SGC N172 Population Report - a little history [Archive]

View Full Version : SGC N172 Population Report - a little history

Archive

10-23-2004, 07:39 AM

Posted By: Joe_G.As most know here, I'm strictly an Old Judge collector, specifically Detroits. I've been grading my collection along the way with SGC and started tracking their population report last September. The number of submissions over the last year has been steady and trending higher as time goes on (generally more submissions every month). The population report lists nearly 50% more cards today than it included one year ago (1671 vs 1175). How do the 1671 cards stack up? There is nearly a 25%/50%/25% distribution about SGC10-30/SGC40-60/SGC70+. The average grade has held near SGC 50, although has been dropping as of late. I believe the high volume of recent cards originate from some of the larger recent sales (Oregon Find, Mastro, etc.) which in most cases are beautiful cards but back damage keeps the grades low like demonstrated in a recent Hal Lewis thread. The grading standards at SGC also seem more stringent than they used to be and could be contributing to a lower average grade. Date & Average N172 SGC Grade: 09/24/03 => 50.46 10/25/03 => 50.14 01/22/04 => 49.94 02/20/04 => 49.90 03/09/04 => 49.81 05/12/04 => 50.00 06/03/04 => 50.28 07/24/04 => 49.76 08/20/04 => 49.33 10/22/04 => 48.59 As expected, the HOFers as a subset are well represented. There are many factors that can influence these numbers versus actual card rarity. For example, I have inflated the 3 Detroits HOFers as shown below. Others may submit their HOFers more than once trying to get the next grade. I've also noticed that a re-submission that is successful, ie an SGC40 upgraded to SGC50 will remain on the population report as both a 40 & 50 (old grades are not deleted from database). With that, here is how the HOFers stack up: HOFer / # Graded Tim Keefe => 18 (including 2 DP cards with Richardson) King Kelly => 17 Monte Ward => 15 Tommy McCarthy => 14 Sam Thompson => 14 (I've inflated this with 4 submissions) Commy Comisky => 13 Dan Brouthers => 12 (I've inflated this with 4 submissions) Jim O'Rourke => 11 Ed Delahanty => 10 John Clarkson => 8 Hugh Duffy => 8 Old Hoss Radbourn => 8 Jake Beckley => 7 Roger Connor => 7 Buck Ewing => 7 Clark Griffith => 7 Amos Rusie => 7 Cap Anson => 6 Ned Hanlon => 6 (I've inflated this with 2 submissions, soon 3) Kid Nichols => 6 Smiling Mickey Welch => 6 Pud Galvin => 5 Connie Mack => 5 Harry Wright => 3 Sliding Billy Hamilton => 2 Wilbert Robinson => 2 Bid McPhee => 1 Again, many factors can distort these figures. I'd trust Jay Millers ranking first and simply suggest that this supports his experience. The current count of 1671 cards graded account for 419 different subjects (albeit SGC sometimes has double listings for same player due to double player poses, misspellings, etc.). Everything considered, roughly 80% of the known Old Judge subjects can be found in the SGC population report. At this point, if a card doesn't show in the registry, it's safe to assume it is among the more difficult cards to obtain. The opposite, however, is not true. There are many cards listed in the population report that are rare, sometimes one of a kinds. Lastly, I've never had the opportunity to look at the PSA registry. Anyone by chance have similar information? Regards, Joe Gonsowski

Archive

10-23-2004, 08:35 AM

Posted By: Hal LewisI will try to add the PSA numbers, but they will never be as detailed as your great information! 927 Old Judges have been graded by PSA: King Kelly Boston - 15 Tim Keefe - 15 John Ward - 13 Cap Anson streetclothes - 12 Hoss Radbourn - 12 Jim O'Rourke - 11 Commy Comiskey - 10 Tommy McCarthy - 8 Sam Thompson - 7 Ed Delahanty - 7 Billy Hamilton - 7 Buck Ewing w/mascot - 6 Connie Mack -6 John Clarkson - 6 King Kelly Chicago - 6 Dan Brouthers - 6 Ned Hanlon - 6 Pud Galvin - 6 Roger Connor - 5 Harry Wright -5 Mickey Welch - 5 Buck Ewing alone - 3 Amos Rusie - 3 Hugh Duffy - 2 Bid McPhee - 2 Jake Beckley - 1 Clark Griffith - 1 Kid Nichols - 1 Hoss Radbourn portrait - 1 Wilbert Robinson - 0

Archive

10-23-2004, 09:00 AM

Posted By: qualitycardsSeeing both #'s for SGC & PSA pop reports, it makes ya wonder how many actual N172's there are. As some have been cracked out of each holder in favor of the other grading company.

Archive

10-23-2004, 10:13 AM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesThis is fantastic data gentlemen, thank you! Among the things I come away wondering about is the success frequency history of regrade attampts. Is it reasonable to expect to achieve 1 out of 50? Gil

Archive

10-23-2004, 11:09 AM

Posted By: Julielisted over 3,900 N172s, with no info on grading. Undoubtedly less scientific than either of the reports given here. Site no longer accepts new additions to personal pop repoorts, and I don't know how long that's been going on. He said he was no longer keeping it up, but it's still accessable on his website. Anybody win anything interesting in the 19th century ONLY auction--badly timed?

