Finally, a good box!
2000 SP Authentic Future Watch: Aaron Murray /999, Jarvis Landry /999, Ka'Deem Carey /999.
Autograph #1: Darqueze Denard.
Rookie Patch Autograph: Josh Huff /550.
Autograph #2: Blake Bortles 2000 Future Watch /25!
Saturday, July 25, 2015
Friday, July 24, 2015
2014 Upper Deck SP Authentic Football Box Break #3
2000 SP Authentic Future Watch: Jace Amaro /999, Logan Thomas /999, Tajh Boyd /999.
Autographs: Marqise Lee Sign of the Times (1:164 packs), Rajon Neal.
Rookie Patch Autograph: Zach Mettenberger /550.
Thursday, July 23, 2015
2014 Upper Deck SP Authentic Football Box Break #2
I ended up buying three boxes of 2014 Upper Deck SP Authentic Football from DA Card World. They were on sale, and I ended up getting them for about $70 per box which is a pretty good price for this product. Here's the damage.
2000 SP Authentic Future Watch: Martavis Bryant /999, Tom Savage /99, Cody Latimer /999.
Autographs: Jared Abbrederis, Charlie Ward Sign of the Times (1:164 packs).
Rookie Patch Autograph: Jeremy Hill /550.
Friday, May 15, 2015
BGS Grading: Centering, Corners, Edges, and Surface
In previous blog posts I've discussed how a card's final Beckett Grading Service grade (BGS grade) can sometimes be more than 0.5 higher than the lowest subgrade.
Remember, the general rule is that a card's final grade can only be 0.5 higher than the lowest subgrade, unless two or more of your subgrades share the lowest subgrade score then your final grade will be equal to that lowest subgrade. (See this blog post for more information about the general rule.)
But when one subgrade is drastically lower than the rest of the subgrades, the card's final grade can sometimes be 1.0 higher than the lowest subgrade. However, this exception to the general rule only applies to the edges and surface subgrade.
A card's final BGS grade can be 1.0 higher than the lowest subgrade if: (1) the drastically lower subgrade is either the edges or surface; and (2) the aggregate of the other three subgrades compared to the surface subgrade must be greater than 4.
Below are some cards to illustrate these exceptions.
The general rule is that the card's final grade can only be 0.5 higher than the lowest subgrade; however, in the above Aaron Rodgers card the final grade is 1.0 higher than the surface subgrade. This is because the lowest subgrade is the card's surface subgrade, and the aggregate difference of the other three subgrades when compared to the surface is 5 (the math is (9-7) + (8-7) + (9-7) = 5), which is greater than 4.
Again, the general rule is that a card's final grade can only be 0.5 higher than the lowest subgrade but in the above Jose Abreu card the card's final grade is 1.0 higher than the lowest subgrade. That is because the lowest subgrade is surface, and the aggregate difference of the other three subgrades when compared to the surface is 4.5 (the math is (10-8.5) + (10-8.5) + (10-8.5) = 4.5), which is greater than 4.
The general rule is that a card's final grade can only be 0.5 higher than the lowest subgrade. In the above Cordarelle Patterson card the card's final grade is only 0.5 higher than the lowest subgrade. This card follows the general rule because although the lowest subgrade is surface, the aggregate difference of the other three subgrades when compared to the surface is 4.0 (the math is (9.5-7.5) + (8.5-7.5) + (8.5-7.5) = 4.0), which is not greater than 4.
The general rule is that a card's final grade can only be 0.5 higher than the lowest subgrade. In the above Tom Brady card the card's final grade is only 0.5 higher than the lowest subgrade. This card follows the general rule because although the lowest subgrade is surface, the aggregate difference of the other three subgrades when compared to the surface is 3.5 (the math is (9-8) + (9-8) + (9.5-8) = 3.5), which is not greater than 4.
A card's final BGS grade can be 1.0 higher than the lowest subgrade if: (1) the drastically lower subgrade is either the edges or surface; and (2) the aggregate of the other three subgrades compared to the surface subgrade must be greater than 4.
