There are fewer high grade 150 series T206s than from other series

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

I believe that of my T206 cards, that more of my worn, round corner, maybe a bit of surface wear (not from a scratch or a fold, but from constant rubbing) that most of my T206s that fit that description are series 150 cards, and that the least of them are 460 cards.

I understand that I may well have more 150s than 460s, but that aside I wonder if the 150 series cards, on average, show more wear. My thinking is that it would be like my old 1967 Topps cards. Those from the first and second series usually were worn a bit, maybe had a rubberband mark in the center of the edges... and the cards from the final series or two just didn't get that much wear. Then they all went into a box... and I waited to chase 1968 cards. I figure kids carried the 150 series cards around much longer than they did the 460 cards...

A way this might be reflected is to look at population reports to see if there is a slight skew toward higher grades for the later series cards. And likewise, a 7 or an 8 from series 150 would be found less often than a 7 or 8 from series 350 or 460.

If so, then Ex-Mt examples of some series 150 HOFer would be less plentiful than an Ex-Mt example of a series 350 or 460 card of the same HOFer.

Any thoughts on this??

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

When the first series of 150 came out, they were a novelty and were handled by many people. By the time the 460 series arrived, some of the novelty wore off and they were put aside, particularly poses that had been seen before. Just a guess, no more than that.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scot Reader

Frank,
I have always thought this, that is, a higher percentage of the surviving 150 series cards are in lesser condition than the 350 and 460 seies cards. Brown (Cubs on Shirt) and Cobb (Green Portrait) come to mind as 150 series cards that seem to show up more frequently in VG or lower condition than other Hall of Famers from the 350 and 460 series. I also agree with you that this theory could be verified by reference to population reports.
Scot

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

FRANK W

You observation is quite accurate. I can say this after putting together 3 - T206 (near sets)
and currently 90 %, of a 4th set, that the 150 Series cards have always been tougher to find
in Ex or better condition.

While cards in the 350-only and 460-only Series have been consistently found in nicer shape
than the 150 Series cards.

I hope the large number of T206 collectors on this Forum chime in on this Thread....especially
the guys with the Graded T206's.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Judson Hamlin

Looking through my T206's, I would agree. While they aren't graded, there are only three 150's that I would call ExMt: Bell, Dougherty and Leifield. Even allowing for the disparity in numbers, that seems low. Barry's analysis is probably right about the extra handling at the time- I might also suggest that some of the later-produced cards may still have been in stock at Amer. Litho. when the ATC discontinued the series in 1911; and not shipped out to the factories to be inserted into packs.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

FRANK W

Not only are the 1st series (150 Subjects) cards tougher to find in sharp condition....
but, certain colors (blue for example) are pale in the 1st series cards as compared to
the 350 and 460 series cards. The one exception is the 1st series Waddell portrait.
By far the colors are richer in the 350 and 460 series cards.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Hey Ted,

I'll look for that. I'll retrieve the cards and spread them out by series...


I've long thought that the Standard Catalog should reorder their listing a bit... when a player has multiple cards in T206 the cards should be listed chronologically. They are in there descriptively alphabetically, best I can tell. I think the real way they should be listed is first by team, and then alphabetically within the team, and chronologically for players with multiple cards. But listing them that way would make things burdensomely complicated for less advanced collectors. I understand I'm in the minority on that, but sometimes the minority can be right about something.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

I arrange all my cards in the order of their series. And, with the T206 set, the question you have
posted here....condition vs series....is immediately answerable.

I do this with all my sets. Some time ago I was showing my 1933 Goudey set to fellow collector,
who was puzzled as to why 15 Lower# cards were in the the last two pages of my album mixed
in with cards #232 - 240. I told him that Goudey printed & issued their last sheet with that exact
arrangement. It requires some research into each set, and I guess I can credit my engineering
background for having me arrange my cards in this manner.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

I don't understand why all you T206 guys with your higher-grade, Graded cards, aren't responding
to this Thread to either contradict or reinforce Frank's observation and premise ?

