New York Times Leaf Article

[Brent G.]

Originally Posted by conor912

I’ll admit, I’ve never totally understood this phenomenon. I would take Jackie‘s ‘52 or 55T over his Leaf card any day of the week.

Let’s be honest — the Leaf photo/image is absolutely hideous.

[Snowman]

The surviving pop counts of 1948/49 Leaf Short Prints is likely somewhere between 200-250 total copies of each card. Each SP was printed on the same 7x7 sheets, so the original pop counts were identical for all SPs.

The PSA pop counts for most SPs range from about 90 to 110 each. But those aren't graded often enough to get an idea of the true total population obviously. With the Paige being worth $20k+ even in low grade, nearly all copies have been graded at least once, with many of them having been graded multiple times. Are there still a handful of raw copies sitting in someone's attic that have never been graded? Sure, of course. But there probably aren't dozens of them floating around unaccounted for. The combined PSA/SGC/BVG pop counts for the Paige is currently 279 (193 PSA, 74 SGC, 12 BVG). It's safe to assume that each of the 12 BVG copies was sent to both PSA and SGC before being sent to BVG, so we can safely remove at least 24 from that pop report. Minus however many of the remaining PSA & SGC copies that were also cracked and resubmitted. Far more have been cracked and resubmitted than raw copies exist in Grandpa's attic today without question though. I would estimate that the true total remaining pop report today for the Paige is somewhere between 200 to 250 copies. And the remaining pop report for the other short prints is likely slightly less due to them being tossed in the trash at higher rates than the HOFers over the years.

The data suggests that there is approximately a 10 to 1 ratio for the full print run cards to the short printed cards. See counts below.

Notable combined PSA/SGC/BVG pop counts from the set:

Short Prints:
Satchel Paige 279 (193 PSA)
Bob Feller 199 (156 PSA)
George Kell 148 (111 PSA)
Dom DiMaggio 171 (124 PSA)
Larry Doby 215 (162 PSA)

Non-SPs
Ted Williams 2202 (1471 PSA)
Babe Ruth 2328 (1595 PSA)
Joe DiMaggio 2246 (1501 PSA)
Jackie Robinson 2676 (1849 PSA)
Stan Musial 1968 (1339 PSA)

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I would argue there are a LOT more ungraded copies than people think. We've graded two Paige cards from original owner collections in 5 years and we're pretty small potatoes.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I would argue there are a LOT more ungraded copies than people think. We've graded two Paige cards from original owner collections in 5 years and we're pretty small potatoes.

I would argue that getting two raw Paiges to grade graduates to you at least medium potatoes land.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I would argue that getting two raw Paiges to grade graduates to you at least medium potatoes land.

LOL so I got that going for me, which is nice.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

LOL so I got that going for me, which is nice.

Time to put this testimonial on your marketing materials. “Certified medium potatoes!”

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by raulus

Time to put this testimonial on your marketing materials. “Certified medium potatoes!”

I actually laughed out loud.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I would argue there are a LOT more ungraded copies than people think.

I agree. I believe the number of ungraded cards in private collections still dwarves the number of graded specimens.

Originally Posted by Snowman

Notable combined PSA/SGC/BVG pop counts from the set:

Short Prints:
Satchel Paige 279 (193 PSA)
Bob Feller 199 (156 PSA)
George Kell 148 (111 PSA)
Dom DiMaggio 171 (124 PSA)
Larry Doby 215 (162 PSA)

Non-SPs
Ted Williams 2202 (1471 PSA)
Babe Ruth 2328 (1595 PSA)
Joe DiMaggio 2246 (1501 PSA)
Jackie Robinson 2676 (1849 PSA)
Stan Musial 1968 (1339 PSA)

Actually, could you provide comparative numbers for the topps 1952 Mickey Mantle card to put the above figures into perspective?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

I agree. I believe the number of ungraded cards in private collections still dwarves the number of graded specimens.

Sure, for something like 1962 Topps Sandy Koufax, that's obviously true. But it's certainly not true for T206 Eddie Plank or even 1948 Leaf Jackie Robinson.

The percentage of graded vs ungraded copies of any particular card is largely a function of its value. The number of ungraded T206 Wagners still floating around is likely very close to zero these days. Perhaps there are one or three yet to be discovered, but the likelihood that there are dozens of them sitting around in attics is almost certainly zero.

There are still some collectors out there who, as a point of pride or preference, like to keep their prized cards like 52 Mantles and 48 Leaf Paiges raw, but there aren't very many of them left in terms of percentage of the population. And every time those cards come to market, they still get graded (or regraded). And any time you have a vintage card that is so valuable that it must be graded regardless of condition in order for it to be transactable on the market for anything other than pennies on the dollar of its true value, you can be pretty sure that the pop reports for that card reflect something close to it's true population, if not slightly exaggerating it due to resubmissions (which are MUCH higher than most people here realize). So this would work for something like estimating the true population for 52 Mantles, but definitely not for estimating the 53 Mantle population (there are other sampling techniques we could use to estimate that, but that's another discussion and one I'd prefer not to get into here).

