POLL: Is a 1/1 really a 1/1 of there are 30 1/1s?

[ScooterD]

Originally Posted by DynaEtch

I like to contrast manufactured scarcity with scarcity from organic means. A 1962 Amazing Fantasy #15 in NM condition is scarce. But it wasn’t intended to be scarce when it was made…there would have been many thousands made, sitting on racks. Problem is people read them, beat them up over the years, and threw them out.

A /5 baseball card is intended to be scarce from the get-go. It is manufactured scarcity. It doesn’t even have to be numbered. Anything that is just made rare from the get go, intended to be scarce (including rare inserts or photo variations etc).

This is not to say manufactured scarcity cannot have organic demand though- it certainly can. A 90s Flair or Ultra Masterpieces 1/1, especially for a key player, has a LOT of organic demand at this point. And that was manufactured scarcity. As were any 90s #’d insert or parallel like PMGs. The question more is whether this absolute ocean of ultra modern manufactured scarcity will retain much value as the years go on…I’m skeptical it will in the longer term.

I appreciate the explanation - most of it makes sense.

I’m thinking about an article that Keith Olbermann wrote about proof cards that he has from 1977 Topps. They were created in the natural course of business - not intended to be scarce at all - but circumstances (player traded, player retired, player died) meant that the proofs were pulled and replaced with other players.

His cards (I think there are 3-4 of them) are the only ones known. Not meant to be scarce… but there are only one of each known.

They were manufactured normally though. So are those manufactured scarcity?

[DynaEtch]

Originally Posted by ScooterD

They were manufactured normally though. So are those manufactured scarcity?

When you get into unreleased stuff like proof cards, or another example, certain uncut sheets (that weren’t publically distributed but happened to be backdoored from the manufacturer or something)…the lines of manufactured scarcity can be somewhat blurred I think. So I get your point about it’s somewhat ambiguous what it means. It depends how you’re defining it.

With manufactured scarcity, many things you can obviously say it is or is not manufacture scarcity. A 1952 Topps Mantle in high grade is not. A Topps Chrome Red Refractor /5 is. With an unreleased thing like those proof cards…they did manufacture them with scarcity…so arguably they’d be classified as manufactured scarcity. It wasn’t a thing that was released in large quantity that happened to become scarce due to wear and tear, loss, and high demand- like the mantle or AF #15. But it’s surely a different case than a company purposely putting out a /5 parallel…it seems a little more organic (that’s a whole other question one could ask…what does “organic” mean with collectibles )

Here’s another area of blurred lines: error cards. Like picture if Topps today came out with an “NNOF” error variant card (maybe they do). Purposely have no name on the card for a rare parallel. That would clearly be manufactured scarcity- just another parallel.

But what about actual errors- perhaps as in misprints from the 80s or 90s? What about the Thomas NNOF? Is that manufactured scarcity? Clearly they were manufactured with scarcity- not many made, in some cases unique. But if it was by accident? Does that make it organic and not manufactured scarcity like the modern error variant would be? I think like the 1977 proofs, the Thomas NNOF should still be considered manufactured scarcity in a technical sense…but their existence came about in a more interesting and organic fashion than a company purposely just making a /5 or /250 parallel.

[TBTC Baseball]

Originally Posted by DynaEtch

Like picture if Topps today came out with an “NNOF” error variant card (maybe they do). Purposely have no name on the card for a rare parallel. That would clearly be manufactured scarcity- just another parallel.

Yep one more $#@*ing parallel.

[corndog]

Originally Posted by ScooterD

I appreciate the explanation - most of it makes sense.

I’m thinking about an article that Keith Olbermann wrote about proof cards that he has from 1977 Topps. They were created in the natural course of business - not intended to be scarce at all - but circumstances (player traded, player retired, player died) meant that the proofs were pulled and replaced with other players.

His cards (I think there are 3-4 of them) are the only ones known. Not meant to be scarce… but there are only one of each known.

They were manufactured normally though. So are those manufactured scarcity?

Proofs are created solely to be used as a visual for final approval before on press printing. Back then, proofs were always one sided with nothing on the back. They weren't meant for release or sale.
Final proofs were used by the pressman as a visual representation to achieve and maintain optimal color on press.

They are unique in that they were a tool used in the pre-press process, but they are not cards.
Oftentimes progressive proofs were created of each CMYK color and combinations of the colors.

In the 1990s there were Printers Proofs and Artist Proofs inserted into packs but they are just base cards with foil stamping or other type of additional notation added. These are not pre-press progressive proofs.

Although Olbermann's proofs are unique and one of a kind(ish) they are not trading cards.

[DynaEtch]

Originally Posted by TBTC Baseball

Yep one more $#@*ing parallel.

Figures!

[ScooterD]

Originally Posted by corndog

Proofs are created solely to be used as a visual for final approval before on press printing. Back then, proofs were always one sided with nothing on the back. They weren't meant for release or sale.
Final proofs were used by the pressman as a visual representation to achieve and maintain optimal color on press.

They are unique in that they were a tool used in the pre-press process, but they are not cards.
Oftentimes progressive proofs were created of each CMYK color and combinations of the colors.

In the 1990s there were Printers Proofs and Artist Proofs inserted into packs but they are just base cards with foil stamping or other type of additional notation added. These are not pre-press progressive proofs.

Although Olbermann's proofs are unique and one of a kind(ish) they are not trading cards.

Thank you - never knew the distinction of the proofs

[jlzinck]

Guess math was not your strong suit in school

[daveyc1]

I like manufactured scarcity, to a degree.

2 or 3 parallels and an 1/1 is great.

30 parallels and 6 1/1's is overkill for me.

ymmv

[JWBlue]

A lot of overanalyzing here.

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by JWBlue

A lot of overanalyzing here.

For sure. A chrome superfractor, flagship platinum, or Dynasty logoman are obviously better 1/1s than a random insert 1/1 or printing plate. It's not rocket science.

And Leaf doesn't even count, who cares about that. Panini barely counts.

[mfw13]

Does anybody still care about 1/1's?

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by mfw13

Does anybody still care about 1/1's?

Me, I do

[MiamiMarlinsFan]

Originally Posted by mfw13

Does anybody still care about 1/1's?

Of course. What would make you think otherwise? Especially when it’s a superfractor of a player’s key card.