It's an observation that most of us older collectors, like Frank and I and a few others on this Forum,
who mainly collect "naked" cards, have had. However, the majority of you are into the Graded stuff.
It would, therefore, be more meaningful here if you could confirm this with your professionally Graded
cards.

Let's see some of your Graded 150 Series T206's and some of your Graded 350 and 460 Series T206's,
so that we can compare.

Let's find out which Series of T206 cards yields the higher graded cards ? ?

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

I am doing some number-crunching, and I will shortly post some meaningful data
on this subject that you will like.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

FRANK W....and interested members.....

The following data is part of a larger survey provided to me by Bill Brown.

I have narrowed down this data, just focusing on the three most available T206 brands. The source for
this survey is strictly SGC graded T206's.

Brand (series)....SGC 60.....SGC 70.....SGC 80

Piedmont 150.........28............6............2
Piedmont 350.........65...........36..........13

Sweet Cap 150/30....4............4............2
Sweet Cap 350/30...17..........10............2

Sovereign 150..........8............7............3
Sovereign 350.........32..........12............7

The 460 Series, on all three of these brands, had across the board lower #s, and that is to be expected
since it is believed that this last Series was produced in lesser quantities than the first two Series.

If any of you guys are curious as to the data on any of the other 10 (or so) T206 brands just email me.

FRANK....from this 1st survey of professionally Graded cards, it certainly looks like your inital observation
is quite correct.

T-Rex TED

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Evanov

I have 81 graded T206 PSA 5 -6 cards. 13 are from the 150 series. Here are some:











Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Two Questions....

1st....While I recognize that your 5 HOFers are from the 150/350 Series, could you please tell us if they have 150
or 350 (Subjects) backs ?

2nd....can you give us a better perspective on all your 81 cards....how do they break down 150 vs 350 Subjects ?

This would be very important to this survey and greatly appreciated, since yours are Ex and ExMt cards.

Thanks,

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Evanov

Ted Z. [1] The five pictured are all 150 backs.

[2] I have 13 cards with 150 backs and 68 with 350 backs.

Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: RayB

Not scientific by any means but a trend none the less.

I have a 50% PSA graded T206 set, mostly low grade (1,2,3's) I have a few 4's and 5's and this is what I found.

5 PSA 5's Series 350 or later
1 PSA 5 Series 150 (McQuillan Ball In Hand)

11 PSA 4's Series 350 or later
2 PSA 4 Series 150 (Bull Durham, Wiltse No Cap)

I also have a couple each of 4's and 5's that are either EPDG or Old Mill.

RayB

[Archive]

Posted By: joe

I only have Detroit players, but here are my 150 series cards. Seems like pretty good grades except a couple.

Cobb green P150 SGC70
Cobb Bat on P150 SGC70
Donovan Portrait P150 SGC60
Killian Pitching P150 SGC30
Mullin Pitching Sov 150 SGC60
Schaeffer Sov 150 SGC40

Joe

Ty Cobb, Spikes flying!

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Thanks for the quick response....just one more question....why such a huge difference (5 to 1 ratio)
of 350 vs 150 cards ? Is it just random selection or are you going after players that happen to be in
the 2nd Series ?
Or are you strictly looking for Ex (or better) cards which according to this survey, at this point, ind-
icates that the 350 Series cards are simply easier to find in better condition ?

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Evanov

It's the latter Ted. I limit myself to the ex - ex mt range. My distribution reinforces the notion that there are indeed fewer 150 series cards available in higher grade.

Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Thank you Frank E for the information on your cards. And Ted, great stuff there!!!

Frank E, had you contemplated the possibility of greater wear on the series 150 cards?

If some of the other, at this moment highly esteemed collectors of graded cards, would add their information to this mix, then I'd feel a bit more confident that the idea is valid.

Thanks


Frank Wakefield

[Archive]

Posted By: Martin Neal

I have only a small example to add, but it seems to follow the general pattern mentioned above.

16 graded EX or better, only two are from the 150 series.
Chase Psa 8
Delehanty (Wash) Psa 6

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

FRANK E
Thanks for your very candid answer.

