N172 Old Judge Population Reports

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe_G.</b><p>As most of you know, my collecting passion lies within the Old Judge set, specifically, the Detroit players. As such, I follow and document all known transactions; the details of which would be boring too most here. However, I also track Old Judges on a more global basis, the details of which might be interesting to more of the forum readers. The data is not being presented to make an SGC vs PSA argument nor grading vs raw, but instead give us an idea of what is out there together with general trends that the population reports offer us. I posted similar information last year with positive feedback. This time around, the analysis is a little more thorough with more statistically significant populations.<br /><br />My collection resides in SGC holders. With my customer password in hand I frequent the SGC population reports. On the other hand, I’ve had to rely on other board members to send me PSA population information. Hal lent a helping hand last year, Jim Crandell this year (thanks).<br /><br />The first graph shows the total number of cards graded over time together with the average cumulative grade. I admit the PSA data is very low in resolution (two points), but the trends are obvious. SGC has nearly twice as many cards graded in total with new submissions better than twice that of PSA. This is quite opposite of many other pre-War issues.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1126487398.GIF"><br /><br />It is also apparent that the average grade is dropping with time. Previous threads point out that tougher grading standards (arguable) and perhaps an increase in lower grade submissions are likely responsible. Following is the current SGC Old Judge grade distribution. A fairly normal distribution with 54% of the cards found in the SGC40-60 range with remainder equally split above and below that range (23% each).<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1126487448.GIF"><br /><br />There are a total of 520 players represented in the Old Judge set. At 2496 cards graded, SGC has a 4.6 card per player average. However, due to rarities such as the 19 California League cards and others, the current population report stands at 472, or 90.8% of the 520 players. Last year at this time, it stood at 80.1%.<br /><br />The last table speaks to the hearts of the HOF collectors, one of the more popular ways of collecting Old Judges. The 27 members of the HOF found in the Old Judge set account for 15% of the total submissions. This disproportionately high submission rate for HOFers can be attributed to the higher value of the cards together with the fact that most of them were taken better care of over the last century (giving them an honest higher population). Here, PSA still has fewer submissions but not by a 2:1 count. The HOFers, more so than the commons, may also suffer from inflated numbers due to re-submissions and cross-overs. Then you have collectors like me who give the 3 Detroit HOFers added counts due to my collecting habits (12 Detroit submissions that otherwise may not have been).<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1126487163.GIF"><br /><br />Assuming the above factors equally bias each HOFer equally, rarity of each becomes evident. We have Wilbert Robinson & Bid McPhee at the top of the list with Ward, Keefe, & Kelly being the most common. The PSA pop report currently shows only 1 Ward which is in obvious error. Last year, PSA had 13 Wards pass through their hands. I’m using last year’s number until PSA corrects their population report. Also, PSA lumps many of their grades together in the pop report. For instance, they throw the PSA1s & PSA2s together, so in figuring the averages Jim & I simply took the midpoints, 1.5 in this case.<br /><br />Lastly, it should be noted that these population report totals are exceeded by several independent collections. For the most part, the significant collections out there have been and continue to be put together in raw form. I would still trust the comments from such collectors over any conclusions drawn from the pop reports. But as time goes on, the data becomes more statistically significant.<br /><br />In closing, Hal, you might need to update some of your website listings, there are some awful nice HOFers listed above <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Supporting and counter-point comments welcome.<br /><br />Regards,<br />Joe Gonsowski

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jim Crandell</b><p>Joe,<br /><br />This is one of the best posts I have ever seen on any message board--outstanding stuff. Will have more to say tomorrow after going through it in detail.<br /><br />Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>john/z28jd</b><p>As usual Joe,whenever you make a post about Old Judges you can tell you really put alot of thought into it.Great job and some very useful information.Thanks for sharing<br /><br /> I think it would be a great idea if you ever decided to write a book on OJs and if theres anyway i can pressure you into doing it id be more than happy to be that annoying

