Posted By:
Eric BrehmThe new PSA T206 population reports are indeed confusing. I get the feeling that PSA is still tinkering with this. Again using Eddie Collins as an example, I see 5 line entries for Eddie Collins in the current report:
* 259 total graded with all back types combined (blank entry in the 'Company' column)
* 26 total graded with Piedmont back
* 3 total graded with Sweet Caporal back
* 1 total graded with Sovereign back
* 1 total graded with EPDG back
Are the 31 that are identified by specific back type included in the 259 total? My guess is that they are not, that these are ones that were graded before PSA began recording back types.
In any case, since there probably is no way to 'disaggregate' the old combined data with respect to back type, there appears to be no way to merge the old data and the new back-specific data into a meaningful whole, as others have pointed out.
Thus, PSA should probably continue to tally the totals for each subject with all backs combined, and publish those figures in the pop report as well as in the set registry entries for each card (e.g. 30 PSA 5's with 32 graded higher, not 1 PSA 5 with none higher). As currently configured, the registry entries don't indicate what back type each card has anyhow. Perhaps PSA intends to add a Company column to the set registry listings, as they already have in the pop reports, but this would still be very confusing, since old data will appear for some cards in a registered set, while the new back-specific data will appear for others that are more recently graded. It would be apples and oranges.
Since the back-specific population data is now being accumulated for newly graded examples, I suppose there is no harm in providing these numbers in the pop reports along with the aggregate totals -- it will give an idea of the relative scarcity of different back types -- but it will take years for the back-specific data to reach the magnitude of the old combined data for each card.