region as an independent variable.

Another Q: If the first three series 6 cards were "double printed", wouldn't it be fair to accept that besides 311, 312, 313, there might have been others? Say 314, 315 that would complete the "double printed" row, just like in Series 1? I daresay that the printing sheets are detrimental to this analysis.

But alas, I was only able to find two examples for Series 6 online. Perhaps if someone in this community had additional - I postulate there were 8 different sheets for Series 6. Also, if you have pictures of any Series 3 and 4 better analyses could be conducted.

I completely agree with sentiment though, finding Series 6 cards is difficult. Same with Series 5 - in my collection (sample size one lol) I have 25 Series 5 and ... 26 Series 6.

So, with theories that have persisted for so long, I expect that there will be mass resistance to any other theory (even if backed by data) that calls them into question, and perhaps worthy of a re-look.

And to my fellow collector who doubts my data analysis skills/experience, I doubt them as well. I've been in the business several years in determining ROI for online marketing and have lots to learn still, but this is (honestly) a very simple distribution analysis and I didn't get into crazy detail.

The bottom line is this: Is our long-held theory backed by actual numbers like my discussion? An honest answer may be difficult...

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Avardan

Awesome responses folks! I expected to arouse some very strong comments and I was not disappointed!

So, here's my take. We have in this particular Topps distribution a lot of assumption and predisposition to observations that were made long ago (most specifically The Find by Al Rosen). When he tallied up the contents of the case, the COUNT(1) of distribution was interesting...some had double the numbers!

But my friends, ONLY one case? And we base the entire "rarity" on this! I submit that PSA/SGC numbers are more representative and concrete.

Here's a question: what if the case contents varied by region? Perhaps Mr. Rosen was only looking at part of the puzzle. As good analysts, we should strive to eliminate region as an independent variable.

Another Q: If the first three series 6 cards were "double printed", wouldn't it be fair to accept that besides 311, 312, 313, there might have been others? Say 314, 315 that would complete the "double printed" row, just like in Series 1? I daresay that the printing sheets are detrimental to this analysis.

But alas, I was only able to find two examples for Series 6 online. Perhaps if someone in this community had additional - I postulate there were 8 different sheets for Series 6. Also, if you have pictures of any Series 3 and 4 better analyses could be conducted.

I completely agree with sentiment though, finding Series 6 cards is difficult. Same with Series 5 - in my collection (sample size one lol) I have 25 Series 5 and ... 26 Series 6.

So, with theories that have persisted for so long, I expect that there will be mass resistance to any other theory (even if backed by data) that calls them into question, and perhaps worthy of a re-look.

And to my fellow collector who doubts my data analysis skills/experience, I doubt them as well. I've been in the business several years in determining ROI for online marketing and have lots to learn still, but this is (honestly) a very simple distribution analysis and I didn't get into crazy detail.

The bottom line is this: Is our long-held theory backed by actual numbers like my discussion? An honest answer may be difficult...

You leave completely unaddressed the actual issue raised - your obviously false assumption that the PSA pop report is an unbiased and nearly complete sample. Instead you choose to argue people won’t listen to a new theory, presumably because that’s a lot easier than dealing with the actual glaring logic problem. I have debunked hobby lore numerous times, what the hobby says is often wrong. You prove this via actual research however, not pretending all cards are graded equally. Data analysis that ignores the ignores the nature of the dataset is not useful data analysis, it’s fiction. The issue isn’t ‘mass resistance’ to your genius groundbreaking work, it’s that it’s built on a series of blatantly obvious false assumptions.

There were 8 different sheet layouts for series 6? Based on what? It would be a lot of extra work to accomplish absolutely nothing. It does not make sense that 314-315 are DP’d like 311-313, how are you going to fit 102 cards on a Topps sheet? This is ridiculous and groundless, to put it lightly. You can believe whatever you want, but nobody else is going to buy into this fantasy when you’ve just completely made it up.

[ALR-bishop]

Remember the instruction in post 1, Greg....go easy

[G1911]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Remember the instruction in post 1, Greg....go easy

That was easy

[swarmee]

One of the other reasons we know what the double prints are is due to minor discrepancies in the image/printing plate from the first card on a sheet to the second. With how studied the 1952 set has been, we would know of many more copies with laces going different directions, missing pixels, etc if there were more.

Data analysis in a vacuum will not be accepted unless it is backed up with primary and secondary sources.

[Zach Wheat]

Good job Perry, interesting post and ensuing discussion.

The pop count for certain cards are slightly skewed by a number of factors. One collector recently put back into circulation, a number of cards that were hand cut in the 1980s from sheets. About 30 cards were graded as hand cut but several hundred cards that appeared to be NrMnt were sold raw by a popular seller on eBay. I was told by the original source of the cards that he had several hundred cards that were sold.

This makes me wonder if the same thing happened to the mid-series gray backs (#131-190) where you frequently see some cards, but rarely see others. You would think they were all printed in equal quantity - but that does not appear to be the case.

[Republicaninmass]

The black and red bavknwere printed separately, just just throw one black series out the window!

For high numbers, you couldn't subtract the low grade ones people have submitted since they are valueble in grades 1-3, as the Rosen find skewed the pop to have more higher grade high series.


No easy way to do it

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

This makes me wonder if the same thing happened to the mid-series gray backs (#131-190) where you frequently see some cards, but rarely see others. You would think they were all printed in equal quantity - but that does not appear to be the case.

Per a previous thread, Post 42 makes the suggestion that the 3rd series sheet was 10x10 layout with #131-170 double-printed on the sheet, while #171-190 rows were single-printed.
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=128228

Looking at the 1952 Topps Pop Report, you would likely see lower average numbers of the cards graded in 171-190 (excepting the HOF/star cards). I would also expect to see a lower average grade for those cards, because people need any condition to complete the set, but will only send better conditioned cards for those are plentiful.

https://www.psacard.com/pop/baseball...52/topps/49722

What's with the #180 Charley Maxwell card? 940 or so graded, in nearly any condition. Just because he's a Red Sox player? Or was this considered a SP somewhere down the line which led to some mystique about the card?

Here's my counts by theoretical single-prints and double-prints.

131-170	Count	660.2	Grade	5.924067314	Stars:	House		

171-190	Count	604.55	Grade	5.798411596	Stars: 	Reiser	B Martin	Maxwell

Seems to be backed up by the numbers. Lower average count, lower average grade (although I left the stars in the averages). Billy Martin has 2 times the number of cards graded otherwise in the 171-190 range.

Even though if that sheet layout is correct, the cards in the middle rows of the sheet are the double-prints, giving them a better shot at being centered.