Stadium Club Triumvirate Print Run???

[Gem10collection]

Any ideas?? Tried doing some digging in past forum threads and didn't see any numbers.

[Doublexthebeast]

Which year?

I think someone did the numbers based off printing plate odds on the 97-98 and the Illuminator is around only 67 copies.

[Gem10collection]

Originally Posted by Doublexthebeast

Which year?

I think someone did the numbers based off printing plate odds on the 97-98 and the Illuminator is around only 67 copies.

Thanks Doublex for the reply. Watched a bunch of your PC showoff vids. Loved them!! Hope you can do a refractor one soon or just more vids with up-close images

Anyways, yeah for all years 97/98/99. I heard a similar print run estimate for the illuminator but I did my own calculation and came up with 150 (300 for the luminescent). The cards are beautiful but there is so much confusion about their print run.

[phdbeckett]

Originally Posted by Gem10collection

Thanks Doublex for the reply. Watched a bunch of your PC showoff vids. Loved them!! Hope you can do a refractor one soon or just more vids with up-close images

Anyways, yeah for all years 97/98/99. I heard a similar print run estimate for the illuminator but I did my own calculation and came up with 150 (300 for the luminescent). The cards are beautiful but there is so much confusion about their print run.

The pop reports from both BGS and PSA are going to be way off on these. Not even the graders, or ones submitting them have it right, as there are dozens of mislabled ones on eBay or in past recent sales. How many of those are resubs?

I concur with the research that leads to a low production:
First Day issues are 1:24 Retail only
200 Total sets made
120 in each series.
24 packs in a retail box
Illuminator odds are 1:384
Triumvirate set has 24 in each series
200 * 24 *120 =576,000 packs of each series retail
576000 / 384 = 1500 total illuminators produced
1500 /24 = 62.5 of a particular player
62.5 Illuminators
Double the production for Luminescent 125
8 times the production for Luminous or base. 500 base
Overall very rare.

[LuckyHands]

I was going to make a thread about these myself, but with a somewhat different take. I knew they were rare, they look awesome and have some good players but they just don’t seem to be worth anything. Anyone have any theories why? Does all the confusion lead to people just staying away? I just bought a KG luminescent for $12. Other cards from that era with those print runs or pack odds would cost a lot more.

[AbraCalabro]

How much more expensive do you think the Jordan should be since the odds of pulling Jordan himself are now magnified? Being that there are 62.5 Jordans out there, would you guys consider the .5 Jordan as a 1/1 since there is only one card representing 1/2 a card? Are we sure it's 62.5 or is it 150 as speculated in the OP?

I'd appreciate this data since I am now analyzing the high end/super high end market and the more cards we can force into the high end/super high end market, the more money I can make. I'll have to check if this particular card has been increasing in price organically as that is an angle we can probably use to "energize" the perceived value.

Thanks fellas.

[Gem10collection]

Originally Posted by phdbeckett

The pop reports from both BGS and PSA are going to be way off on these. Not even the graders, or ones submitting them have it right, as there are dozens of mislabled ones on eBay or in past recent sales. How many of those are resubs?

I concur with the research that leads to a low production:
First Day issues are 1:24 Retail only
200 Total sets made
120 in each series.
24 packs in a retail box
Illuminator odds are 1:384
Triumvirate set has 24 in each series
200 * 24 *120 =576,000 packs of each series retail
576000 / 384 = 1500 total illuminators produced
1500 /24 = 62.5 of a particular player
62.5 Illuminators
Double the production for Luminescent 125
8 times the production for Luminous or base. 500 base
Overall very rare.

Perfect!! Is this the case for all the years?

[Gem10collection]

Originally Posted by LuckyHands

I was going to make a thread about these myself, but with a somewhat different take. I knew they were rare, they look awesome and have some good players but they just don’t seem to be worth anything. Anyone have any theories why? Does all the confusion lead to people just staying away? I just bought a KG luminescent for $12. Other cards from that era with those print runs or pack odds would cost a lot more.

Well, there are some really rare cards that are not worth much and there are some really beautiful cards that are also not worth much. I feel like the Triumvirate kinda falls into both categories. Definitely one of the more iconic sets of the 90's!

The big challenge with them is that they are hard to differentiate from each other (the grading companies have made mistakes), and there is confusion about their print run (which hopefully this thread addresses). There are a couple of beautiful Kobe's I have my eye on but I just haven't been able to get my head around what a fair price for them is - therefore, this thread.

Anyways, I'm really enjoying the forum conversations Hope everyone has a great weekend.

[AbraCalabro]

After this thread, at least double what you'd be comfortable paying.

[phdbeckett]

1997-98 had the lowest production and toughest odds. The 1998-99 releases were in greater supply, as the odds for Illuminators are 1:192 Hobby and the Hobby only OOAK cards were harder to hit, meaning more parity on these harder inserts.

120 X 56 X 150 = 1,008,000 hobby packs
1008000 / 192 = 5250 total Illuminators per series
5250 / 24
215.8 Illuminators for each player in a given series.

Kobe is in this set, but not MJ as he was retired.