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Judge Dred (Fred)</b><p>WOW! <br /><br />Thanks for posting this data. It's great to see N172 information like this accumulated and distributed. It's pretty interesting to see the N172 grading distribution as compared to PSA. The total number of HOF cards graded by SGC vs PSA is quite interesting. <br /><br />Thank You for the effort!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>thanks for the post, a question for you:<br /><br />Your table lists the average SGC grade at 46 and the average PSA grade at 4.5. This is about a full grade higher for PSA graded cards. These numbers may lead one to believe that PSA is an easier grader and gives higher grades while SGC is harsher. Different from the Goudeys (see the thread that Jim Crandell started), there are more cards graded by SGC than PSA, so the PSA supporters wouldn't be able to use the argument of "high grade cards only go to PSA" (actually this made sense to me for the Goudeys). <br /><br />From your post, it is clear you have seen many N172s in your collecting lifetime. What is your general thoughts on the toughness/easeness of PSA/SGC grading? I'm not trying to make this into a battle between supporters of the two companies, but I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts.<br /><br />Also, how did you adjust the PSA cards with qualifiers? For example, how did you average in a card that received a PSA 7oc?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>FYS</b><p>Great stuff!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Julie Vognar</b><p>I will add that my collecting of Old Judge cards, and 19th cenutry cards in general, is linmited pretty much to HOFers--simply because I can't AFFORD to collect every card I'd like. I make exceptions for cards of people I've grown fascinated with--Hoy, Caruthers, O"Neill--but--that's about it!<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe_G.</b><p>Thanks for the thumbs up.<br /><br />OK, to answer a couple questions, the PSA qualifiers were treated as 2 point deductions. For example, for the cards that were 7 with a qualifier, we reduced it to a 5 for the averaging calculations and when comparing against others for the highest graded example.<br /><br />I actually haven't collected all that many OJs, I collect what I can afford which amounts to somewhere north of 50 examples, almost all Detroits. I've crossed over several PSA cards with varying results. I'd say evenly returned at equal, lower, and higher grades by SGC.<br /><br />I could be wrong, but I thought several on the Goudey thread indicated that SGC was the tougher grade, will look at that again later. Or perhaps Jim can compare/contrast the two before I get a chance.<br /><br />Regards,<br />Joe G.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Joe:<br /><br />Great stuff!!<br /><br />As far as what I have written on my website... remember that a lot of the Old Judge cards have SEVERAL different variations.<br /><br />Some players have several different poses... AND appeared on the 1887 cards, the 1888 cards and the 1889 cards.<br /><br />In other words, while there may be 15 Old Judge cards graded for a certain player...<br /><br />there may be only ONE card graded of a certain pose from a certain year.<br /><br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />I know this sounds picky... but it's important.<br /><br />After all... a "Cap Anson in Uniform" card is MUCH different than a regular old Cap Anson in his suit.<br /><br />Thus, my website refers specifically to the poses and the year of issue.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Kevin Cummings</b><p>Joe:<br /><br /><b>WOW!</b> Now <b><u>this</u></b> is the kind of stuff that makes this board so great!<br /><br />Three comments:<br /><br />(1) As it relates specifically to the Old Judge issue, I think your finding on the average SGC grade vs. the average PSA grade appears to support the assertion many of us have made all along - that SGC is a much tougher, more critical grader.<br />(2) I think the spike in submissions also sort of supports my feeling that there are many more new collectors of this issue recently and because of its vagaries and inconsistencies (size, color, etc.) buyers are more comfortable purchasing a card that an "expert" has evaluated rather than trusting their own judgment, so sellers are accommodating. <br />(3) You say above, "...There are a total of 520 players represented in the Old Judge set. At 2496 cards graded, SGC has a 4.6 card per player average..." I don't believe that is true unless there is at least one graded card for each of the 520 (or 472). Your average should probably be caluclated using only those players for whom there has been at least one submission.<br /><br />Kevin <br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Nick</b><p>Bid McPhee was selected for the Hall of Fame long after most of the others. I expect that there are collectors who segregated their HOFers from the rest of the Old Judges and never updated their collection by moving the McPhee into the other category, but who subsequently graded all their OJ HOFers (meaning that their McPhee is sitting raw). I've seen the same thing happen to an extent with T-206s, as George Davis cards were not submitted in large numbers prior to his election. [Of course, the fact McPhee was not a HOFer for a long time also might create more of a condition bias, as people did not take as much care of his cards.]