The general rule is that the card's final grade can only be 0.5 higher than the lowest subgrade; however, in the above Dan Marino card the final grade is 1.0 higher than the edges subgrade. This is because the lowest subgrade is the card's edges subgrade, and the aggregate difference of the other three subgrades when compared to the edges is 5.5 (the math is (8.5-6.5) + (8.5-6.5) + (8-6.5) = 5.5), which is greater than 4.
The general rule is that the card's final grade can only be 0.5 higher than the lowest subgrade; however, in the above Matt Barkley card the final grade is 1.0 higher than the edges subgrade. This is because the lowest subgrade is the card's edges subgrade, and the aggregate difference of the other three subgrades when compared to the edges is 6.5 (the math is (9.5-7) + (9.5-7) + (8.5-7) = 6.5), which is greater than 4.
The exception that the card's final grade can be 1.0 higher than the lowest subgrade if the lowest subgrade is edges or surface does not also apply if the lowest subgrade is centering. In other words, even if the centering subgrade is drastically lower than the rest of the card's subgrades, the card's final grade will still be only 0.5 higher than the lowest subgrade.
The general rule is that the card's final grade can only be 0.5 higher than the lowest subgrade. In the above Reggie Wayne card, the final grade is 0.5 higher than the lowest subgrade. This is because the lowest subgrade is the card's centering subgrade. Although the aggregate difference of the other three subgrades when compared to the centering is 5.5 (the math is (9-7.5) + (10-7.5) + (9-7.5) = 5.5) which is greater than 4, that still doesn't matter because the lowest subgrade is centering.
The exception that the card's final grade can be 1.0 higher than the lowest subgrade if the lowest subgrade is edges or surface does not also apply if the lowest subgrade is corners. In other words, even if the corners subgrade is drastically lower than the rest of the card's subgrades, the card's final grade will still only be 0.5 higher than the lowest subgrade.
The general rule is that the card's final grade can only be 0.5 higher than the lowest subgrade. In the above Aaron Rodgers card, the final grade is 0.5 higher than the lowest subgrade. This is because the lowest subgrade is the card's centering subgrade. Although the aggregate difference of the other three subgrades when compared to the centering is 10.5 (the math is (9.5-5.5) + (8.5-5.5) + (9-5.5) = 10.5) which is greater than 4, that still doesn't matter because the lowest subgrade is centering.
What do all the above cards show? They show that BGS gives more weight to a card's centering and corners subgrades than the edges and surface subgrades.
That might be supported by the fact that BGS lists the centering and corners subgrades first on the card's flip, although perhaps they were just putting the different subgrades in alphabetical order too.
From a collector's point of view, putting more weight on a card's centering and corners condition makes sense. Those two aspects of the card are usually the most easily discernible to the naked eye, and the most influential aspect of a card's overall eye appeal.
Remember, the general rule is that a card's final grade can only be 0.5 higher than the lowest subgrade, unless two or more of your subgrades share the lowest subgrade score then your final grade will be equal to that lowest subgrade. (See this blog post for more information about the general rule.)
But when one subgrade is drastically lower than the rest of the subgrades, the card's final grade can sometimes be 1.0 higher than the lowest subgrade. However, this exception to the general rule only applies to the edges and surface subgrade.
The Exception to the General Rule
A card's final BGS grade can be 1.0 higher than the lowest subgrade if: (1) the drastically lower subgrade is either the edges or surface; and (2) the aggregate of the other three subgrades compared to the surface subgrade must be greater than 4.
Below are some cards to illustrate these exceptions.
Surface
The general rule is that the card's final grade can only be 0.5 higher than the lowest subgrade; however, in the above Aaron Rodgers card the final grade is 1.0 higher than the surface subgrade. This is because the lowest subgrade is the card's surface subgrade, and the aggregate difference of the other three subgrades when compared to the surface is 5 (the math is (9-7) + (8-7) + (9-7) = 5), which is greater than 4.
Again, the general rule is that a card's final grade can only be 0.5 higher than the lowest subgrade but in the above Jose Abreu card the card's final grade is 1.0 higher than the lowest subgrade. That is because the lowest subgrade is surface, and the aggregate difference of the other three subgrades when compared to the surface is 4.5 (the math is (10-8.5) + (10-8.5) + (10-8.5) = 4.5), which is greater than 4.