[Gem10collection]

Originally Posted by phdbeckett

1997-98 had the lowest production and toughest odds. The 1998-99 releases were in greater supply, as the odds for Illuminators are 1:192 Hobby and the Hobby only OOAK cards were harder to hit, meaning more parity on these harder inserts.

120 X 56 X 150 = 1,008,000 hobby packs
1008000 / 192 = 5250 total Illuminators per series
5250 / 24
215.8 Illuminators for each player in a given series.

Kobe is in this set, but not MJ as he was retired.

Awesome detective work! Thank you!

Two questions for you. Where did you get all the odds info? How can we differentiate the different versions by looking at online scans? Obviously the description on the slabs sometimes can't be trusted.

[phdbeckett]

Originally Posted by Gem10collection

Awesome detective work! Thank you!

Two questions for you. Where did you get all the odds info? How can we differentiate the different versions by looking at online scans? Obviously the description on the slabs sometimes can't be trusted.

The 1997-98 Ones are easy if you remember the Illuminators are mostly transparent to a degree. Luminescent will always refract, but are not at all transparent, and the base versions do neither.
In 1998-99 and beyond, they label the series 1 on the front, and series 2 on the back, so you can read which version.

Edit: Here, I just scanned mine and labeled them!

[Gem10collection]

Originally Posted by phdbeckett

The 1997-98 Ones are easy if you remember the Illuminators are mostly transparent to a degree. Luminescent will always refract, but are not at all transparent, and the base versions do neither.
In 1998-99 and beyond, they label the series 1 on the front, and series 2 on the back, so you can read which version.

Edit: Here, I just scanned mine and labeled them!

PHD, your awesome good Sir!! Thank you!!

[the27guy]

Lots of good details in here.

One point of clarification. There are TWO different triumvirate sets from 1997. The series 1 are the ones that Phdbeckett posted pictures of - which by the way, was an awesome thing to do. Both PSA and Beckett should thank you and use your pictures. I’ve seen each company get these wrong over and over again.

Series 2 is also 1997-98. And in that case, the best and rarest cards, the Illuminators, like series 1 are slightly translucent, but unlike series 1 are also refractors.

They are more difficult to tell from scans in my opinion.

[frisbeesteve]

Originally Posted by the27guy

Lots of good details in here.

One point of clarification. There are TWO different triumvirate sets from 1997. The series 1 are the ones that Phdbeckett posted pictures of - which by the way, was an awesome thing to do. Both PSA and Beckett should thank you and use your pictures. I’ve seen each company get these wrong over and over again.

Series 2 is also 1997-98. And in that case, the best and rarest cards, the Illuminators, like series 1 are slightly translucent, but unlike series 1 are also refractors.

They are more difficult to tell from scans in my opinion.

Agreed. It's pretty much like questions must be asked of a seller in order to determine the difference between the Luminescent and Illuminators for the first year in 1997-98. Even in hand, they can be a little bit tricky. The backs of the series 2 Illuminators are refractive, but not blindingly so. It seems there are still plenty of people that have a hard time recognizing the difference between a 93-94 Finest Refractor and its base counterpart.

[Gem10collection]

Just bought a Tim Duncan 1998-99 Topps Stadium Club - Triumvirate - Illuminator from COMC for $16. I don't get it, based on our talk these things are so rare (and gorgeous) and soooo cheap. It's great for us because we can get these awesome cards and enjoy them for a fraction of what it cost with other 90's cards but... I just don't get disconnect.

[Sigchiwab44]

Originally Posted by phdbeckett

The 1997-98 Ones are easy if you remember the Illuminators are mostly transparent to a degree. Luminescent will always refract, but are not at all transparent, and the base versions do neither.
In 1998-99 and beyond, they label the series 1 on the front, and series 2 on the back, so you can read which version.

Edit: Here, I just scanned mine and labeled them!

I was always under the impression the luminescent refracted on front surface and illuminator refracted on front and back plus transparent. Is the refracting part not the case with the illuminators from series 1?

[the27guy]

Originally Posted by Sigchiwab44

I was always under the impression the luminescent refracted on front surface and illuminator refracted on front and back plus transparent. Is the refracting part not the case with the illuminators from series 1?

Good question. That’s why I mentioned what I did earlier in the thread. It’s confusing. The answer to your question is no. You’re describing series 2.

Just to be clear -

Series 1 is the series that phdbeckett has posted above. And he’s right. The three levels in order from most commons to most rare go as follows.

1. Non refractor. Non translucent.
2. Refractor. Non translucent.
3. Non refractor. Translucent.

Most people I know like the look of second level cards more than the third level cards. We love refractors. And it’s too bad that the Illuminators don’t refractk IN SERIES 1.




It’s like topps heard complaints or something because they made changes in series two that make sense but still confuse people.

1. Non refractor. Non translucent.
2. Refractor. Non translucent.
3. (Here’s the change). Refractor. Translucent.


They did it right in series 2 in my opinion. Gorgeous cards. But still, BGS and psa have labeled these wrong over and over and over again. It has to be the most misunderstood on the 90’s inserts.

