OPC Collation Issues 17-18 Edition

B

BillInDallas

Verified Trader,
Joined
Sep 6, 2010
Messages
1,806
Reaction score
0
Location
Glendale, CA
So I'm just getting to the big sorts of my 15 case break of 2017-18 OPC. I beat the odds in some places, black rainbows seem very well collated, but I noticed in going through my Rainbow Foils that there might be an issue. Granted I'm only through the 1-99s, but there are already 4 cards I didn't even hit and a good number where I had just one copy. Maybe I'm jumping the gun just a little, and I'll get a better picture once I see all of the numbers sequenced together, but I'm curious if any of the other larger OPC breakers had similar issues.

4 from the 1-99s

9 missing in the 100s

4 from the 200s

5 from the 300s

4 from the 400s

6 from the 500s

32 in total
 
Last edited:
Mauri said:
How many duplicates of the same card you hit at the most?
Click to expand...

Right now after the 300s my highest is five of one card, with MANY hitting three and several with four. Obviously with the fall rates I was expecting about 1440 rainbows. So I'd have to have pretty good collation to get a single set, near flawless collation to get two. But the distribution of duplicates along with cards not being hit leads me to believe they had issues. Conversely, there was one subset where I feel I pulled an inordinately high amount of cards, then within the subset I had a lot of dupes.
 
I only opened a few cases but hit doubles in the blank backs of not just one but TWO players. What are the odds of that? There are definitely collation issues with OPC (as always).
 
NNeves said:
I only opened a few cases but hit doubles in the blank backs of not just one but TWO players. What are the odds of that? There are definitely collation issues with OPC (as always).
Click to expand...

Wow, that's a new one! I haven't done the retro numbers, those should be interesting...I had duplicates on maybe 5-7 of the /27 minis. They're hard to his in the first place, but then that many dupes!
 
Is it fair to raise a collation issue across cases? Within a case, getting duplicates of a rare card is concerning, and I would have a problem with collation like that.

How much effort and extra cost are you willing to pay the manufacturer for to ensure randomization is complete across multiple cases? I don't know what the process is for doling out the hits, but on a low end brand like OPC, it's got to be HIGHLY mechanical. I can't imagine what would be involved in spreading things out over a 20 case, 40 case, 60 case allotment.

Cory
 
A highly mechanized distribution process should lead to less collation issues, not more. That's assuming that it's not garbage in leading to garbage out. If set up properly, automation should lead to efficiencies.

Frank, myself, and others have seen UD's printers do this time and time again with OPC. Several years ago I opened double digit cases, only to be missing 15% of the retro set. When you have close to 6,000 cards of a subset and are missing 90 of a 600 card set, there's clearly something wrong. Then there were issues with other subsets as well that year. It was a royally disastrous release. Upper Deck asked to see all of my data and made it worth my efforts, so they clearly thought it was fair to raise an issue.

If OPC wasn't a set building product wrapped up in fall rates, etc. it would be one thing, but when the inserts that drive the sets fall unevenly for anyone that breaks it en masse, I think it's valid to voice a concern.
 
I guess you could say there were collation issues within the case I got my hot box from as well. The other 8 black rainbow parallels I got from the other 4 boxes were all dupes, as they were in the hot box also. Though I don't mind as one of the dupes was McDavid.:yess:
 
BillInDallas said:
A highly mechanized distribution process should lead to less collation issues, not more. That's assuming that it's not garbage in leading to garbage out. If set up properly, automation should lead to efficiencies.

Frank, myself, and others have seen UD's printers do this time and time again with OPC. Several years ago I opened double digit cases, only to be missing 15% of the retro set. When you have close to 6,000 cards of a subset and are missing 90 of a 600 card set, there's clearly something wrong. Then there were issues with other subsets as well that year. It was a royally disastrous release. Upper Deck asked to see all of my data and made it worth my efforts, so they clearly thought it was fair to raise an issue.

If OPC wasn't a set building product wrapped up in fall rates, etc. it would be one thing, but when the inserts that drive the sets fall unevenly for anyone that breaks it en masse, I think it's valid to voice a concern.
Click to expand...

Fair enough - info like this is why I asked the question.

Thanks for sharing the insight!

Cory
 
BillInDallas said:
A highly mechanized distribution process should lead to less collation issues, not more. That's assuming that it's not garbage in leading to garbage out. If set up properly, automation should lead to efficiencies.

Frank, myself, and others have seen UD's printers do this time and time again with OPC. Several years ago I opened double digit cases, only to be missing 15% of the retro set. When you have close to 6,000 cards of a subset and are missing 90 of a 600 card set, there's clearly something wrong. Then there were issues with other subsets as well that year. It was a royally disastrous release. Upper Deck asked to see all of my data and made it worth my efforts, so they clearly thought it was fair to raise an issue.

If OPC wasn't a set building product wrapped up in fall rates, etc. it would be one thing, but when the inserts that drive the sets fall unevenly for anyone that breaks it en masse, I think it's valid to voice a concern.
Click to expand...

Which subset you mean? Legends or Rookies?
 
Mauri said:
Which subset you mean? Legends or Rookies?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you're talking about 2012-13 or this year.

Back then, retros were a total mess. Rainbows were pretty bad. Rings were a disaster as were the Series Whatever mini cards. It seemed like they had a major problem that year.

I'm still putting together the final numbers for this year, but rainbow collation is off, and retros at first glance look off, but I'm still putting together the data. Just anecdotal as I was putting together the 1-600 set for scanning purposes. There were maybe 20 cards that I had to go through about 3,500 cards to find one copy of. So unless they were really oddly distributed in the back 40% of the cases I opened, I have a feeling I'll see some kind of odd pattern of collation similar to years past.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
390,143
Messages
2,238,829
Members
4,169
Latest member
Misso
Back
Top