Why are PSA's new population reports so inaccurate?

[CMIZ5290]

These really seem to be all over the place. I have researched many T206s with scarcer backs, quite a few have showed no population of any grade. This has been incorrect every single time when I looked further, card target, google, etc...Has anyone else observed this as well?

[Fred]

Are you saying that PSA is now documenting the "backs" for T206 cards? I don't think they've been accurately doing so in the past so the population reports with backs are probably very unreliable. Also, the crappy part about pop reports (as we all know) is that many of the cards that have been graded may have been broken out of the slab and resubmitted by someone attempting to get a better grade for the card. That can't help those reports at all.

[iwantitiwinit]

I am more confused with SGC's population report than psa's. I looked at SGC's pop report for t206's a few days ago and it is a mess and seems worthless to me.

[CMIZ5290]

I just tried two more cards , PSA says no population...This is crazy, what am I missing?

[brob28]

It's in pretty sad shape Kevin, I just looked up a Mordecai Brown card that has had two PSA 5's sell in the past couple of years as shown on Card Target. The Pop reports shows no 5's in existence. I'm at a loss as to how that can happen.

[swarmee]

Are you using the straight page for T206 or are you doing the search engine?
http://www.psacard.com/Pop/T206

Make sure your browser is up-to-date or you might not see all the coding they added recently.
There are approximately 180 Mordecai Brown (~60 in each pose) listed. Use the drop down [+] to the left of the name to see all the different back breakdowns. They also now have three lines for each "card": the top line is for the straight integer grades (e.g. PSA 6), the second line is for half grades (6.5), and the third line shows the ones with a Qualifier (6MK).

Supposedly they will roll out a new Pop Report and search engine in the Spring, according to Joe Orlando's latest message.

[brob28]

John, I used the same report as you have in your link. I do have to correct myself, there is only one PSA 5 that sold within the past few years shown on card target (the other was SGC). I could see where the pop reports would show too many of a particular card due to re-subbing, not really sure how one could be lost from the reports though? I'm far from an expert on PSA and cert #'s but could this one (40448789) be old and therefore graded before the pop report came into existence?

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by brob28

John, I used the same report as you have in your link. I do have to correct myself, there is only one PSA 5 that sold within the past few years shown on card target (the other was SGC). I could see where the pop reports would show too many of a particular card due to re-subbing, not really sure how one could be lost from the reports though? I'm far from an expert on PSA and cert #'s but could this one (40448789) be old and therefore graded before the pop report came into existence?

It's in the database properly.
"Cert Verification
According to the PSA Certification Database, the requested certification number is defined as the following:

ITEM INFORMATION

Cert Verification #: 40448789
Year: 1909-1911
Brand: T206 UNKNOWN BACK
Card Number:
Player: MORDECAI BROWN
Variety: PORTRAIT
Grade: EXCELLENT 5

Population: 35
Population w/Qual: 0
Sport: BASEBALL CARDS
Population Higher: 19
Population (All Backs): 54
Pop Higher (All Backs): 42

Data entry errors occasionally may occur causing the information on the card holder to differ from the PSA database. If the information listed above appears to be incorrect, please contact customer service at 800-325-1121 or email us at info@psacard.com."

What browser are you using? I'm seeing it just fine on IE11.

[GoudeyGum]

If the card's flip doesn't specify back, that is how the card will show in pop report. I.e. don't look for it under player tolstoi, just look under player. It is only fairly recently that psa has specified back type.

[brob28]

Originally Posted by GoudeyGum

If the card's flip doesn't specify back, that is how the card will show in pop report. I.e. don't look for it under player tolstoi, just look under player. It is only fairly recently that psa has specified back type.

That must be it, the flip does not identify the back, it all makes sense now. Anyone know about when PSA started identifying the backs on the flip?

John, thanks for checking on the cert. I figured it was legit just couldn't figure out why it didn't show in the pop report. I think GoudeyGum has it figured out.

Thanks guys,

[glynparson]

the information is it reflected in the pop. PSA did not keep records of what back the card was prior to labeling the flips with said information. There is no way to verify the backs for pops. The back pops are going forward from the time they began labeling them.

[buymycards]

I was looking at SGC's pop report for Type 2 Coupons. It is very difficult to decipher this report, because the cards are listed by team name. Many of the cards do not list a team name, so they are at the beginning of the list. (PSA lists their cards alphabetically by the first name of the player.)

So, SGC has 245 separate listings for a set that contains 188 cards (maybe only 185). Tommy Leach is listed 5 times, and he has 3 cards in the set. It must be because their earlier slabs did not note the team name, so we are seeing several listings for some players because of this.

You would think SGC's software would allow them to list by the last name of the player so the pop report would make a little more sense.

Rick