Archive

10-23-2004, 11:13 AM

Posted By: Joe_G.Sticking with the HOF subset, here is a summary of the SGC & PSA graded Old Judges (Thanks Hal for the PSA list!). Again, this shouldn't be used as gospel for HOF rarity. Certain players such as Anson, Delahanty, and others may have a dis-proportionate percentage of cards graded due to the high value placed on them. Look how much the rankings changed by just adding the PSA numbers to the SGC numbers. Other outside factors such as counting cards twice etc are a reality. One of my SGC Hanlon's was crossed over from PSA. Then again, some of these factors may equally apply to all HOFers thus preserving the rarity ranking. The list should become more accurate with time, ie more statistically significant. Regardless, this list can give the collector a good idea of what's out there. Anyone have similar stats from other grading companies? <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1098551917.GIF"> Joe Gonsowski

Archive

10-23-2004, 11:38 AM

Posted By: Gary B.Why do some HOFers on this list appear a LOT more than others? Obviously I understand some are much more rare, but were they actually printed in lesser quantities or just fewer survived? Can someone give a brief description of how these were originally distributed (if such knowledge exists)?

Archive

10-23-2004, 12:12 PM

Posted By: JulieKelly and Ewing, for 2, have a WHOLE BUNCH of different poses. The 2004 Standard Catalogue makes a stab at the number of variations for each player listed (some are, I think, variations in the words only, but still--there are a different number of poses for different players.) SOMEBODY asked how many Old Judges there were out there...was just trying to contribute someone's estimate.

Archive

10-23-2004, 12:53 PM

Posted By: Joe_G.Hopefully our resident OJ expert, Jay Miller, will chime in but in short there is great variance in the number of cards surviving today. You must realize that there were four years of N172 production by Goodwin & Company. The first year, 1887 are amongst the more common cards, 1888s can be very chanllenging and 1889s are all over the map. The 1890 cards are rare, with previous year poses updated to reflect NL or PL status. As I suggest above, even once you zero in on a given year there is significant ranges of scarcity. 1887 overall is fairly easy year but includes the script cards, the short numbered cards, and long numbered cards (leading 0). The script cards are recognized as fairly difficult (Spotted Ties etc.), the short numbered cards slightly easier (Brown's Champions etc.), with the long numbered cards easier. Many of the players issued cards in 1887 enjoyed production in subsequent years as the same pose(s) were many times issued cards in 1888 and again in 1889 etc. Usually this was done to track a players team change but many were re-issued even if the player remained with the same team. Lot's of HOFers were not issued cards until later years such as Anson (1888 first appearance), Delahanty (1889 first appearance), etc. As already mentioned, some players were issued many poses some only one. Anson only has two poses with one of them being very rare (perhaps 5 known). Despite only having one widely distributed pose, he is much easier than some of the other HOFers with many poses. Lastly, there is the contribution of players popularity over time. Current HOFers like Hanlon may not have been cared for as well as King Kelly who is and always has been a cherished card. So, no two HOF players were likely issued the same number of cards from start to finish and the percentage that have survived to today also varies a bit. This is what makes it such a fun yet frustrating set to collect.

Archive

10-23-2004, 01:14 PM

Posted By: Brian H (misunderestimated)As of now all of my OJs are graded -- I think one or two were crossed at some point. However, I believe that I am quite atypical. OJs are probably less likely to be graded than almost any other vintage card woth much more than the grading procedure itself -- especially by collectors. As one of Hal's earlier post indicated, the grading of the back brings down grades of OJs so that most OJ collectors (especially those who started before the grading companies got into it) find SGC/PSA grades reflect collectors' grades less than just about any set I can think of except perhaps the Mayos. Personally I prefer my PSA/SGC graded 1 cards with good corners and clear pictures with some signs of scrapbook removal to the PSA/SGC 3's I have that have faded pictures and rounded corners. Additionally the long time OJ collectors with the big collections have not submitted their cards for grading for the most part (correct me if I'm wrong here). In fact, the biggest sellers of OJs around right now -- TIK and now Dave Levin have generally not submitted their cards. Cards from other vintage sets of similar value (even low grade), converesely, are much more likely to be submitted by active sellers. That said the HOF lists above are more or less in keeping with what I view as the relative scarcity of the OJs to one another. Still, I would trust someone who has been actively collecting the OJs for a while (prime example Jay Miller) alot more than these pop reports results and I would also suggest that Lipset's list in his book is probably more accurate as well -- although it ommits Hanlon and McPhee who were not yet HOFers when he wrote it. ( I would reprint Lipset's estimates but I can't seem to find my copy ....<img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14> )

Archive

10-23-2004, 01:47 PM

Posted By: JulieMind you, this is 1983! Lipset: Anson: 2 poses (1888-89) Beckley: 4 poses (88,89) Brouthers: 3 (1887) Clarkson 7 (1887) Comiskey: 6 (88 {90}) Connor: 4 (87) Delahanty: 5 (89) Duffy: 5 (88, 89) Ewing: 11 (88, 89) Galvin: 4 (87) Griffith: 5 (89) Hamilton : 5, (6?) (89 (90?) Keefe: 9 (87) Kelly: 10 (87) Mack: 3 (87) McCarthy: 9 (87,88,89) Nichols: 5 (89) O'Rourke: 4 (87) Radbourne: 6 (87) Robinson: 4 (88, 89?) Rusie: 5? (89, 90?) Thompson: 5 (87) Ward: 9 (87) Welch: 4 (87, 88, 89) Wright: 3 (no date given) Where Lipset is ambiguous, I have put a question mark; all dates refer to the original date of issue of that pose, even if player was reprinted later with a different team and same pose. The funny parentheses inside Comiskey refer to a single card which Lew saw once.