1986 fleer box question
- Thread starter ben82
- Start date
Found this on Blowout...
http://www.blowoutcards.com/forums/basketball/379523-1986-fleer-basketball-sequence.html
Info you are looking for...
A complete, unsearched box yields 3 or 4 Jordans, no more, no less. For that matter, it yields 3 or 4 of every card, no more, no less. Fleer's collation was excellent during the 80s basketball years.
36 packs per box x 12 cards per pack = 432 cards per box
432 cards per box divided by 132 cards per set = 3.27 sets per box
So in addition to getting three sets per box, there's a 27% chance of finding a fourth Jordan, Barkley, Ewing, etc. This math holds true for the stickers as well. Since the mid 70s when Topps went to a single series printing through the 90s when short prints were introduced back into the hobby, it has been all about the math. You simply cannot average a Rickey Henderson rookie per 1980 Topps wax box; the math does not support it. You can't average a Griffey rookie per 1989 Upper Deck wax box (low or high); the math does not support it, no matter how bad the collation is.
http://www.blowoutcards.com/forums/basketball/379523-1986-fleer-basketball-sequence.html
Info you are looking for...
A complete, unsearched box yields 3 or 4 Jordans, no more, no less. For that matter, it yields 3 or 4 of every card, no more, no less. Fleer's collation was excellent during the 80s basketball years.
36 packs per box x 12 cards per pack = 432 cards per box
432 cards per box divided by 132 cards per set = 3.27 sets per box
So in addition to getting three sets per box, there's a 27% chance of finding a fourth Jordan, Barkley, Ewing, etc. This math holds true for the stickers as well. Since the mid 70s when Topps went to a single series printing through the 90s when short prints were introduced back into the hobby, it has been all about the math. You simply cannot average a Rickey Henderson rookie per 1980 Topps wax box; the math does not support it. You can't average a Griffey rookie per 1989 Upper Deck wax box (low or high); the math does not support it, no matter how bad the collation is.
Similar threads