The general rule is that a card's final grade can only be 0.5 higher than the lowest subgrade. In the above Cordarelle Patterson card the card's final grade is only 0.5 higher than the lowest subgrade. This card follows the general rule because although the lowest subgrade is surface, the aggregate difference of the other three subgrades when compared to the surface is 4.0 (the math is (9.5-7.5) + (8.5-7.5) + (8.5-7.5) = 4.0), which is not greater than 4.
The general rule is that a card's final grade can only be 0.5 higher than the lowest subgrade. In the above Tom Brady card the card's final grade is only 0.5 higher than the lowest subgrade. This card follows the general rule because although the lowest subgrade is surface, the aggregate difference of the other three subgrades when compared to the surface is 3.5 (the math is (9-8) + (9-8) + (9.5-8) = 3.5), which is not greater than 4.
Edges
A card's final BGS grade can be 1.0 higher than the lowest subgrade if: (1) the drastically lower subgrade is either the edges or surface; and (2) the aggregate of the other three subgrades compared to the surface subgrade must be greater than 4.
The general rule is that the card's final grade can only be 0.5 higher than the lowest subgrade; however, in the above Dan Marino card the final grade is 1.0 higher than the edges subgrade. This is because the lowest subgrade is the card's edges subgrade, and the aggregate difference of the other three subgrades when compared to the edges is 5.5 (the math is (8.5-6.5) + (8.5-6.5) + (8-6.5) = 5.5), which is greater than 4.
The general rule is that the card's final grade can only be 0.5 higher than the lowest subgrade; however, in the above Matt Barkley card the final grade is 1.0 higher than the edges subgrade. This is because the lowest subgrade is the card's edges subgrade, and the aggregate difference of the other three subgrades when compared to the edges is 6.5 (the math is (9.5-7) + (9.5-7) + (8.5-7) = 6.5), which is greater than 4.
Centering
The exception that the card's final grade can be 1.0 higher than the lowest subgrade if the lowest subgrade is edges or surface does not also apply if the lowest subgrade is centering. In other words, even if the centering subgrade is drastically lower than the rest of the card's subgrades, the card's final grade will still be only 0.5 higher than the lowest subgrade.
The general rule is that the card's final grade can only be 0.5 higher than the lowest subgrade. In the above Reggie Wayne card, the final grade is 0.5 higher than the lowest subgrade. This is because the lowest subgrade is the card's centering subgrade. Although the aggregate difference of the other three subgrades when compared to the centering is 5.5 (the math is (9-7.5) + (10-7.5) + (9-7.5) = 5.5) which is greater than 4, that still doesn't matter because the lowest subgrade is centering.
Corners
The exception that the card's final grade can be 1.0 higher than the lowest subgrade if the lowest subgrade is edges or surface does not also apply if the lowest subgrade is corners. In other words, even if the corners subgrade is drastically lower than the rest of the card's subgrades, the card's final grade will still only be 0.5 higher than the lowest subgrade.
The general rule is that the card's final grade can only be 0.5 higher than the lowest subgrade. In the above Aaron Rodgers card, the final grade is 0.5 higher than the lowest subgrade. This is because the lowest subgrade is the card's centering subgrade. Although the aggregate difference of the other three subgrades when compared to the centering is 10.5 (the math is (9.5-5.5) + (8.5-5.5) + (9-5.5) = 10.5) which is greater than 4, that still doesn't matter because the lowest subgrade is centering.
Centering and Corners are Weighted
More Heavily than Edges and Surface
What do all the above cards show? They show that BGS gives more weight to a card's centering and corners subgrades than the edges and surface subgrades.
That might be supported by the fact that BGS lists the centering and corners subgrades first on the card's flip, although perhaps they were just putting the different subgrades in alphabetical order too.
From a collector's point of view, putting more weight on a card's centering and corners condition makes sense. Those two aspects of the card are usually the most easily discernible to the naked eye, and the most influential aspect of a card's overall eye appeal.
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
2014 Topps Five Star Football Redemption List
Below are players who have redemptions in 2014 Topps Five Star Football. I will try to keep this list as up to date as possible.
Redemptions for this product expire on February 28, 2018.
