Has anyone else noticed how easy it is to pull these so-called "short print" cognac diamond parallels from the Topps Update set? How is it that I've pulled three of these in 20-something packs while I've only pulled one actual short print from a Topps set in the three years that they've been doing these retired/legend SPs? It seems like there's been no shortage of these popping up in blog posts and auction listings over the past few months. It begs the question: who decided that these were truly short prints, especially when I believe no stated odds are listed on any of the Topps packaging?
Is it any more difficult to get a Reggie Jackson vomitcard than it is, say, Coco Crisp? Just curious. I'm always fascinated by how these things come about.
I agree with you. They certainly aren't as hard to pull as the regular base set SP Legends. Now that is some kind of insight I just added to your post!
ReplyDeleteI read somewhere [maybe a baseball card forum] that the legends liquorfractors are not short printed like their base set counterparts.
ReplyDeleteI've treated the cards as regular parallels as opposed to being SPs.
Looking at the odds on a retail pack right now. Legend Cognacs either 1:34 packs (Cognac Diamond Anniversary Short Print Variation Parallel) or 1:67 packs (Cognac Diamond Anniversary). I am unsure which is supposed to be the Legend Variations, or if some are harder than others or different series are involved or what. But seeing as both are under "Base Card Variation Parallels", it would seem that at least one of the two has something to do with the legends.
ReplyDeleteRegular Update Cognacs are 1:8 and Series one and two are 1:4. So either way, they are definitely a significantly harder pull.
I've pulled Brooks Robinson and Nolan Ryan Cognacs myself.
One thing is - they put all the legends cognac variations from all 3 series in the update packs. So if they have the same print as the platinum diamond legends, they would come 3x as frequently. Not sure how that compares to the regular variations, though.
ReplyDelete