Page 1 of 1 1
Topic Options
#164877 - 07/22/03 09:52 PM Set Shares

Registered: 01/03/03
Posts: 50
Loc: Boston

All of the work done recently by deadly embrace with the population reports had me thinking. Wouldn't it be useful to come up with a "set shares" value for all cards in a set? Value to the set wouldn't be based on SGC's weight in the registry, but rather from the population stats. It would probably have to gather population data from all major grading services to have enough samples to be accurate. In any case, if you found a card like a 1956 Irv Noren to be hard to find in high grade versus say a 1956 Dixie Howell, Irv's multiplier might be 1.5 set shares times SMR, while Dixie would be .8 This would give you a better idea how to spend your money wisely.

Unforunately while I am interested in this statistic, it would take some time to come up with an accurate formula. As a baseline it could be # graded below SGC 84 divided by # above SGC 84. I believe that would be too simplistic but it is a starting point. The formula would probably move up to sgc 88 for the late 60's.

After that, you could also use the pop report to determine the actual value in each grade. If you input all the grades of a particular card, you should be able to come up with a bell curve and then corresponding multipliers for each card. i.e. 84 is 2 times the price of an 80, and an 88 is 4 times the price of an 84..

Anyone's head spinning yet? Must be some statistics junkies out there.

#164878 - 07/23/03 05:19 AM Great topic, here's my thoughts [Re: tegelaar]
(S)uper Collector

Registered: 11/15/02
Posts: 496

This whole topic got me thinking more about the area of weighted cards in the set registry. I've really never given it much thought because at first glance, it didn't look like there was enough thought put into it by SGC and PSA, as there isn't an explanation on how they determined the values and there isn't enough disparity between the status of a player. For example, a 1977 Bombo Rivera shouldn't be the same weight as a 1977 Dave Parker; but it is.

I do agree that there needs to be more "scientific" formula around the weight of a card within a set. Fundamentally, there needs to be standards that apply from set to set. Your formula wouldn't give extra weight to 1952 Topps over 2003 Topps. It is inherent that the set is more valuable and the purpose of weighting cards is to do so with cards within its own set, not against the weight of cards from a different set.

That said, I would approach the issue into two main categories. First, the status of a player and the type of card it is (explain later). I would then apply a multiplier from that base number that would result in 1/2 point increments or whole numbers based upon scarcity in relation to the population report. For this post, I'll focus on the status and type of player and leave the multiplier of scarcity in relation to the population report for someone else to break it down.

Below is how I'd categorize the status of a player and example of the point values I'd give:

1. Superstar HOFer (Ryan)......7
2. HOFer (Yaz, Carew, Morgan).....5
3. Star (Garvey, Parker).....3
4. Minor Star (Torre, Luzinski).....2
5. Common (Jerry Terrell)......1

I would then factor the status of a player to the type of card and apply points to that card. I would give priority like this:

1. Rookie Card (add 6 points for all Hall of Famers....2 points for Stars and 1 Minor)
2. 2nd, 3rd and Last Year cards (add 3 points for HOFers....1 point for Star & Minor Stars only)
3. All-Star, League Leaders, Record Breakers, Team cards, checklists, 1st & last cards in vintage sets. (add 3 points to HOFers, 1 for all but minor stars and commons)

Once this is completed and standardized, you then have a multiplier to account for scarcity in the population report in relation to the card's grade. I'm not going to get into it, but I do believe a 1969 Mint Mike Shannon should have a "scarcity" multiplier that would increase or decrease as the population report changes.

So if I applied just my status and type of card factors to the 1977 Topps Baseball Set, here is how it would compare to how SGC has done it. After you review, I'd be interested in your comments.

Nolan Ryan, SGC: 8 New: 7 (Superstar HOFer)
Pete Rose, SGC: 8 New: 7 (Superstar HOFer...a whole other topic! )
Carl Yaz, SGC: 3 New: 5 (HOFer)
George Brett, SGC: 3 New: 8 (5 HOFer plus 3 for 3rd year card)
Fergie Jenkins, SGC: 2 New: 5 (HOFer)
Robin Yount, SGC: 3 New: 8 (add 3 points for 3rd year card)
Brooks Robinson, SGC: 2 New: 8 (5 pts HOFer plus 3 points for last card)
Andre Dawson, SGC: 8 New: 5 (if elected to HOF, he becomes a 13)
Dale Murphy, SGC: 8 New: 5 (if elected to HOF, he becomes a 13)
Dwight Evans, SGC: 1 New: 3 (star player)
Steve Garvey, SGC: 2 New: 3 (star player)
George Fostter, SGC: 1 New: 2 (minor star)
Greg Luzinski, SGC: 1 New: 2 (minor star)
Mark Fidrych, SGC: 1 New: 3 (minor star that is a rookie)
Joe Torre, SGC: 1 New: 2 (minor star)
Batting Leaders with Madlock & Brett, SGC: 2 New: 4 (3 for Brett and 1 for Madlock)
RBI Leaders with George Foster & Lee May, SGC: 1 New: 2 (add 1 point for Foster)
Save Leaders with Rawley Eastwick & Bill Campbell, SGC: 1 New: 1 (both commons)
Tony Armas rookie, SGC: 1 New: 2 (add 1 point for minor star)
Commons: SGC: 1 New: 1

Wow! You can analyze this and debate the status of a star, minor star and common as well, unless you stipulate and define them explicitly. Even then, it can still be debated. However, this excercise just shows me that more thought and effort could (not should) go into weighting a card.