And while yes, I agree with those who say there are still plenty of 52 Mantles out there to be graded, the reality is that those numbers are dwarfed by the number of copies that are/were cracked and resubmitted.

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Actually, could you provide comparative numbers for the topps 1952 Mickey Mantle card to put the above figures into perspective?

1952 Topps Mickey Mantle = 2863 total pop (2040 PSA, 673 SGC, 147 BVG, 3 CGC)

The 52 Topps Mantle likely has a very similar print run as the 48 Leaf Jackie Robinson. Maybe 10% or so higher at most.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Sure, for something like 1962 Topps Sandy Koufax, that's obviously true. But it's certainly not true for T206 Eddie Plank or even 1948 Leaf Jackie Robinson.

The percentage of graded vs ungraded copies of any particular card is largely a function of its value. The number of ungraded T206 Wagners still floating around is likely very close to zero these days. Perhaps there are one or three yet to be discovered, but the likelihood that there are dozens of them sitting around in attics is almost certainly zero.

There are still some collectors out there who, as a point of pride or preference, like to keep their prized cards like 52 Mantles and 48 Leaf Paiges raw, but there aren't very many of them left in terms of percentage of the population. And every time those cards come to market, they still get graded (or regraded). And any time you have a vintage card that is so valuable that it must be graded regardless of condition in order for it to be transactable on the market for anything other than pennies on the dollar of its true value, you can be pretty sure that the pop reports for that card reflect something close to it's true population, if not slightly exaggerating it due to resubmissions (which are MUCH higher than most people here realize). So this would work for something like estimating the true population for 52 Mantles, but definitely not for estimating the 53 Mantle population (there are other sampling techniques we could use to estimate that, but that's another discussion and one I'd prefer not to get into here).

And while yes, I agree with those who say there are still plenty of 52 Mantles out there to be graded, the reality is that those numbers are dwarfed by the number of copies that are/were cracked and resubmitted.



1952 Topps Mickey Mantle = 2863 total pop (2040 PSA, 673 SGC, 147 BVG, 3 CGC)

The 52 Topps Mantle likely has a very similar print run as the 48 Leaf Jackie Robinson. Maybe 10% or so higher at most.

After three and a half decades of grading, IMO this romantic notion of countless pristine raw collections in the hands of mostly unknown old timers is largely a myth.

[Pat R]

All of the factual evidence that I've seen shows the short print distribution in states that border Canada west of Pennsylvania.

I have posted this ad before from a May 12 1949 Spokane Washington newspaper. The ad states 6 cards in a pack and that's how many cards were in the packs in the Rosen short print find from Michigan all of the evidence on the first series is 5 cards in a pack.

Leaf Baseball Spokane_Chronicle_Thu__May_12__1949_.jpg

[tjisonline]

My guess..

Taking all the crack and resubs into account, more likely the true number of graded 1952T Mick's are closer to the number of 52T Jackie graded (1968) than the current 2862. …and the true number of 1952 T jackie cards graded are prob closer to Bobby Thompson's 1175 than 1968 (as his card isn’t being cracked much).

Originally Posted by Snowman

Sure, for something like 1962 Topps Sandy Koufax, that's obviously true. But it's certainly not true for T206 Eddie Plank or even 1948 Leaf Jackie Robinson.

The percentage of graded vs ungraded copies of any particular card is largely a function of its value.

And while yes, I agree with those who say there are still plenty of 52 Mantles out there to be graded, the reality is that those numbers are dwarfed by the number of copies that are/were cracked and resubmitted.



1952 Topps Mickey Mantle = 2863 total pop (2040 PSA, 673 SGC, 147 BVG, 3 CGC)

The 52 Topps Mantle likely has a very similar print run as the 48 Leaf Jackie Robinson. Maybe 10% or so higher at most.

[yanks87]

Originally Posted by Snowman

The surviving pop counts of 1948/49 Leaf Short Prints is likely somewhere between 200-250 total copies of each card. Each SP was printed on the same 7x7 sheets, so the original pop counts were identical for all SPs.

The PSA pop counts for most SPs range from about 90 to 110 each. But those aren't graded often enough to get an idea of the true total population obviously. With the Paige being worth $20k+ even in low grade, nearly all copies have been graded at least once, with many of them having been graded multiple times. Are there still a handful of raw copies sitting in someone's attic that have never been graded? Sure, of course. But there probably aren't dozens of them floating around unaccounted for. The combined PSA/SGC/BVG pop counts for the Paige is currently 279 (193 PSA, 74 SGC, 12 BVG). It's safe to assume that each of the 12 BVG copies was sent to both PSA and SGC before being sent to BVG, so we can safely remove at least 24 from that pop report. Minus however many of the remaining PSA & SGC copies that were also cracked and resubmitted. Far more have been cracked and resubmitted than raw copies exist in Grandpa's attic today without question though. I would estimate that the true total remaining pop report today for the Paige is somewhere between 200 to 250 copies. And the remaining pop report for the other short prints is likely slightly less due to them being tossed in the trash at higher rates than the HOFers over the years.