A random selection of Ex to Ex/Mt T206's with the sampling you have does certainly reinforce
the premise that 150 series cards are indeed tougher to find than 350 series cards with higher
grades.

OK guys, so far only Judson, Frank E, Ray, Martin and Joe have contributed their information.

So, where are all you other guys with all your GRADED T206's ?

I hope you can appreciate that the data Frank W is trying to collect in this Thread can be very
useful to you collectors of Graded cards from the T206 set. In that it provides you an insightful
understanding of various prices of cards in this set, as a function of the Series they are in.

So, how about some more inputs to this study ? ?

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: MVSNYC

Ted- i will look at some of my higher grade cards over the weekend...and report back.

MS

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Most of you know that the majority of Vintage cards in my collection are in their "naked" state.
However, I do have about 40 cards that are Graded....and of them, a dozen are graded Ex or better

So, here is the breakdown of these 12 cards.....

Chance (yellow)......SOV 460......SGC 70

Johnson (portrait)....P 350..........PSA 6

Willis (throwing).......P 350..........GAI 5.5

Chase (dark cap).....SOV 460.......PSA 5

Tannehill (Chi Am)....SOV 460.......PSA 5

Speaker..................SC 350........GAI 5

O'Brien....................CYCLE 350....GAI 5

Mathewson (dk cap)..CYCLE 350....PSA 5

Joe Doyle.................SC 350.........GAI 5

Demmitt (NY Am).......P 350..........SGC 60

Lajoie (portrait).........P 150...........GAI 5

Elberfeld (NY Am).......P 150...........PSA 5

FRANK W

Note the 10 to 2 ratio of 2nd and 3rd Series cards to 1st Series cards. Another example that
reinforces your observation and original premise in this Thread.

The Chance and the Chase were selected for having Sovereign 460 backs, otherwise all the
other cards were selected for the player, with no concern for the Series. Therefore, this is
certainly a random distribution.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

This condition differential seems quite significant to a few of us, but not very many. I think it is quite important, something the guides should pick up on, a premium value should be assigned to the series 150 cards in better condition.

Ted, thanks for chasing down the ratios from the graded cards you have. And thank you to those who have or who are about to share your distributions with us.

A few of you indicated that you'd thought this condition differential might exist... does anyone recall having seen it in print before?

Thanks. Frank.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard H.

I don't know if your survey has already been completed, but I have some data to submit:

I have a T206 set that is about 94% PSA graded. There are 203 P350's and 54 P150's. The breakdown are as follows:


Grade......P350............P150
7..........21 (10.3%)......4 (7.4%)
6..........78 (38.4%).....14 (25.9%)
5..........82 (40.4%).....23 (42.6%)
4..........18 (8.9%)......10 (18.5%)
3...........4 (2.0%).......3 (5.6%)


It would seem that PSA 6 and 7 was easier to find in 350 than in 150. Hope this helps.

Rich

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Thank you Richard! Thank you very much.

Survey is nowhere near completed.

And while those are the numbers I was thinking I'd see, the more we all see them the better validated my suspicion. So I'd like for everyone else with graded T206s to let us know the grade distribution.


Richard, had you suspected that on average the higher grade cards were skewed toward the later series??


Frank.

[Archive]

Posted By: Glenn

This relates to my area of expertise, so I feel an obligation to explain it. The proposed hypothesis is that the average 150 series card is in lower grade than the average 350 (or 350 or 460) series card. You won't be able to test the validity of your hypothesis by surveying individual collectors unless you can assume (and clearly you cannot) that the collectors do not factor the condition of a card into their purchasing decision AND that condition is unrelated to the value of the card. What you need to do is something called a chi-square analysis, and the data that are required as input have to be a representative sample of the total populations of the cards in each condition. The fact that a card's condition correlates with its probability of having been submitted for grading is inconsequential as this should be equally true of cards from 150 and 350 and 460 series. Ideally, we would have the complete population reports by series from all the major graders. The broader range of grades we have the data from, the more Power (technical term) we'll have in conducting our analysis (i.e., the easier it will be for us to determine that our hypothesis is correct, if in fact it is). So far, we have the data Ted provided of the reports from SGC across 3 grades. Give me a few minutes so I can perform the appropriate analysis.

