assessing vintage card scarcity

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate 

I just finished reading Tim Newcomb's exhaustive study of T207 in VCBC and I had a thought about evaluating the scarcity of many of the vintage card sets. I have pondered this many times before, and posed the question to Tim.
Imagine hypothetically that a set was issued in 1910 that consisted of 100 different subjects, and that exactly 1000 of each card was produced, no more or less. It's now nearly a hundred years later, and clearly the vast majority have been lost over time. I think we agree that it would be mathematically impossible for the exact number of each of the 100 cards to have survived. In some cases, less than 5 would still exist. In others, perhaps 10-15 survived. Maybe with some 20-30 are still around. It is even theoretically possible that in one or more cases none survived. We could study this set today an analyze it thoroughly to determine which are the rare cards and which are the commons, and try to determine the mysteries of its production. But the fact is, all were issued equally, therefore there is no great secret as to how the set was really produced.
Has anyone else thought of this? And are there any statisticians out there who could estimate the extremes of what could or couldn't survive over the years. Is it possible we are coming up with postulations about scarcity that are therefore incorrect? Opinions are welcome.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

I've done a pretty exhaustive analysis of the issuing habits of the Exhibit Supply Company, at least with respect to its boxing issues, in my book (plug, plug). From what I can glean, ESCO issued its 1921 cards for three years, its 1922 cards for two years and its 1923 cards for one year. It retooled in 1924 and then issued annual series until the Depression reusing the images from prior sets. The boxing issues are stat-backed and copyright dated, which makes conclusive analysis easier.

Here is the kicker: ESCO did not merely run the same sheets of 1921's for 3 years, it selectively added and removed cards from any given sheet as developments in sports warranted it, mostly by altering captions and changing information on the backs. The same can be seen in the PC-backed cards, where there were obvious alterations made to the card fronts (caption changes, background removed). Same is true of the Salutations DiMaggio and Williams--they show up a lot because they were reissued into the 1950's. This generated waves of short prints. Unless the cards fit into one printing sheet, with no duplication, there is no reason to think that identical numbers were printed of each card.

Given our inability to dissect the printing process at this point, I think Tim's "hunter-gatherer" methodology is the only one we can use to assess the population of a particular card type. While it would be great to see a statistical model on the cards, without knowing precisely how they were produced, one could not even begin to generate one. It would be division without a denominator.

Even if you had the production numbers, moreover, you cannot account for kids predilictions. When I was a kid opening packs, Hank Aaron went into a carefully treasured collection, Tommie Aaron went into a junk box for flipping. I wan't too diligent with the contents of the junk box. And checklists, fugetabout it--I'd throw them at things like kung fu throwing stars (really flew great, too; nice heavy Topps cardboard). The same undoubtedly is true of kids way back when. One of the rarest ESCO boxing cards is a statistics only card from 1927-1928. The unfortunate kid who yanked it from a machine 99 times out of 100 must have chucked it. I'd imagine that some dud player is the rarest card in many sets because no one saved him.

[Archive]

Posted By: Marc S.

for star cards/HOFers to survive the years as opposed to "worthless" commons. It always amazes me in my searches for rare back T-206 cards how often I am likely to see a Hall of Famer compared to a common with the same back. I know that they are out there - but the star cards seem to surface and trade much, much more frequently...

ms

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris

I have always wondered the same things. Is it possible that if cards were produced in the same numbers that roughly the same number of each survived? probably not but how do we know which of the cards had the best survival rate? More importantly how many cards are buried in personal collections, never to be sold or traded? I believe there are less common cards out there than stars as people were less likely to save them but people are more likely to sell commons.
I will throw one more question out there, is it at all possible to have a population report for a certain set and have people register their cards? Probably not but wouldn't it be cool if their was someone who could start something like that and put advertisng $'s into it and get people to register their cards over a number of years. It would never be an exact number but it would give you a general idea. It might actually help the value of some cards, and of course hurt the value of some.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Obviously I'm not suggesting all cards were issued equally; we all agree that there were more T206 Abbattichio's issued than there were Planks. And an article like Tim's is extremely useful in helping a new collector determine what he's up against if he tries to put together a complete T207 set today. All I'm saying is there is no way to ascertain how many of each card was issued based on current survival rate. Clearly some players were more popular than others, and clearly some sets were issued in series and there were economic reasons to print more or less of a particular series.

