True Population of Substantial Cards

[benedini]

Hello everyone - I've bought a few things here and there from members but generally abstained from the message boards so officially "hi".

I generally collect some of the more popular vintage cards (T206 Cobb, 33 Ruth/Gehrig, etc.) and have long been wondering about the true population numbers. I know it's pretty unlikely that a 1933 Goudey common is cracked out and re-submitted but it's definitely at least somewhat common for the big guys like Ruth, Cobb, 51/52 Mantles, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Williams, Wagner, Young, etc....

Unfortunately not everyone returns the old labels when cracking so the true population numbers of these cards is not accurate and is definitely lower than what the official PSA/SGC reports show. How much lower is something I've been trying to figure out. Speaking with a few other collectors/dealers so far the general consensus seems to be in the 25-30% range (meaning 25-30% fewer cards in existence than the pop reports show for the BIG cards). Just curious as to what other members here think with all your years of experience in the hobby. Thanks for your replies!

[NiceDocter]

I think that there are still a significant number of ungraded major cards out there that would counterbalance any duplicates of submission with old labels. Many older collectors who aren’t planning on selling are holding on to “raw” cards that haven’t changed hands for decades . Hence I think almost any population number is UNDER reported and sometimes significantly so. Just my opinion…..

[benedini]

Thanks - I completely agree with you on that. Maybe I should have worded things better to just include "graded population". It's really difficult to put a guess on what's out there raw but for certain there's a healthy number still floating around.

[Kco]

It's likely far closer to the reported numbers than you think, mainly for one obvious reason: Cost to grade ANY of the cards you're referencing.

It's gonna get well into the 4 figure range for any mid grade of any of those cards, with precisely no guarantee that those cards grade better than what they were.

Just my thought process on that

[Golfcollector]

The "crack and resubmit" was much more prevelant 5+ years ago (more like 10+ years ago) when grading fees were a mere fraction of what they are today.

Just my $.02

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Golfcollector

The "crack and resubmit" was much more prevelant 5+ years ago (more like 10+ years ago) when grading fees were a mere fraction of what they are today.

Just my $.02

Grading also seems to be tougher. Unless you have a great specimen, or one that can be "soaked in water" (ahem) cracking won't help

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Golfcollector

The "crack and resubmit" was much more prevelant 5+ years ago (more like 10+ years ago) when grading fees were a mere fraction of what they are today. Just my $.02

What explains such a quantum jump in fees? Is it because they are based on the value of these cards, which have gone up so much? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me, since it shouldn't cost them any more to grade now than it did then. I guess it's because they can?

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by Golfcollector

The "crack and resubmit" was much more prevelant 5+ years ago (more like 10+ years ago) when grading fees were a mere fraction of what they are today.

Just my $.02

Agree with this comment. It was certainly more prevalent years ago.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by NiceDocter

I think that there are still a significant number of ungraded major cards out there that would counterbalance any duplicates of submission with old labels. Many older collectors who aren’t planning on selling are holding on to “raw” cards that haven’t changed hands for decades . Hence I think almost any population number is UNDER reported and sometimes significantly so. Just my opinion…..

I agree with this also. I'd guess that for the top names, the pop reports are probably 5-10% higher than they should be due to crack/resubmit/crossovers. However, this would be counterbalances by roughly 10-15% of the same cards that are still raw in people's collections that have never been submitted before. Re-submitting now is much more expensive than in the past, so the risk/reward calculation is much different. Sure you can get a much higher price if your card grades higher, but there is also the chance that the grade could go down, and then you'd be much worse off.

[sports-cards-forever]

I agree that I think it's more likely that alot of ungraded star cards are out there than collectors cracking open grades to resubmit. It would be cool if someone came up with a global population registry which combined graded and raw cards.

[steve B]

I guess I'm in one of those moods today...

Even though I replied earlier, I saw the title and the first thing I thought of was the huge Nolan Ryan card displays from the set that was all Ryan. Like 18x24 ish versions of a few cards from the set.
They are substantial just not in the intended way.

[Leon]

+1
I was thinking the same things and approximate percentages.

Originally Posted by glchen

I agree with this also. I'd guess that for the top names, the pop reports are probably 5-10% higher than they should be due to crack/resubmit/crossovers. However, this would be counterbalances by roughly 10-15% of the same cards that are still raw in people's collections that have never been submitted before. Re-submitting now is much more expensive than in the past, so the risk/reward calculation is much different. Sure you can get a much higher price if your card grades higher, but there is also the chance that the grade could go down, and then you'd be much worse off.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by NiceDocter

I think that there are still a significant number of ungraded major cards out there that would counterbalance any duplicates of submission with old labels. Many older collectors who aren’t planning on selling are holding on to “raw” cards that haven’t changed hands for decades . Hence I think almost any population number is UNDER reported and sometimes significantly so. Just my opinion….

I believe your opinion is correct. I actually think the number of graded cards is probably only a small fraction of the total in existence. Many old time collectors simply see no reason to advertise their cards to the world.

[Touch'EmAll]

Perhaps as you go up the ladder in grade, the higher the already slabbed percentage.