Using serial numbered sets to calculate print runs for 90s insert sets

[Soleternity]

http://www.blowoutcards.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=368233&stc=1&d=1491632129

Background
I was doing my nightly Beckett reading and came across this:

-1996-97 Ultra Platinum medallion cards were inserted into hobby/retail packs at a rate of 1 card per 180 packs (series 1) and 1 card per 100 packs (series 2).
-There are 300 cards in the 1996 Ultra set (150 per each series).
-Most interestingly, Beckett states that this Platinum Medallion set had print run of "less than 250."

Using this information, we can deduce how many packs of 1996-97 Ultra were manufactured.

-There are 150 (cards in series 1) x 180 (packs per each Platinum Medallion card) x 250 (maximum possible number of Platinum Medallion sets) = 6.75 million packs of 1996 Ultra series 1.
-There are 150 (cards in series 2) x 100 (packs per each Platinum Medallion card) x 250 (maximum possible number of Platinum Medallion sets) = 3.75 million packs of 1996 Ultra series 2.
-6.75m + 3.75m = 10.5m packs total.

Calculating 90s Insert Print Runs
Theoretically, you could use this data point to figure out a rough estimate of how many of each insert from 1996 Ultra were printed.

For example:
1996-97 Ultra Starring Roles #4 Michael Jordan

-1 Starring Role insert per 288 packs (of both hobby/retail, series 2 only)
-10 cards in set
-Jordan odds are 1 per 2,880 packs
-Assume there were 3.75m packs of series 2 manufactured.

3.75m packs [divided by] 2,880 packs (per every 1 Jordan) = 1,302 Michael Jordan Starring Role inserts. (Thank you to comments from @phdBeckett and @mc1 for correcting this data.)

Potential Applications
If this makes sense, I'm thinking of applying this logic to all 90s insert sets that are associated with a base set that has both serial numbered cards and stated odds for those serial numbered cards. This would be a useful number to have in mind alongside population reports from the grading companies.

Reservations
-Just because 10.5m packs were printed, this doesn't mean that this many made it to the market.
-For inserts that were only inserted into hobby or retail packs, we will have to assume that there was an equal number of hobby and retail packs (or figure out some ratio, like 2 hobby packs for every 1 retail pack, to use for our calculations).

Concluding Thoughts
Am I missing any important variables here? Does this make intuitive sense? Does it strike you as probable that roughly 1,302 1996-97 Jordan Starring Roles were printed?

[Round Mound]

Another variable is the number of cards from each set which was produced. You would have to check is there are still uncut sheets around, as there could be 5 Jordans per sheets and 8 or 10 from each of the other player of the set.

[phdbeckett]

I only got 1302 for the Jordan and any other Starring Role. Much more realistic print run in my opinion.

[Doublexthebeast]

Products without 1/1's aren't 100% accurate on the print run. If there are 1/1's and the odds for them are given then you can tell the print run easily.

[gatorboymike]

That is a useful trick, unfortunately most 90s products did not give both odds and print runs on the same sets, so there aren't many instances where you can do this.

[duron]

Was always curious about this as well, enough to make my own thread too a while back...
http://www.blowoutcards.com/forums/basketball/827668-question-regarding-print-run.html

But yea, unless some insider ever hops on and gives specific manufacturing numbers, the world will never know exact numbers.

Let's say that did happen, though, I'm sure a decent amount of once overlooked great sets could easily jump in price due to the newly realized scarcity.

It's actually a good thing that it likely won't happen. Hobby > Market.

[mc1]

Maybe I didnt catch it, but arent platinum medallion inserted 1:100 packs for series 2? this would surely change some of these calculations.

Yeah, like someone else said, print runs and insert odds werent always included. Sometimes we only got one or the other. It would definitely help make some educated guesses for print runs of other insert sets.

[Soleternity]

Maybe I didnt catch it, but arent platinum medallion inserted 1:100 packs for series 2? this would surely change some of these calculations.

Yeah, like someone else said, print runs and insert odds werent always included. Sometimes we only got one or the other. It would definitely help make some educated guesses for print runs of other insert sets.

Yes - you're correct. My mistake.

With this new information in hand, here's the new numbers.