On the other hand, if all the players who have redemptions in the product suck (they don't but let's just pretend they do) and all the good players have autograph cards which are live in the product, then there is little risk for buying products with expired redemptions.
Redemptions for this product expire on February 28, 2018.
- Aaron Rodgers
- Brandon Marshall
- Clay Mathews
- Dri Archer
- Jadaveon Clowney
- Jeremy Maclin
- Julio Jones
- Marquise Lee
- Marshawn Lynch
- Matthew Stafford
- Pierre Garcon
- Rashad Jennings
- Ryan Mathews
- T.Y. Hilton
On the other hand, if all the players who have redemptions in the product suck (they don't but let's just pretend they do) and all the good players have autograph cards which are live in the product, then there is little risk for buying products with expired redemptions.
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
2015 Upper Deck Football Rack Pack Break
I picked up a rack pack of 2015 Upper Deck Football while shopping.
The rack packs come with two special rookie inserts for Jameis Winston and Marcus Mariota. These are actually pretty nice looking insert cards.
The most notable base rookie cards I got were Marcus Mariota and Leonard Williams. Other than that this rack pack wasn't that great.
The rack packs come with two special rookie inserts for Jameis Winston and Marcus Mariota. These are actually pretty nice looking insert cards.
The most notable base rookie cards I got were Marcus Mariota and Leonard Williams. Other than that this rack pack wasn't that great.
Sunday, April 26, 2015
Panini's 2014 National Treasures Football Collation Debacle
If you're a football card collector who likes high end cards, then by now you are aware of Panini's debacle with 2014 National Treasures Football. And in case you aren't aware of it then I'll summarize the situation right now: a whole week after 2014 National Treasures Football was released there were still no Odell Beckham Jr. and Teddy Bridgewater RPAs, or booklets.
This incident spawned a huge discussion on the Blowout Cards forums.
Everyone agreed that it was extremely unusual that no Odell Beckham Jr. and Teddy Bridgewater RPA or booklet redemptions had been hit even after a whole week since the product's launch. Between all the cases being broken all across the nation in hobby shops, and in online breaks, by now at last a couple of each should have surfaced.
The conspiracy theorists believed that Panini purposely withheld those cards -- arguably the two biggest cards of the two biggest players in the 2014 rookie class -- to drive up sales not only in successive shipment waves of the National Treasures product, but also in other Panini products like Spectrum Football.
Other people who were less willing to immediately jump to the conclusion that Panini was up to no good believed that this could be an honest collation mistake or error.
I gave my two cents in the thread and noted how the chances of NOT seeing an Odell Beckham Jr. or Teddy Bridgewater RPA or booklet redemption was practically impossible if we assumed that 500 cases of National Treasures had been broken within a week.
Below is my full comment.
In short, if we assume that 500 cases of National Treasures have been broken (2000 boxes) within a week of the product's release, then the chances of NOT hitting an Odell Beckham Jr. or Teddy Bridewater RPA (just RPAs and not booklet redemptions) is practically zero, or about 0.00000000000000000002116%.
What does this all mean?
It means that without a doubt the Odell Beckham Jr. and Teddy Bridgewater RPAs were NOT randomly distributed throughout the 2014 National Treasures production run. This is a fact. The above math, if accurate, and I think it is, proves that it is about as close to statistically impossible for this to happen by random chance.
If Odell Beckham Jr. and Teddy Bridgewater RPAs were randomly distributed throughout the 2014 National Treasures production run, then statistically, collectors should have seen a handful of them pop up already whether it be on eBay or online box breaks. Clearly, something went wrong when National Treasures was packed out.
Now, whether this was an intentional act by Panini or a mere innocent collation error we don't know. Panini haters are quick to assume it was an intentional act by Panini, but I could see this being a simple innocent collation error too. Don't get me wrong, I am not completely dismissing the idea that Panini did something intentional, but I think without any evidence proving their guilt that the most we can say happened is that there was a horrible collation error.