Glenn

[Archive]

Posted By: Glenn

Absolutely nothing there. That might change if we could look at data across the entire range of grades, but I rather doubt it would. From what we have so far the breakdowns for 150 and 350 series by grade are actually even closer than one would expect if there isn't any difference at all in average condition in the overall populations of 150 and 350 cards.

We needed to get a chi-square value of at least 5.99 to say with any confidence that the hypothesis was supported. Our actual chi-square value is 0.30, which is impressively bad evidence. Even if we're completely wrong, sampling error alone would ordinarily yield a higher chi-square value than that. (It's almost like SGC is specifically trying to make the numbers equal for the two series.)

Breakdown of grades by series (from Ted Z's data):

Grade .............. 5 ............ 5.5 ............. 6

Series 150 ........ 40 ............ 17 ............. 7

Series 350 ........ 114............ 58 ............. 22


This has to be compared to

Expected breakdown (rounded to whole numbers for this chart but not in the actual analysis) if the grades are distributed the same for 150 and 350 series:


Grade ............... 5 ........... 5.5 ............ 6

Series 150 ........ 38 ........... 19 ............ 7

Series 350 ........ 116........... 56 ............ 22


The two breakdowns are really astonishingly close to one another. I doubt someone is actually trying to make them even out (why would they?), but we have much better evidence for that than we do that 150 series cards are in worse condition than 350 series cards. Mind you, they actually should be at least a little bit worse if for no reason other than their slightly greater age, but we haven't a shred of evidence in this thread to suggest that they are.

[Archive]

Posted By: Glenn

I didn't notice this previously, but the 150 series cards are actually in slightly higher grade than the 350 series, though the difference isn't remotely close to being statistically significant (and so should be ignored). I'll be happy to analyze the data across a wider range of grades if someone has them, but for now we should treat the series equally. Certainly there shouldn't be a premium placed on high grade 150s compared to 350s.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Glenn, if these collectors focus on only getting high grade cards, but their 150 series cards are generally lower than their 460 series, then I think that IS somewhat validating my idea.


Maybe I should have given the idea to Leon, or posted it anonymously...

[Archive]

Posted By: Rich H.

If it helps the analysis, my purchasing was driven by these following "operational rules" in this order:

1. Filling a hole in my wantlist
2. Highest grade available
3. Price not greater than 150% of SMR
4. Upgrade if conditions 2 and 3 exist

Empirically, I have found that 150 cards were generally harder to find in 6 and 7, but that 5's were plentiful and common. However wthin 5's, i've noticed that there tended to be more brownish discoloration along the borders (maybe from slightly more advanced age and/or more handling?) Can't find any staitstical significance though...

Glenn, could you do the same analysis for the PSA data I gave earlier? There was a slightly broader range of grades available

Thanks,

Rich

[Archive]

Posted By: Glenn

Richard,

I could, but it isn't a representative sample because of violations of the two necessary assumptions I mentioned in my first post, so the conclusions we could draw from the data would not be pertinent to the issue we are trying to resolve.

[Archive]

Posted By: Glenn

Frank,

I don't think there's any reason to have raised the issue differently. I actually think it's a very interesting and perfectly valid question to raise, and I'm glad to have a thread I can finally contribute something to. However, whatever the case may be (whether there is a difference between the two series or not) we can't appropriately resolve the issue through a survey of self-selected participants. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think any other statisticians here would agree with me on that. In any case, I wasn't trying to refute you, I was just trying to evaluate the relevant data in the way I've been trained, so that we could see if your suspicion was correct.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rich H.

Glenn,

Thanks for looking at this statistically. I have taken a little bit of interest in this particular question, and really appreciate your input.