-150 (series 1 cards) x 180 (packs per Platinum Medallion card) x 250 (maximum number of Platinum Medallion sets produced) = 6.75m series 1 packs
-150 (series 2 cards) x 100 (packs per Platinum Medallion card) x 250 (maximum number of Platinum Medallion sets produced) = 3.75m series 2 packs

Updated MJ Starring Role Estimated Print Run
-3.75m packs* [divided by] 2,880 packs (per every 1 Jordan) = 1302 Michael Jordan Starring Role inserts.

--

Which is exactly what @phdBeckett said a few posts above.

[Soleternity]

Let's say that did happen, though, I'm sure a decent amount of once overlooked great sets could easily jump in price due to the newly realized scarcity.

It's actually a good thing that it likely won't happen. Hobby > Market.

This is a good point.

I started thinking about how strange it was that the 1996 MJ Platinum Medallion #16 has less than 250 cards in existence (per Beckett) but currently books at $300. (This number has been revised down from the $400 figure that is in the issue that I took the screenshots of). Comparable print runs (~250 or less) of other 1996-97 MJ cards from major sets fetch several multiples of this.

For instance (this is a poor analogy on several levels, but) there are 450 1996-97 Flair Showcase Legacy Jordans (150 Row 2, 150 Row 1, 150 Row 0). All three of these /150 cards book at $2,000. Now, it is worthwhile to point out that the Legacy cards have a better design, come from a more prestigious set, and actually have the serial number printed on them. These things definitely matter. For example, they are probably big contributing factors to why the 1993-94 Hoops Jordan First Day issue cards, which are arguably quite scarce for cards from that year with print runs /1000 per Beckett, routinely sell for $50-$60 raw.

In other words: given a print run of less than 250, the MJ Ultra Platinum Medallion cards (there were 3 different MJs in the 300-card set, the base card #16, and two subset cards, #143 and #280, making for a maximum total of less than 750 MJ Platinum Medallion cards, with a maximum of less than 250 of each) seem undervalued.

And we don't know how much less than 250 the print run was. We've done our calculations by charitably assuming the highest possible print run. What if it was closer to 100 cards, as was the case with subsequent Platinum Medallion releases (which, incidentally, were stamped with the serial number and are valued much higher than the 1996-97 Platinum Medallions)? Not only would this reduce the calculated print runs of the various insert sets by quite a bit, but it would imply a significant undervaluation of the Platinum Medallion cards themselves.

Population report data: BGS has graded 24 of the 1996-97 Ultra Platinum Medallion MJ #P16. PSA has graded 17. Between the two companies, 41 have been graded. Now, I've seen 3-4 of these cards sell raw on eBay since the new year. Because of the relatively low valuation of this card, it doesn't particularly lend itself to grading (in the same way that more relatively highly valued cards do). Still, that is a really low population count. Perhaps the print run wasn't close to 250. Maybe closer to 150 or 200.

Anyway, given that I own a copy of the #P16, I'd obviously like to see it valued more highly than it currently is. But the only reason I was able to obtain a copy was because it was undervalued. So... Hobby>Market, indeed.

[Soleternity]

Another variable is the number of cards from each set which was produced. You would have to check is there are still uncut sheets around, as there could be 5 Jordans per sheets and 8 or 10 from each of the other player of the set.

Interesting points.
(1) Some of the packs might've never actually been... "packed." The cards were printed but never cut and inserted into packs for sale.
(2) Some of the insert sets featured less MJs than other players (is this a confirmed thing? has this happened with other insert sets in situations where it was not explicitly stated?).

[duron]

This is a good point.

I started thinking about how strange it was that the 1996 MJ Platinum Medallion #16 has less than 250 cards in existence (per Beckett) but currently books at $300. (This number has been revised down from the $400 figure that is in the issue that I took the screenshots of). Comparable print runs (~250 or less) of other 1996-97 MJ cards from major sets fetch several multiples of this.

For instance (this is a poor analogy on several levels, but) there are 450 1996-97 Flair Showcase Legacy Jordans (150 Row 2, 150 Row 1, 150 Row 0). All three of these /150 cards book at $2,000. Now, it is worthwhile to point out that the Legacy cards have a better design, come from a more prestigious set, and actually have the serial number printed on them. These things definitely matter. For example, they are probably big contributing factors to why the 1993-94 Hoops Jordan First Day issue cards, which are arguably quite scarce for cards from that year with print runs /1000 per Beckett, routinely sell for $50-$60 raw.