[Archive]

Posted By: david

the problem with performing this type of statistical analysis is that there are too many unknown variables to obtain a meaningful result. For instance, in most cases cards were not printed in the exact same amounts, popular players were often double printed and some cards were held back intentionally(33 lajoie and lindstrom). without having access to printing sheets or records it is impossible to determine scarcity of a single card with respect to other cards in the set. Also, perhaps the biggest variable is the collecting habits of people when the cards were printed, most likely the poplular players were saved and the commons discarded but the rate at which this occurred is impossible to determine. the best way to get an idea of relative scarcity is to take a survey of individual cards. seth at 19thcentury tried this on his site and i have been playing around with the idea of creating a site to expand on it to include individual cards not just a type card from a set.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

Julie - when are you going to add a scan of a hockey player?

Adam and Marc - your thoughts on kids' predilictions for card saving is very interesting. My collecting habits as a child resulted in the opposite: we used to play games with the star cards, in particular, batting paper wads with them and pinning them to walls. So my stars got rough treatment. On the other hand, I went through my '71 set shoebox many years ago and was stunned to find a NM Nolan Ryan. Ryan was no star back then, so I never handled the card! Same thing for a '72 Thurmon Munson.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

1) I had no intention of adding a scan of a hockey player; on only one occasion did I do that --the fdirst scan I ever posted a card, with your help, Scott. It's about my favorite scan.
2) The project is technically impossible (to be exact, not to be useful) at both ends, because the producers did NOT produce exactly the same number of each card and 2) they have been preserved at different rates for different reasons.

3) Given the above facts, it would seem that reasearch from the present end would be more fruitful--what has survived, and in what quantitities? And Tim has provided a very useful study of that for the T207 set. I KNEW there was a reason why every time I turned around, there was that dumb Johnson card...

[Archive]

Posted By: steve k

Interesting thread - reminds me of some of the courses in my 4 years as a finance major at Penn State. Specifically the QBA (Quantitive Business Analysis) courses - if the professor would have used baseball cards instead of widgets in the classroom presentations, I would have been been more attentive - LOL.

I didn't read Tim's study so this could be redundant. Based on the information in this thread, it seems to me that the best way (and possibly only way) to estimate the surviving card populations would be based on average selling prices of the cards. Certainly if comparing two commons and common A sells for an average price of $10 and common B sells for $20, it can be reasonably assumed, all things being equal, that there are twice as many common A's that have survived. Then of course the qualitative factors which have been mentioned are factored in and an estimate can be gotten. A starting point might be a good guestimate of the number of vintage collectors and what they are willing to pay for a specific common card. Strictly just for example, if there are 100,000 collectors who are willing to pay $20 for a certain T206 common in a certain condition and the average selling price is $20, it could be reasonably assumed there are approximately 100,000 surviving cards in that condition. I know this is very basic QBA and this dissertation could be hundreds of pages long and still be inaccurate, but in my opinion some sort of formulation based on card prices would achieve the best estimates. Maybe John Nash should be contacted - LOL.

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

Certain cards within this set are known to be much more difficult to find than others. Whereas, the Boston AL, New York NL, Pittsburg, Philadelphia (both), Washington, Chicago (Both), Cincinnati seem to be fairly easy to find and conversely, the New York AL, St. Louis (both), Boston NL are difficult and the Detroit, Cleveland, Brooklyn are only somewhat difficult. This has been from my own observation collecting them and, as a general rule, has been validated in collecting guides, etc. I have not seen much written on these cards but one would wonder why the obvious spread in such a small group. The most important connection that I have found is they almost perfectly match up with the position in which they finished in the 1912 standings. Considering that they were apparently produced during the 1913 season it would fit that either they produced more of the cards of the better teams (more popular) and less of the bottom dwellers. The other possiblity is that the collectors kept the cards of the better teams while disregarding the poor team's cards. I would tend to think they produced more of the better teams. Any other thoughts??

[Archive]

Posted By: bcornell

Another possibility is that the cards were issued in series (2 or 3?) rather than all at once and one of these series was short-printed. This is definitely the case with T222 Fatimas, which came out the following year: there are 36 players that are at least 5-10x easier to find than the other 16.

On a related Fatima note, I've always wondered why the 1914 single player cards are so much scarcer than the 1913 team cards. With other multi-year issuers in the same era (Obak, Cracker Jack, and others), the first year cards are always much tougher, but it's the opposite with the Fatima sets.

