SGC Pop Reports – American Beauty 350

[bb206]

I’m fairly new to collecting T206’s so just getting comfortable with using the PSA and SGC Pop Reports. In looking at PSA, they clearly differentiate between all 3 AB backs, with designations for 350 WF, 350 NF and 460. Obviously, they didn't track this data from day-1, but at least the data should be accurate since they started tracking it.

SGC seems to make this process a bit trickier, bundling both of the 350 versions into 1910 and the 460 into 1911. Based on that logic, I can identify the pop of the 460 Subjects since they should all be 1911 issues, but the differentiation of 350 Frame vs. No-Frame seems to be impossible.

Curious if I’m missing something here, or this is just the inherent issues with using 2 different grading company’s tools for tracking pop reports. Any insight would be appreciated.

[swarmee]

I’m fairly new to collecting T206’s so just getting comfortable with using the PSA and SGC Pop Reports. In looking at PSA, they clearly differentiate between all 3 AB backs, with designations for 350 WF, 350 NF and 460. Obviously, they didn't track this data from day-1, but at least the data should be accurate since they started tracking it.

SGC seems to make this process a bit trickier, bundling both of the 350 versions into 1910 and the 460 into 1911. Based on that logic, I can identify the pop of the 460 Subjects since they should all be 1911 issues, but the differentiation of 350 Frame vs. No-Frame seems to be impossible.

Curious if I’m missing something here, or this is just the inherent issues with using 2 different grading company’s tools for tracking pop reports. Any insight would be appreciated.
You've got the gist. SGC differentiates by year, PSA didn't differentiate at the beginning, then did by tobacco brand, then added series and factory information at a later time. So there are multiple generations of cards in various stages of identification in PSA slabs. There may be American Beauty cards of many players just in the basic T206 slab so you don't even know they're American Beauty unless you dig up photos of them online. Like this one* (just an example of a PSA graded T206 with no brand info):
https://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/1909-11/T206---Base---Piedmont-350-Back/CHCA/Charlie-Carr.jpg?id=bd16702e-ec42-49df-bf73-fa5c0a52d4b9&size=original (https://www.comc.com/Cards/Baseball/1909-11/T206_-_Base_-_Piedmont_350_Back/CHCA/Charlie_Carr/8111727/Graded/PSA/4)
1909-11 T206 - [Base] - Piedmont 350 Back #CHCA - Charlie Carr [PSA 4 VG‑EX]
Courtesy of COMC.com (https://www.comc.com)

I have found that if you go through their APR site and start reporting cards with old flips that now can be broken out with the appropriate back information from the auction images, they may reclassify the card without it even being re-slabbed. If they weren't so under water, they might recall a bunch of the old slabs for reholdering, but as of right now, they can't meet demand for their services.

[bb206]

Makes sense, thanks.

It seems like there should be a way to update their database without the need to reholder a card. For instance, if you have an older card without back designation, having the ability to upload an image of the back and the PSA ID number so they can clean up their database. The missing data will never be sanitized completely, but perhaps it could be improved?

[swarmee]

Makes sense, thanks.

It seems like there should be a way to update their database without the need to reholder a card. For instance, if you have an older card without back designation, having the ability to upload an image of the back and the PSA ID number so they can clean up their database. The missing data will never be sanitized completely, but perhaps it could be improved?

Sure, but they make money off reholders, and don't make any on just standard error corrections. You could also send them false information and claim to have a Uzit Ty Cobb to add to a registry set, but send them a picture of a common Uzit back. They early slabs didn't have any bar code information on the back to show which front it went with.

[Luke]

For the SGC 1910 entries, you just have to either refer to the checklists, or memorize them. The two 350 backs are mutually exclusive (there are no poses in the set that were printed with both a AB350w/frame and AB350nf back). There are a few players who have one pose in each subset, so that could be tricky if the SGC entry just gives the player name and not also the pose.

These 6 players have a pose in both the AB350w/frame and AB350nf checklist:

Bender
Doolan
Mullin
Pfeister
Street
Willett

Mullin and Willetts poses should be distinguishable from each other because the names are spelled differently.

Here are the checklists:

https://t206resource.com/American%20Beauty%20350%20Frame%20Checklist.html

https://t206resource.com/American%20Beauty%20350%20No%20Frame%20Checklist.h tml

[Pat R]

I’m fairly new to collecting T206’s so just getting comfortable with using the PSA and SGC Pop Reports. In looking at PSA, they clearly differentiate between all 3 AB backs, with designations for 350 WF, 350 NF and 460. Obviously, they didn't track this data from day-1, but at least the data should be accurate since they started tracking it.

SGC seems to make this process a bit trickier, bundling both of the 350 versions into 1910 and the 460 into 1911. Based on that logic, I can identify the pop of the 460 Subjects since they should all be 1911 issues, but the differentiation of 350 Frame vs. No-Frame seems to be impossible.

Curious if I’m missing something here, or this is just the inherent issues with using 2 different grading company’s tools for tracking pop reports. Any insight would be appreciated.


You can differentiate the frame from the no frame by the subjects, no subject was printed with both a 350 frame and a 350 no frame so if you're looking at the 1910 American Beauty SGC pop reports all you have to do is cross reference that subject with the checklists to see if it's a frame or no frame for that particular subject.

You can find the checklists here

https://www.t206resource.com/Checklist%20Main.html

[bb206]

That is key info that I didn't know, thank you! Knowing that subjects didn't print across frame and no-frame makes it easy to ID them. Appreciate the checklist links.