The data suggests that there is approximately a 10 to 1 ratio for the full print run cards to the short printed cards. See counts below.

Notable combined PSA/SGC/BVG pop counts from the set:

Short Prints:
Satchel Paige 279 (193 PSA)
Bob Feller 199 (156 PSA)
George Kell 148 (111 PSA)
Dom DiMaggio 171 (124 PSA)
Larry Doby 215 (162 PSA)

Non-SPs
Ted Williams 2202 (1471 PSA)
Babe Ruth 2328 (1595 PSA)
Joe DiMaggio 2246 (1501 PSA)
Jackie Robinson 2676 (1849 PSA)
Stan Musial 1968 (1339 PSA)

This is great data to have. I geeked out WAY too much on this. Now if I can get you to “run the numbers” on the Kent Peterson variation, we can have an idea of how rare the plate variation second printings are.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by yanks87

This is great data to have. I geeked out WAY too much on this. Now if I can get you to “run the numbers” on the Kent Peterson variation, we can have an idea of how rare the plate variation second printings are.

Kent Peterson wasn't short printed, so his print runs should be in line with the other non-sp cards above with ~2500 +/- total in circulation today. But the ratios of Red Cap to Black Cap variations that we see in the pop reports should be fairly close to the true ratios. We could also sample Cliff Aberson and pool their ratios to get a more accurate estimate, assuming both variations were created together on the second print run.

Kent Peterson Black Cap = 246 (62.4%)
Kent Peterson Red Cap = 148 (37.6%)

Cliff Aberson Full Sleeves = 249 (61.3%)
Cliff Aberson Short Sleeves = 157 (38.7%)

That gives us ~62%, or ~1550 out of ~2500, Black Cap Petersons and 38%, or ~950 out of ~2500 Red Cap Petersons.

[yanks87]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Kent Peterson wasn't short printed, so his print runs should be in line with the other non-sp cards above with ~2500 +/- total in circulation today. But the ratios of Red Cap to Black Cap variations that we see in the pop reports should be fairly close to the true ratios. We could also sample Cliff Aberson and pool their ratios to get a more accurate estimate, assuming both variations were created together on the second print run.

Kent Peterson Black Cap = 246 (62.4%)
Kent Peterson Red Cap = 148 (37.6%)

Cliff Aberson Full Sleeves = 249 (61.3%)
Cliff Aberson Short Sleeves = 157 (38.7%)

That gives us ~62%, or ~1550 out of ~2500, Black Cap Petersons and 38%, or ~950 out of ~2500 Red Cap Petersons.

100% right, Peterson was not short printed, but, that variation represents a 2nd printing of the first run of cards that had changes made to the printing plates making them true variations. I have side by side comparisons in my book but essentially the late printing of the main 49 card have both subtractions and additions to the printing plates which create a variant version of those non short printed cards. For those who run down the rabbit hole, like I did, this variation would equate to higher value on a lower population of variant cards. SO, a blue hat DiMaggio should be worth more than a black hat, same for a red hat Musial or a blue hat Jackie. But that is probably an argument for another thread! Thanks for the numbers!

[yanks87]

Originally Posted by yanks87

100% right, Peterson was not short printed, but, that variation represents a 2nd printing of the first run of cards that had changes made to the printing plates making them true variations. I have side by side comparisons in my book but essentially the late printing of the main 49 card have both subtractions and additions to the printing plates which create a variant version of those non short printed cards. For those who run down the rabbit hole, like I did, this variation would equate to higher value on a lower population of variant cards. SO, a blue hat DiMaggio should be worth more than a black hat, same for a red hat Musial or a blue hat Jackie. But that is probably an argument for another thread! Thanks for the numbers!

34/49 of the main run of cards had some change made to the printing plate.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Brent G.

Let’s be honest — the Leaf photo/image is absolutely hideous.

Graig Kreindler's version of it is 10000x as good.

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by Brent G.

Let’s be honest — the Leaf photo/image is absolutely hideous.

The set just screams Andy Warhol and I love it !! But the Paige card is fugly !! What the hell was Leaf thinking choosing this image below to make his card ?? The Bowman blows it outta' the water !!

[Brent G.]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

The set just screams Andy Warhol and I love it !! But the Paige card is fugly !! What the hell was Leaf thinking choosing this image below to make his card ?? The Bowman blows it outta' the water !!

Yeah pretty sure the subject shouldn’t have their eyes closed, and to me, the shading on the Jackie makes him look deformed.