Bill

[Archive]

Posted By: petecld

Unless you plan to double print cards ahead of time like the 33 Goudey set, and of course there can be exceptions to the rule, but from a printing (production) view point it is expensive to halt production to delete one or more teams and add another to produce more cards of that team. It's certainly possible, but not probable.

Your statement "...The other possiblity is that the collectors kept the cards of the better teams while disregarding the poor team's cards...." makes complete sense to me.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I think there's about 50 of each one....take your pick....

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

Using selling prices as an analog for scarcity assumes (1) a perfect marketplace where all buyers have equal access to information, (2) a market in which the same buyers are repeat performers with unchanging motivations, and (3) a direct correlation between price and scarcity. None of these assumptions are valid.

Card prices vary due in part to lack of information on the part of sellers. For example, I recently picked up a Piedmont 460/42 card for a common price from a dealer who obviously did not know that back commands a premium. That sale would not tell you anything about scarcity.

Card prices also reflect non-scarcity human desires and needs. The most obvious example is when two people people desperate to finish a set fight over a card. I recently paid about 5x "book" on the last "common" card I needed to finish a boxing set (actually, the card is scarce, as are all cards in the set; it is a common player in the set). Now that I have that card, the engine that drove the prior deal is gone and the same card surfacing later on will probably sell for the "normal" price. My drop from the market will completely alter the dynamic. Remember what Copeland did to the prices of cards for a while there?

You also cannot assume that prices per se account for only scarcity. In actuality, prices are affected more by demand and perceptions about condition than pure scarcity. As compared to Zeenut HOFers, there are lots of 1952 Topps Mantle cards out there, yet they command prices far in excess of those commanded by Zeenuts HOFers. The Mantle has a cachet to it, one that drives its price into the crazy zone. According to this week's SCD, a BVG 5 1952 Mantle sold online for $8,000. Would you prefer to own that mid-grade Mantle or all four T206 Cobbs? Which do you think is harder to find? There is also condition or, more accurate, the hyping of condition by people in position to profit handsomely from a little hype. How many clowns have we seen paying thousands for "9" and "10" commons from the 1960s and 1970s? Since the difference between 8-9-10 often is the equivalent of pornography ("I can't tell you what it is but I know it when I see it"), does that price reflect scarcity or something else (perhaps small male genitalia?)?

[Archive]

Posted By: steve k

Warshawlaw - Good points and I agree with most of them. Actually I think your points help validate my point of using card prices as the "best" way to estimate vintage card populations. Notice I said "best" way not "perfect" way. Using card prices may not even be a "good" way but it seems like possibly the only way based on lack of any other discernable data.

One can verify this reasoning very easily by reviewing prices of United States coins. There you have EXACT starting population figures provided by the United States Mint of almost every coin produced by the United States. Coin prices do not always reflect mintage figures, for sometimes similar market reasons as that of baseball cards, but to a good extent there is a pattern, especially when coins are of the exact same type, only different years. Coins also get destroyed through a multitude of reasons such as being melted down during wartime which affects the surviving population that basically makes the price rise as a collectable. Based on the collectable price versus coins of exact type and similar mintage which were not melted down, such as after wartime, a decent estimate could be made as to the number of coins which were melted down. The same type of reasoning could be used with baseball cards. The specific "qualitative" factors which you presented, including other factors, would have to be placed in the formulation, along with the selling price of each card to estimate its surviving population. Why doesn't Barry just try to discover a cure for cancer? - that might be easier - LOL.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

team (player) finsihed high in the standings of 1912, and uncommon if the team finished lower--in EXACT PROPORTION TO THE FINISH OF THE TEAMS, says to me that they were produced this way. Although attrition would account for this distributuion over the first year, you get past that, and it doesn't apply any more.

An interesting contrast is the T202 set, which was produced in 1912, between the two years that the two teams it chiefly celebrates (Althetics and Giants) played in the World Series. The producers of the set OBVIOUSLY made many more of the star players of the two teams, especially Matty and Chief Myers of the Giants, than any other cards---which is clear from looking at the end panels on a set. More Mattys and Myers than anyone else, period. 8 and 10, if I remember right.