When you review the actual SGC weights given to what I have proposed in my quick assignment of points, I hope you find that there is a better disparity and thought given to what is being done today.

Edited by estang (07/23/03 06:59 AM)
Enjoy Your Collection & SKOL VIKINGS!


#164879 - 07/23/03 11:51 PM Re: Set Shares [Re: tegelaar]

Registered: 08/23/02
Posts: 240
Loc: Ohio, USA

ted i know a guy who would sell a irv noren RAW that would come back a 7...he was going to sell it to me but i got a psa 7 online instead already graded for 180......he wants 100 for it..let me know..this is very tough to find centered and without a printmark and his does not have a red printmark

I love CAKE....

#164880 - 07/24/03 09:18 AM Re: Set Shares [Re: tegelaar]
The Collectinator

Registered: 06/15/03
Posts: 469
Loc: Richmond, Va.

This is an interesting thread and I'd like to point out something to see if I'm correct. The system that Tegelaar proposes is a floating system while Erik's idea is more of a constant. By going by Tegelaar's pop reports, you are building your numbers for scarcity and pricing. This has one flaw. As more cards are graded, the scarcity and pricing will vary greatly. If a card has a value of XXXX in SGC 92 and a value of X in SGC 84, those values and scarcity levels will fluctuate as more cards become graded. If a collector dumps 500 raw cards on the market and they all grade at SGC 92, wouldnt that change the scarcity of the 92 to XX, rather than the XXXX it had been? I think what we need is more of a constant system. I think that the first and last cards (vintage) in the set, star cards, LL's, checklists, and regional factors (such as Yankees, NY Giants and Brooklyn Dodgers) should figure in more.

I think by promoting the scarcity and disparity in grades, we'll cause what we have already to become devalued and less scarce. Am I making sense? I'm not even sure at this point.


#164881 - 07/24/03 06:48 PM Re: Set Shares [Re: Vintagedeputy]
(S)uper Collector

Registered: 11/15/02
Posts: 496

You summarized the two categories well. I focused on a static/standard weight system based upon defined and explicity weighting based upon player status and type of card. This needs to be the foundation for determining the weight. The variable or scarcity factor would be a multiplier based upon the population report.

So I'll now weigh in (no pun intended ) that the multiplier would be better served to apply to a card based upon an analysis of more than just SGC. I believe you would have to give credence to the top grading companies (SGC, BVG, PSA, GAI) to have a true scarcity factor. You would also have to establish a minimum number of that card to be graded across all companies, not just one company that may have a fraction of the market share. The other important point would be the scarcity factor would need to be applicable to cards reaching a certain grade like NM/MT.

I think the scarcity factor would be very difficult to manage and takes something away from the insider knowledge developed when you noticed the difficulty in good centering or clean print/images that can become rampant in press runs.

Anyway, the whole subject is a bit dizzying. I do think it would be good for someone to attempt to at least put some parameters of the status of a player.
Enjoy Your Collection & SKOL VIKINGS!


#164882 - 07/25/03 04:02 AM Re: Set Shares [Re: estang]
Old, dense-headed hammers are cool. Best nail pounders.

Registered: 08/15/02
Posts: 987
Loc: NY

Excellent discussion!

I believe more time and energy should be spent in assigning "weight" to a specific card based on the player. This should be relatively straight forward as described above, but there will (probably) still be arguments on many "minor" stars.

Assigning additional weight based on population statistics is a really tough one, IMHO. The demand for many of the true low-pop cards can be tremendous and absolutely EXPLODES if the player is a star or minor star (eg. the '69 Lou Brock in nm/mt or better). I understand that this is important, but seems awfully tough to address. For myself, when I look at registered sets, I immediately go to the low-pop cards (assuming I am familiar enough with the set to know). If they are strong, the set is very strong. If they are lower grade than the rest of the cards, it says something to me, as well.

My 2 cents.

#164883 - 07/28/03 04:17 AM Re: Set Shares [Re: srs1a]
The Amazing Card-Man

Registered: 04/13/02
Posts: 948
Loc: Alexandria, Va


Using scarcity in the weighting process has some challenges. When is it scarce, and when is it simply that not alot copies of a card have been submitted? What is a statistical valid sample?
---- Matthew T. Natale Alexandria, Virginia Completed 1977 Topps Baseball SGC Graded Set, Average Grade 92.89

Page 1 of 1 1

Moderator:  EARLSWORLD 
Hop to:
Who's Online
0 registered and 6 anonymous users online.
Newest Members
klmnop450123, abcdef863349, vwxyz{570399, nopqrs004715, tjf092071
1963 Registered Users

Generated in 0.017 seconds in which 0.001 seconds were spent on a total of 14 queries. Zlib compression disabled.