So, when people say “the refractors are the best of the triumvirates” that’s not entirely true.

When people say, “you know yours isn’t the best level if it’s a refractor”, that’s also not true.

Two series with different rules and multiple levels confuses the masses. Including the graders.


Last thing from me on this -

On of these is the Illuminator, and one is not. Can you tell?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1997-98-TSC...AAAOSwWrxcOBkd

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1997-98-STA...app-cvip-panel

[Gem10collection]

Originally Posted by the27guy

Good question. That’s why I mentioned what I did earlier in the thread. It’s confusing. The answer to your question is no. You’re describing series 2.

Just to be clear -

Series 1 is the series that phdbeckett has posted above. And he’s right. The three levels in order from most commons to most rare go as follows.

1. Non refractor. Non translucent.
2. Refractor. Non translucent.
3. Non refractor. Translucent.

Most people I know like the look of second level cards more than the third level cards. We love refractors. And it’s too bad that the Illuminators don’t refractk IN SERIES 1.




It’s like topps heard complaints or something because they made changes in series two that make sense but still confuse people.

1. Non refractor. Non translucent.
2. Refractor. Non translucent.
3. (Here’s the change). Refractor. Translucent.


They did it right in series 2 in my opinion. Gorgeous cards. But still, BGS and psa have labeled these wrong over and over and over again. It has to be the most misunderstood on the 90’s inserts.

So, when people say “the refractors are the best of the triumvirates” that’s not entirely true.

When people say, “you know yours isn’t the best level if it’s a refractor”, that’s also not true.

Two series with different rules and multiple levels confuses the masses. Including the graders.


Last thing from me on this -

On of these is the Illuminator, and one is not. Can you tell?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1997-98-TSC...AAAOSwWrxcOBkd

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1997-98-STA...app-cvip-panel

This is my big challenge with Triumv. From what I see, neither. They are both base. But, I could see the 9.5 being a luminescent.

[the27guy]

Originally Posted by Gem10collection

This is my big challenge with Triumv. From what I see, neither. They are both base. But, I could see the 9.5 being a luminescent.

Don’t you see how the psa one refracts? That’s your Illuminator. In person, you’d also see that it’s translucent.

I’m actually going to make a video of it and throw it on my IG. I’ve had so many questions in the past, it’ll be nice to have something to point to.

[Sigchiwab44]

Originally Posted by the27guy

Good question. That’s why I mentioned what I did earlier in the thread. It’s confusing. The answer to your question is no. You’re describing series 2.

Just to be clear -

Series 1 is the series that phdbeckett has posted above. And he’s right. The three levels in order from most commons to most rare go as follows.

1. Non refractor. Non translucent.
2. Refractor. Non translucent.
3. Non refractor. Translucent.

Most people I know like the look of second level cards more than the third level cards. We love refractors. And it’s too bad that the Illuminators don’t refractk IN SERIES 1.




It’s like topps heard complaints or something because they made changes in series two that make sense but still confuse people.

1. Non refractor. Non translucent.
2. Refractor. Non translucent.
3. (Here’s the change). Refractor. Translucent.


They did it right in series 2 in my opinion. Gorgeous cards. But still, BGS and psa have labeled these wrong over and over and over again. It has to be the most misunderstood on the 90’s inserts.

So, when people say “the refractors are the best of the triumvirates” that’s not entirely true.

When people say, “you know yours isn’t the best level if it’s a refractor”, that’s also not true.

Two series with different rules and multiple levels confuses the masses. Including the graders.


Last thing from me on this -

On of these is the Illuminator, and one is not. Can you tell?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1997-98-TSC...AAAOSwWrxcOBkd

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1997-98-STA...app-cvip-panel

This one seems fairly simple. The PSA encased is the illuminator. I feel series 2 is fairly straight forward to tell the difference. I appreciate the information on series 1. I have several that I assumed were luminous...now I'm going to have to go back and look!

[Gem10collection]

Originally Posted by the27guy

Don’t you see how the psa one refracts? That’s your Illuminator. In person, you’d also see that it’s translucent.

I’m actually going to make a video of it and throw it on my IG. I’ve had so many questions in the past, it’ll be nice to have something to point to.

Ahhhhhhh, YES!! I see what you mean!! And the BGS 9.5 is the regular luminescent. But gees, so hard to see the translucent factor from the posted image. I would have been a terrified bidder.

[the27guy]

Happy to help guys. I actually got up and just uploaded the video to my IG. If you have any questions on series 2, that should be helpful.

series one is much easier.

Regular
Refractor
Translucent.

That’s it. Good luck.

[CastleBeachCards]

Theres anther way to tell, but im keeping it under wraps cuz i feel evil tonight.hahahahahahahaha

[phdbeckett]

Originally Posted by Kenfancypants

Theres anther way to tell, but im keeping it under wraps cuz i feel evil tonight.hahahahahahahaha

I will share a nice, fast method.
The way I can see on my Illuminator is the color change at Jordan's waist. The wood background transitions from foil above clear below. Also, if you see the back, the ball he is holding up on the front is clearly visible.