My guess is that Panini was still waiting on those cards to come back signed, but in the mean time they started the packout process believing that they'd get the cards back in time before the packout process was complete. But while the packout process was still in progress, they realized they wouldn't get those cards back in time before packout was complete so they needed to insert redemptions for those cards. They began inserting redemptions into the production run at that point in time, but by that time the first wave of cases had already been packed, sealed, and prepared for shipping to distributors -- all without any Odell Beckham Jr. and Teddy Bridgewater RPAs in them. Panini then completes the packout process. From their point of view, the RPA redemption cards have all been packed out and they've done nothing wrong. But in reality, because the RPA redemption cards were inserted into the production run mid-packout, the boxes which had already been packed out and sealed had none of those cards. Meaning collectors who bought those initial cases had ZERO chance of hitting an Odell Beckham Jr. or Teddy Bridgewater RPA.
Is there a moral to this story? If any, I suppose it's that pre-ordering a product is a gamble. Who knows what production issues it might contain. Topps has had its share of problems too. Most recently its 2015 Topps Tribute Baseball release was recalled due to a large portion of the autograph cards being smeared. Also, Topps' 2013 Five Star Football release was plagued by many of the cards suffering from ink stains on their edges from the cardboard boxes that they came in. (See my blog post on that issue here.) Had a consumer waited until after the release of the product then they could have avoided these problems.
Topps seems to have a little more trust in the collecting community than Panini. It may not be a lot, but it's there. Panini on the other hand has proven themselves very adept at losing consumer confidence by using questionable patches in their products, putting the wrong patches on cards for players, putting questionable player autograph stickers in their products, and now having major collation issues with their products. Since Panini will now have the exclusive NFL license for football cards starting this year, I want to like them. I'm trying to like them. But they sure are making it difficult. Clearly they have a lot of room for improvement, and it would be nice to see them make some improvements.
This incident spawned a huge discussion on the Blowout Cards forums.
Everyone agreed that it was extremely unusual that no Odell Beckham Jr. and Teddy Bridgewater RPA or booklet redemptions had been hit even after a whole week since the product's launch. Between all the cases being broken all across the nation in hobby shops, and in online breaks, by now at last a couple of each should have surfaced.
The conspiracy theorists believed that Panini purposely withheld those cards -- arguably the two biggest cards of the two biggest players in the 2014 rookie class -- to drive up sales not only in successive shipment waves of the National Treasures product, but also in other Panini products like Spectrum Football.
Other people who were less willing to immediately jump to the conclusion that Panini was up to no good believed that this could be an honest collation mistake or error.
I gave my two cents in the thread and noted how the chances of NOT seeing an Odell Beckham Jr. or Teddy Bridgewater RPA or booklet redemption was practically impossible if we assumed that 500 cases of National Treasures had been broken within a week.
Below is my full comment.
There are 150,552 cards in the set. There are supposed to be 8 cards per box but most boxes have 10 or 11. Let's just choose 11. (The higher number actually works in Panini's favor.) Divide 150,552 by 11, and that means there are 13,686 boxes in the entire production.
There are 312 total OBJ and Teddy RPAs
Let's assume that none of the OBJs and Teddy RPAs will ever appear in the same box. Divide 312 OBJ/Teddy boxes by 13,686 total boxes, and that means there is a .0228 chance of hitting one of those cards in the very first box of NT opened.
Alternatively, there is a .9772 chance of NOT hitting one of those cards in the very first box of NT opened. Expressed as a fraction that's (13,686-312)/13,686 or 13,374/13,686.
As each box of NT is opened and a OBJ/Teddy isn't hit, then the probability of hitting one of those cards goes up ever so slightly.
Similarly, as each box is opened and one isn't hit, the probability of not hitting one in the next box goes down. Number-wise, it looks something like this...
(13,374/13,686) x (13,373/13,685) x (13,372/13,684) x etc. as each box is opened.
Now, let's assume that 500 cases have been broken by now which is probably a reasonable assumption. There are 4 boxes per case. So that's 2000 boxes opened. (2000 boxes would also represent around 15% of the production run) We need to do that above equation 2000 times.
What's the probability of opening 2000 boxes of NT and not hitting a OBJ or Teddy RPA?
Expressed as an equation it looks something like this:
(13,374! / 11,374!) / (13,686! / 11,686!)
None of the scientific calculators I could find could hand this calculation because the numbers are too big, but it should be pretty close to zero and I think we can show that another way.
When figuring out a probability and a past event influences a future event, it's called conditional probability. Our situation is conditional since once a card is pulled, it is removed from the available pool and not replaced.