So now, when we collect the set, we scratch our heads over the great proliferation of Myers, who was good, but give me a beak, and have to pay a fortune (still) for all the Mattys, because he was great for all time. There are quite a few Collins and Bakers (As), and four cards of "The Athletic Infield." No premium for "The Athletic Infield," and Collins and Baker only because they are HOF anyway, like Matty, only less so.Aside from these guys, Cobb, Young, Johnson and Speaker command the high prices, and a card (they conme in three parts) with Tinker, Evers AND Chance on one card.
They really missed a bet, though, when they produced 10 "Just Before the Battle" (the first line of a Civil War hymn, which I'll not reproduce, you're welcome, Scott), and McGraw came out of the dugout and dutifully shook hands with--coach Harry Davis? On 10 different cards! Was Mack under the weather?
Of course we're talking apples and oranges, because I'm talking About the number of times a player appears IN THE SET, and you're talking about the number of times a PLAYER CARD appears, period--either now, or in the past.

Still, it's an interesting comparisaon--and certainly shows that the card manufacturers were well aware of who was doing what in baseball, and not just randomly putting players' pictures on them.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I'm glad the discussion on this topic has been lively and informative. Another interesting point I've thought about but only slightly related is that in very rare sets, such as Yum Yum, G & B, Four Base Hits, etc. there were probably a number of cards issued of which not a single example survived. There are about a dozen Four Base Hits known, but for all we know may twenty, thirty, or fifty players were originally part of the set. Perhaps there is documentation buried in some long lost file which if found would list the cards printed at the time of issue. That would really be a great find. But it's probable that there are at least some players in each of these rare sets that will be unaccounted for forever.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

but maybe he spelled it right?

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

edited.....

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

With regard to the T200 Fatimas, I guess I should ask this...has anyone ever seen an uncut sheet of these? Were they produced with several different teams on each sheet or all of the same team on each sheet (this might actually explain a lot)? Could they have just been individually produced like photographs? Were any other card sets NOT produced in sheets?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Hi Julie,
Actually, it is spelled "evanescence" but Buddha was known to be a bad speller anyway (good tipper, bad speller).

[Archive]

Posted By: david

i think lipset's encyclopedia did a good job of researching possible cards which were not known at the time and could possibly exhist based on the known examples. such as the e125 set or the just so set. four base hits and yum yum along with the g and bs are another interesting example. i think that there should be a yum yum for every g and b but not all have been discovered

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Even Four Base Hits share the same portrait poses as G & B and Yum Yum, although not the drawings, so there theoretically could have been many more Four Base Hits. E125's are not as good an example because they have checklists printed on the back, and Just So are only Cleveland players, so while there are probably one or two that have disappeared, the list would be a small one.

[Archive]

Posted By: david

barry
with respect to the g and b, yum yum and four base hits, is there a g and b and yum yum kelly with the same pose as the famous four base hits card?

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I've seen just about every card from both the G&B and Yum Yum sets and don't recall either set having a Kelly with the same pose as the FBH.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: Juloie Vognar

as being the same pose as FBH (along with listing other G and B Kellys).. Though there's a Kelly in Yum Yumn, according to Lipset, there's only one, and it's a batting pose. No "standing by urn" is mentioned.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Yes, there most certainly is a Kelly Yum Yum with the famous "leaning against the stone post" pose. Rob Lifson had one many years ago in one of his early auctions. I have not seen a G&B of the pose but again, because it hasn't been seen, it may be one that was issued and no longer exists.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

The only one I've ever seen is Leon's--on the Forum. Unless Terry had it before Leon, I might havre seen it there.

[Archive]

Posted By: 823dek

Lets not forget the most impossible t208 firesides, 18 yrs of pre war collecting, I think Ive run across 3 Dygerts and a Collins if Im not mistaken, anyone have one that I can buy ?

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

He said the Giants' pictures were mostly taken from a composite picturte of the New York Giants, 1889. Including the Ewing. My N338-2 Ewing is EXACTLY like the Police Gazette Ewing (page 82, v. 1 of Lew's encyclopedia), not the composite picture of the Giants on page 54 of Lew's encyclopedia. Or rather, all three photos are probably identical, but the Police Gazette and the N338-2 Ewing are CROPPED the same--almost no N or K in "New York," and an uneven dark oval in back.

Same neat smile on all three, though.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I used to own a Collins T208 along with Mack, Plank, Bender, Baker and Barry. I probably regret selling those 6 cards more than any others I sold.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: 823dek

I feel for you as those just arent around ,someone else is gleeming wholeheartedly