In other words: given a print run of less than 250, the MJ Ultra Platinum Medallion cards (there were 3 different MJs in the 300-card set, the base card #16, and two subset cards, #143 and #280, making for a maximum total of less than 750 MJ Platinum Medallion cards, with a maximum of less than 250 of each) seem undervalued.

And we don't know how much less than 250 the print run was. We've done our calculations by charitably assuming the highest possible print run. What if it was closer to 100 cards, as was the case with subsequent Platinum Medallion releases (which, incidentally, were stamped with the serial number and are valued much higher than the 1996-97 Platinum Medallions)? Not only would this reduce the calculated print runs of the various insert sets by quite a bit, but it would imply a significant undervaluation of the Platinum Medallion cards themselves.

Population report data: BGS has graded 24 of the 1996-97 Ultra Platinum Medallion MJ #P16. PSA has graded 17. Between the two companies, 41 have been graded. Now, I've seen 3-4 of these cards sell raw on eBay since the new year. Because of the relatively low valuation of this card, it doesn't particularly lend itself to grading (in the same way that more relatively highly valued cards do). Still, that is a really low population count. Perhaps the print run wasn't close to 250. Maybe closer to 150 or 200.

Anyway, given that I own a copy of the #P16, I'd obviously like to see it valued more highly than it currently is. But the only reason I was able to obtain a copy was because it was undervalued. So... Hobby>Market, indeed.

Yea, after I made that thread and thought a bit more about it, the more apparent it was that unknown print runs are generally a positive thing. Sheer curiosity just led me to want to know.

Serial numbering was one of the most ingenious (part of me might even use 'insidious') gimmicks the card world has ever employed (next to grading and "player/event-worn" jerseys, of course.) Even when looking back to when serial numbering meant more because there were more overall cards produced, you still see an overall bias in which cards are more praised today. There's a point people get to where they allow rarity to actually shape their aesthetic opinion. It's sort of hilarious, especially when you consider it can happen subconsciously.

Imagine if things were reversed at the onset of this general marketing move, and tough-odds inserts began to be stamped instead of parallels?You'd simply see a reversed bias in their modern praise.

In a way, it's a shame collectors didn't see all cards remain unnumbered, or even all cards become numbered. The blinders would be much, much less of a factor in either case.

Interesting points.
(1) Some of the packs might've never actually been... "packed." The cards were printed but never cut and inserted into packs for sale.
(2) Some of the insert sets featured less MJs than other players (is this a confirmed thing? has this happened with other insert sets in situations where it was not explicitly stated?).

Ditto on point 2, I'd really be curious to know about that and how big the variance was between sets.

[dwest13cavs]

All this is moot since Fleer went out of business and all their back inventory was sold via auction and private sales.

[Harper]

All this is moot since Fleer went out of business and all their back inventory was sold via auction and private sales.

I disagree, they may have saved 5-10% of a print run for some reason (replacements, buybacks, etc), but if there were 250 of something produced they wouldn't have 500 in some warehouse. So maybe the post bankruptcy print run is 275.... not a huge difference

[NickM]

Those cards were prone to very bad back edge chipping. That affects how many would be graded.

[thepinoymamba]

This post is Just super awesome

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

[Starman101]

Thanks OP for the info!

I never knew what the odds on the 96-97 Platinum Medallions were

At 1:180 and 150 in the set, the odds of pulling a Jordan base #16 are 1:27,000

That is a very tough pull

I agree that these remain quite undervalued, mostly because they dont have the same perceived rarity of the serial numbered platinum medallions that followed the 96-97 release

I busted open a ton of 96-97 Ultra back in the 90s and never even saw a Platinum Medallion

I always felt they were very rare cards and without a doubt one of my favorite 90s parallels

Another reason I always say that 96-97 & 97-98 brought out the greatest basketball cards ever made IMO

[duron]

Another reason I always say that 96-97 & 97-98 brought out the greatest basketball cards ever made IMO

Ya, I really think about 80-90% of us would agree with that.

[Doublexthebeast]

Ya, I really think about 80-90% of us would agree with that.

