Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
|
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):
1909-11 T206 - [Base] - Piedmont 350 Back #CHCA - Charlie Carr [PSA 4 VG‑EX]
Courtesy of 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.