I don't profess to be a statistician, but was wondering if I could pose several questions to you about the analysis. Chi square analysis is usually for non-parametric data (let me know if I am incorrect). Could the data be analyzed via a regression test (assuming that the psa or sgc "grades" can be considered parametric)? Then, 2 groups could be analyzed for statistical significance (i.e. 350 vs 150). Would the student T-test be appropriate here? I won't be insulted for you to tell me that this would be totally BS in this scenario...

Or if the data cannot be considered parametric, could the Mann-Whitney U be utilized?

Rich

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Rich, Glenn,

In 2004 I got to buying some of the Topps Cracker Jack cards. I have a white mini of Al Leiter. It is a 1 of 1. Statistically, it is more rare than the T206 H Wagner card. Still, I'll swap it and $100 for a fair condition Wagner...

I took statistics in college. Had 2 calculus classes. I don't perceive the statistical comments to be of much help toward my question. I think your posts will quell additional posting about the various grades of 150, 350 and 460 cards out there.

What you two have posted reminds me of the Coke / Pepsi taste tests from when I was a kid. Pepsi skewed the test to favor them. Most people prefer a sip of something sweet, Pepsi, and that was what the test allowed. Most folks, when drinking all of a container of a beverage, preferred something not so sweet, like Coke. But it was a "taste" test, not a "complete drink" test.... Golly, I guess Gallup should give up polling, because if they ask someone what they think, that isn't what everyone thinks, so that one fellow's thinking should not be considered... NUTZ.

Simply, I'd like folks to post the grades of their T206s, in bunches of the 3 series. Please don't boo hoo their numbers, let us at least see them.

[Archive]

Posted By: Glenn

Rich,

My understanding is this. You are correct that chi-square analyses are usually for non-parametric data, but the test should be robust to violations of this standard for such data as we're analyzing here. I am treating the data as ordinal level only, thus I opted for chi-square (which technically would be more appropriate for nominal data, but I don't believe this presents a problem -- let me know if you have reason to believe otherwise). Regression and/or Pearson's correlations are problematic because the predictor (series) is not a continuous variable. You could get more Power from a Student's t-test, using series as your grouping variable, but that requires your criterion data (grade) to be interval level (which is a bit of a stretch) or ratio level (which is more than a bit of a stretch).

I believe the Mann-Whitney test could be used, and that may be a very good suggestion. Naturally we could use a larger sample of T206s (like every one that SGC has ever graded).

It may take me a while to respond, but email me if you have any other stats questions.

Glenn

[Archive]

Posted By: Rich H.

Frank,

Not boo hooing anyone. I too am interested in seeing what everyone else has out there. I'm also not trying to detract from what you are trying to do.

I'm just curious if this answer could be looked at from the statistical standpoint as well...

So far, the statistical analysis hasn't said anything significant, only that the tests can't be applied because we can't rely on several assumptions. So, that would actually support the only method left of looking at this issue - the very survey you are trying to conduct.

I apologize if my comments have been a distraction.

Rich

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

I received an email from a collector who listed his 18 - T206's. They are high-end PSA 7 to PSA 8 cards.
I can provide a detailed list tomorrow....here is the bottom line breakdown....

15 - cards are from the 350 Series (4 - PSA 8....11 - PSA 7)

2 - cards from the 150 Series (both PSA 7)

1 - card from the 460-only Series (PSA 7)

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

I don't know where to start responding to your posts here.....let's 1st try this one. You stated....
"However, whatever the case may be (whether there is a difference between the two series or not)
we can't appropriately resolve the issue through a survey of self-selected participants."

What "self-selected participants" ? What are you talking about ? ?

Collectors have randomly offered their data on the Graded T206's and the results so far indicate
that there are available a lot more 2nd and 3rd Series cards for a given high Graded (5 or higher)
than the 1st Series cards.

And, this is consistent with the fact that.....

(1) there are twice as many 350 Subjects cards in the T206 set than 150 Subjects

(2) ATC printed a lot more of the 350 Subjects cards than the 150 Subjects cards

So, we can expect that the 5 to 1 (or greater ratios) of 350 vs 150 cards that we are seeing are so.
All your fancy stat. analysis (with all due respect) does not cut it for me. And, I will tell you why.....
I have put together FOUR (near complete) T206 sets in the past 26 years. In that process, I have
had in my hands and seen with my eyes approx. 15,000 - T206's. From this huge sample I can say
for a fact that I have observed considerably better condition cards with 350 and 460 Subjects
backs than 150 Subjects cards.