Oh yeah. I think 96-97 was the beginning of the climb in creativity, 97-98 took it to another notch. 98-99 might have been the plateau as there are a ton of great products/designs. Then 99-00 took a significant drop but still had some great products and designs. The significant drop was likely due to not having Jordan in any non-Upper Deck products.

There was not another peak again until 03-04 but the designs(other than Exquisite) weren't near to the same league as the 96-00 in my opinion.

[cyndeeg3]

Would be great to somehow, sometime, someday know the real print runs on so many of these cards... Never know with Fleer unloading thousands of cards after bunkruptcy. Can't imagine how many people got screwed by that ordeal. Super rare cards where maybe 20 were known to exist suddenly have 100 copies online. Gotta love all the drama in this "hobby"

[myusasets]

with calculator in hand i spent hours trying to work out 1996-97 flair showcase; to get to an educated guess of 1500 possible sets. somebody probably did better than that.

[k13]

If it's on ebay it's not rare.

[CastleBeachCards]

I would guess that most brands from that era did between 2m-3m hobby, and the same for retail (for each series) for their products. The exceptions of course would be "retail" or "hobby" only

[CastleBeachCards]

I know there's no good cards in 1992/93 Skybox, but flipping through an old Beckett and came across a print run from this set.

"Suggested retail $1.15 per 12 card pack with 36 packs per box.
Reported production quantities: 15,000 20 box cases for series 1. Same for series 2."

Thats a total of 300,000 boxes per series.
10.8 million packs
129.6 million cards
If perfectly collated for series 1, that's 396,330 of each card (including Jordan)

Certainly one of the most over produced NBA products of the 90's.

Knowing this, and adding to what we know of other products, I'd love to have some members try to forecast print runs of other products in the 90's.

[phdbeckett]

There are many sets with this info that is only published in older price guides. Newer ones have left this information out. I will contribute at least a few sets later on when I dig up some old issues.

[Old Chesapeake]

Been trying to calculate print run for one of my 1997-98 SP Authentic Premium Portraits cards. Beckett says the pack odds were 1528:1. But that's all I could find so there isn't enough info to do an accurate estimate. But I found this (https://www.instagram.com/p/C--mMAYvIOL/?img_index=1) and based on his figure of number of boxes, I calculated. the following. Not sure of my math though. Thoughts?

1997-98 SP Authentic configuration: 189,000 boxes, 24 packs/box, 5 cards per pack
189,000 * 24 = 4,536,000 packs
4,536,000 * 5 = 22,680,000 cards

Premium Portraits Pack odds = 1528:1
Cards in Premium Portraits set = 7 cards
Total Premium Portraits cards (4536000/1528) = 2970
Print run 2970/7 = 424

Also checked Profiles level 3 and it seems pretty accurate:
Profile 3:
Cards in set = 40
Total Profiles 3 cards (40 * 100) = 4000
Print run 100
Pack odds = 4536000 / 4000 = 1134:1

[JeffroYourHero]

Been trying to calculate print run for one of my 1997-98 SP Authentic Premium Portraits cards. Beckett says the pack odds were 1528:1. But that's all I could find so there isn't enough info to do an accurate estimate. But I found this (https://www.instagram.com/p/C--mMAYvIOL/?img_index=1) and based on his figure of number of boxes, I calculated. the following. Not sure of my math though. Thoughts?

1997-98 SP Authentic configuration: 189,000 boxes, 24 packs/box, 5 cards per pack
189,000 * 24 = 4,536,000 packs
4,536,000 * 5 = 22,680,000 cards

Premium Portraits Pack odds = 1528:1
Cards in Premium Portraits set = 7 cards
Total Premium Portraits cards (4536000/1528) = 2970
Print run 2970/7 = 424

Also checked Profiles level 3 and it seems pretty accurate:
Profile 3:
Cards in set = 40
Total Profiles 3 cards (40 * 100) = 4000
Print run 100
Pack odds = 4536000 / 4000 = 1134:1

If you're on Instagram, follow @cardchannel as he's been doing these calculations for a some time now. Believe he's done the set you're looking for.

[Old Chesapeake]

Thanks. Unf I'm not on Instagram and no plans to join. Will have to find another way.

If you're on Instagram, follow @cardchannel as he's been doing these calculations for a some time now. Believe he's done the set you're looking for.