But because our numbers are so big, we can actually treat this as the opposite of conditional probability (unconditional probability?).
As we found out earlier, the chances of a OBJ/Teddy RPA NOT being pulled from the very first box of NT is (13,686-312)/13,686 or .9772. Even if 2000 boxes were opened and a OBJ/Teddy RPA still hadn't been hit, then the probability of NOT hitting one in the next box opened would be (13,686-2,000-312)/(13,686-2,000) or (11,374/11,686) or .9733.
.9733 isn't too different from .9772, so we can treat this entire calculation as unconditional probability (probability with replacement).
So, if the probability of NOT hitting a OBJ/Teddy RPA is .9772, and 2000 boxes have been opened, then the probability of that happening is...
.9772^2000 which is 9.27^-21 or basically zero.
Even if we used a lower probability like .9733 and 2000 boxes were opened, then the probability is still 3.11^-24 or basically zero.
For comparison, even with a probability of .9733 and only 200 boxes being opened (50 cases), the probability of still not hitting a OBJ/Teddy RPA would be .00446 or about 0.446% chance of happening.
In short, if we assume that 500 cases of National Treasures have been broken (2000 boxes) within a week of the product's release, then the chances of NOT hitting an Odell Beckham Jr. or Teddy Bridewater RPA (just RPAs and not booklet redemptions) is practically zero, or about 0.00000000000000000002116%.
What does this all mean?
It means that without a doubt the Odell Beckham Jr. and Teddy Bridgewater RPAs were NOT randomly distributed throughout the 2014 National Treasures production run. This is a fact. The above math, if accurate, and I think it is, proves that it is about as close to statistically impossible for this to happen by random chance.
If Odell Beckham Jr. and Teddy Bridgewater RPAs were randomly distributed throughout the 2014 National Treasures production run, then statistically, collectors should have seen a handful of them pop up already whether it be on eBay or online box breaks. Clearly, something went wrong when National Treasures was packed out.
Now, whether this was an intentional act by Panini or a mere innocent collation error we don't know. Panini haters are quick to assume it was an intentional act by Panini, but I could see this being a simple innocent collation error too. Don't get me wrong, I am not completely dismissing the idea that Panini did something intentional, but I think without any evidence proving their guilt that the most we can say happened is that there was a horrible collation error.
My guess is that Panini was still waiting on those cards to come back signed, but in the mean time they started the packout process believing that they'd get the cards back in time before the packout process was complete. But while the packout process was still in progress, they realized they wouldn't get those cards back in time before packout was complete so they needed to insert redemptions for those cards. They began inserting redemptions into the production run at that point in time, but by that time the first wave of cases had already been packed, sealed, and prepared for shipping to distributors -- all without any Odell Beckham Jr. and Teddy Bridgewater RPAs in them. Panini then completes the packout process. From their point of view, the RPA redemption cards have all been packed out and they've done nothing wrong. But in reality, because the RPA redemption cards were inserted into the production run mid-packout, the boxes which had already been packed out and sealed had none of those cards. Meaning collectors who bought those initial cases had ZERO chance of hitting an Odell Beckham Jr. or Teddy Bridgewater RPA.
Is there a moral to this story? If any, I suppose it's that pre-ordering a product is a gamble. Who knows what production issues it might contain. Topps has had its share of problems too. Most recently its 2015 Topps Tribute Baseball release was recalled due to a large portion of the autograph cards being smeared. Also, Topps' 2013 Five Star Football release was plagued by many of the cards suffering from ink stains on their edges from the cardboard boxes that they came in. (See my blog post on that issue here.) Had a consumer waited until after the release of the product then they could have avoided these problems.
Topps seems to have a little more trust in the collecting community than Panini. It may not be a lot, but it's there. Panini on the other hand has proven themselves very adept at losing consumer confidence by using questionable patches in their products, putting the wrong patches on cards for players, putting questionable player autograph stickers in their products, and now having major collation issues with their products. Since Panini will now have the exclusive NFL license for football cards starting this year, I want to like them. I'm trying to like them. But they sure are making it difficult. Clearly they have a lot of room for improvement, and it would be nice to see them make some improvements.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)