Is that a statistically large enough sample for you ?

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Hi Ted,
I agree with you and Frank. The 350 series cards were printed in much larger numbers than the 150, and were much more widely distributed, so it makes sense that more survived in nicer condition.
Be well Brian


PS 15,000 T206's???? I haven't counted, but you might have me beat....

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Yes.....approx. 15,000 T206's....a quick calculation based on the fact that every year since 1981,
I have had or turned over about 500 cards. So, given that number multiplied by 26 years = 13,000.
And, I currently have about 2000 cards between my two sets and my extra stock.

That's it guy....but, it's not quantity that matter's....it's quality, and you really have me beat there.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Hi Ted,
My collection is small time compared to all of your sets, variations and un-cut sheets. Your my collecting hero.... Be well Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Inputs emailed to me from a "reader" of this Forum yielded 96 PSA-6 cards from the 150 Series
in his 522 card set. His set includes 155 cards from this 1st Series and this example so far is
the highest ratio of 150 to 350 cards in this survey.

To date, we have had only 12 respondents to this Thread (10 frequent Net54 posters) and two
"readers".
So, why aren't the Jim Crandell's, and all the other T206 guys with their high-end Graded cards
contributing to this very meaningful survey ? ?

I just don't get it.....guys ?

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Maybe because they don't really collect the T206 white border set, instead they collect high grade graded cards, and it doesn't much matter to them if it is a T206, a Cracker Jack, a T205, or what... So for them, it isn't a question of which series has proportionally fewer high grade cards, they focus on just high grade cards from whatever series.


If that is their strategy, the cards to collect in high grade would be the E90-1s. It seems that they're almost always worn, with rounded corners... I'd think their population reports would show them that there is where the rarity is.

Or maybe I've been unduly offensive to them, so they choose not to reply.

[Archive]

Posted By: MVSNYC

Ted- as discussed/promised, i will get you the 3 backs asap...i had to come down to north carolina for business (hey maybe while i am here i will rummage thru old flea markets to find another wagner, haha)...anyway, i owe you the following info:

PSA 10 Jim Pastorious, piedmont, series?
PSA 9 Mullin, throwing (horizontal), brand, series?
PSA 7 Oldering, fielding, brand, series?

hopefully i will be back before the weekend.

Best-
MS

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

MS,

Please find 3 or 4 Wagners. Ted needs one, I could use one. You keep the best of the 4, slab and sell the next best, I'll take the worst, Ted needs the other.

And thanks for getting us those backs. I think Pastorius isn't in 460, so he'll be something else. Same for Mullin throwing and Oldering fielding. So while they might be in 150, I'm thinking Pastorius and Mullin will be 350 or assorted. Oldering might be a 150, but most likely isn't.

Nice cards!

Frank.

[Archive]

Posted By: MVSNYC

thanks frank...

i am sitting in the airport in greensboro NC, no luck on a new wagner find, darn!

anyway, i will try to verify the pastorius, mullin & oldering this weekend.

be well,
MS

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Hi Michael,
How can you come to GSO and not give me a call.... I live in Winston-Salem, and my office is only 10 min from the airport. Next time LMK and we'll do dinner or lunch. Be well Brian

PS Those security lines at GSO are a little smaller than the ones in NY..

[Archive]

Posted By: MVSNYC

Brian-

sorry, i had no idea that's where you were...i will be down during the week of march 19th, we WILL definitely meet...dinner @ Nobles in High Point? or we can meet in Winston-Salem...

looking forward to it. let's talk prior to that week.

Best-
MS

[Archive]

Posted By: MVSNYC

Ted-

guess what? i pulled the pastorius PSA 10 & mullin PSA 9 out of the vault...they are BOTH piedmont 150 series!


the oldering , fielding PSA 7 is SC 350 series