<br /><br />Managers might be less frequently graded because they're not players (less people trying to build a complete graded set of HOF managers), but that would not account for a disparity in graded numbers between managers.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>joe maples</b><p>Great job Joe, I'm happy that I have one of those Hanlon SGC 84's in my collection.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe_G.</b><p>Couple comments in no particular order.<br /><br />Hal, I see how you play the "highest graded" Old Judge game <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14> But how do you know whether the higher graded examples are either later year issues or different poses from the "rookie" year? None of the grading companies seem to track this information. For example, there are two higher graded Monte Ward cards with another two graded equal to yours. Are you sure the other four examples are all different poses/later years?<br /><br />In all honesty, I'm just trying my best to give you a hard time in good spirits <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Your HOF collection is top notch. Your SGC80 John Ward is BEAUTIFUL.<br /><br />John, Fred, others, thanks. John, please no nagging.<br /><br />Kevin, great points. However, on point #3 I still rather report the average card per player as I did. Let me use a hypothetical example to help demonstrate why I calculated the number the way I did.<br /><br />Let's say I collect 1984 Topps because of my fond Tiger memories. There are 792 cards to a complete set. I collect them by opening wax packs and quickly realize I need to open more than 792 cards to complete the set. After collecting 1584 random 1984 Topps, I still need 36 cards. Now at this point I could report my collection as any of the following:<br /><br />1) I have an average of 2.0 cards per player in the set (1584/792)<br />2) Of the players I have, on average, I have 2.1 examples (1584/(792-36))<br />3) Worthless, must sell post-war and buy pre-war:)<br /><br />All 3 are accurate, really just personal preference. In the case of Old Judge, you could use the numbers from the first calculation and begin looking to see which side of the average the 520 cards fall. The cards with zero & 1 populations are certainly higher probability to be the tougher cards etc. However, as stated before, the population size isn't the best for statistical analysis. In other words, the confidence level is lower than I'd like to make statements that all 0 & 1 population cards are more scarce than the cards with a 4 population (for example).<br /><br />Nick, Bid McPhee is one of the tougher HOFers for reasons you stated and more. His major league career was well underway by 1887 but Goodwin & Co. only issued cards for 3 of the 8 American Association teams (NY Mets - Spotted Ties, St. Louis - Brown's Champs, & Brooklyn). Had they included Cincinnati in 1887, Bid McPhee would likely be an easier find. This doesn't mean that all HOFers issued "rookie" cards after 1887 are difficult, it just helps to be included in the more common 1887 run. The other factors you listed are valid as well.<br /><br />Also, the managers and most other Old Judge subsets seem to be in demand by collectors. Since completing the set is about as close to impossible as it gets, many collectors find sanity in trying to complete a subset. Managers would be a good example of a subsets. Most managers are also portraits which fall into another subset category. The Old Judge set, more than any other I can think of, is collected by subsets.<br /><br />Lastly, Mr. Maples, your SGC84 Hanlon is gorgeous!, thanks for sharing a pic with me awhile back. I want you to know that I'll be sending you some scans of my Hardy Richardson duplicate as soon as it comes back from SGC. Do you want to use that as credit towards your Hanlon? <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Regards,<br />Joe G.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Judge Dred (Fred)</b><p>This is something I posted in another thread but it kind of goes with what is being said and what has already been stated in this thread:<br /><br /><b>The difficulty with OJs is that the grading services will generally get the player's name correct (most of the time) but they usually don't identify the pose. There may be several poses of one player but the pop reports will not accurately reflect which N172 cards have actually been graded. They can indicate how many cards of a player have been graded but they don't provide the correct year (unless it was from 1887), team or pose type (catalog number). Unless they (grading services) get one of those Brit catalogs they'll never have a chance of properly providing accurate data for OJs. Even if they did start following stricter labeling guidelines there would be so many inaccurately labeled OJs out there that the pop reports would always be a bit off.</B><br /><br />Joe, your contribution of information is the kind of stuff I look forward to seeing in this forum. Could we just imagine if 1 in 5 threads had this type of content - WOW!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>This is a great thread. <br /><br />With regards to comparisons of grading standards, the ONLY way to determine whether SGC or PSA is tougher or more lenient is to send them both a large sample of the exact same cards and compare on the basis of the grades they assign to those cards. If I send a nm card to SGC and they grade it 84 and somebody else send a vg card to PSA and they grade it a 3, does that mean SGC is more leniant? Of course not. Drawing conclusions based on averages when they have graded completely different cards is utterly unscientific. There could be a hundred reasons to account for the discrepancy. Who knows what motivated the hundreds of different submitters to choose the grading company they did and how that all fleshes itself out in the overall numbers. <br /><br />Though I have not examined nearly as many graded OJs as a lot of other folks out there, my general sense is that both PSA and SGC overgrade the issue. And neither pays enough attention to image quality and contrast which is so key to the desirability of OJs.<br />JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>pete</b><p>I am not a collector of the OJs yet, but I do like the various poses of the players more than the specific player... for example, a couple of months ago someone had started a thread about their favorite "horizontal" cards, which was pretty funny to see. I especially liked the one where the OJ player (name unknown to me) was "laying" down near a base, sliding I'm assuming.<br /><br />My question: is there a site or book of some sort that shows all of the poses? <br /><br />pete-<br><br>my best pitch was the one that made it to the plate!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Craig Lipman</b><p>I agree with Jim on both his points 100%<br /><br />I think sgc and psa both struggle grading 19th century cards (particularly photo issues). There are high grade n172's with poor contrast while a gorgeous card with minor writing or scuffing on the blank back gets absolutely hammered from the grading company. Definitely an issue to buy the card not the holder. The majority of collectors I speak with greatly value the photo quality (sharpness and contrast) over other factors.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Joe,<br /><br />Some brief observations and a question.<br /><br />1)How is SMR on the Old Judges?<br />2)I was initially surprised at the low average grades although I guess I really shouldn't have been.<br />3)It is very interesting that the average grade is dropping over time. I wonder if that is the trend in every pre-war set???<br />4)Two King Kellys in psa 9--wow.<br />5)I am willing to give you more data if you like<br />6)Despite the opinions of some others, I think the data on this and the 34 Goudeys is supportive of the view that SGC is a somewhat tougher grader. I do understand the dynamic of resubmissions and the impact of the Set Registry but still think this is true.<br />7)I will try to gather some data on the T206 set next. Given its popularity, we are sure to have some good debate there.<br /><br />Once again Joe--great stuff and thanks for sharing and taking the time.<br /><br />Jim<br /><br />Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Marc S.</b><p>1)How is SMR on the Old Judges?<br /><br /> Jim - my experience is that many Old Judge collectors tend to focus more on the image quality and contrast than the technical grade. This applies across the spectrum on Old Judges. PSA and SGC tend to place a lot of emphasis on corners, back damage, and the quality of the original cut. They both tend to overlook eye appeal, in general, and image contrast in particular. SGC is a better grader of N172s, in my opinion.<br /><br />3)It is very interesting that the average grade is dropping over time. I wonder if that is the trend in every pre-war set???<br /><br /> With the run-up in prices of many tobacco and caramel sets, there is an increased economic incentive for sellers and dealers to grade some of their low-grade examples. This is not always the case. And there are also new collectors to these sets that sometimes prefer having a few graded examples in order to better educate themselves on the set.<br /><br />4)Two King Kellys in psa 9--wow.<br /><br /> If my memory serves me correctly - one was in the hands of Mike Wentz, and the other was in the hands of Kris Keppler. The former example is many times better than the latter - particular in the contrast/eye appeal category. The Wentz PSA 9 almost glows when I saw it. I believe that both have since been sold.<br /><br /><br />Finally, Jim, as a general comment, I would only suggest that the "tougher grader" debate will not be decided without better data. You can just as easily suggest that PSA is a harder graded on 1914 CJ's than SGC - but we all know that that data is skewed by the 1914 CJ find that Randy purchased last year.<br /><br />marc

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bruce Babcock</b><p>Thanks for the great info, Joe. Well done.