psa population reports for t206

[Archive]

Posted By: andy becker

i am having trouble finding the t206 population reports on psa's website.

found t205, no problem.....but i cannot find the white border set

i have looked under baseball 1909, 1910, and 1911.

......where are they hiding???

thanks in advance!

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

It used to be in 1911. I don't see it anymore either, but if you go to the "summary" page under 1911, you'll see they list T206 and 58,645 total cards graded. Something is not right with their software.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Evanov

You're right, they're not there. If you click 1911 Baseball there is a small link called "summary" on the bottom left. Click that and it lists all the 1911 sets' pops. T206 is there, 58,645 cards graded total. When you click on the T206 name, it just lists one card. "Jake Atz". Looks like a computer glitch to me. A call to customer service is in order.

Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Sorry guys.....I'm sure I will be "laughed" at as being a "kill-joy" on this.

I have studied these recent reports, and it is my opinion that regarding many T206
cards they can be misleading. And furthermore, are resulting in ridiculously high $$
prices on Ebay for certain commons; that, are not warranted. I see this as a real
detriment to our hobby, as it will discourage collectors from starting a T206 set.

I am wondering if I am the only Forum member that has this opinion ?

T-Rex Ted

[Archive]

Posted By: DJ

I agree with Ted.

Can you go through the Registry to pull the same information?

http://www.psacard.com/set_registry/display_rsets.chtml?setid=83&set_name=1909%2D11%20T206%20White%20Border

DJ

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

Ted, I don't disagree with you. I think it is useful if one looks at it as part of the big picture but not the whole picture. That's the way I use it.

As for T206 - can you give us an example of a card that you think the PSA pop is misleading? That may be more useful than just declaring it is misleading.

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

The couple of examples I like to mention are from my PSA Set Registry:

http://www.psacard.com/set_registry/display_cards.chtml?rsetid=35985&alltime=no&rank=44&tied=0&requesttimeout=9999

1) I do not own the PSA 6 Chase Pink Portrait reflected here. Why did I sell it? Because it has a crease in the upper right corner.

2) The PSA 6 Mathewson portrait -- indeed, all but 10 of the cards on my PSA Set Registry -- are still in my collection, but now reside in SGC holders. If I had it reslabbed by PSA, that would be two PSA 6 Mathewson portraits reflected in the PSA population, and one in the SGC population, even though we're talking about the same card.

I hardly think my examples are unique, or even rare.

[Archive]

Posted By: James Gallo

I agree that for the most part the population reports are sometimes over stated. I have pulled a ton of Cracker Jacks out of PSA holders and had then graded by SGC, yet those cards are still listed on the registry.

I wonder if I sent PSA an email with the numbers of the cards I pulled out of the tabs from the holders if they would remove that cards from the registry?

On the other hand it can be used to see if a card is rarer then other in the same set. This is mostly useful to see what a tough common is when compared to other commons in a given set.

Therefore I think it still has some used if used correctly.

James Gallo

Looking for 1915 Cracker Jacks and 1909-11 American Caramel E90-1.

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

...then you are rewarding cards that have been submitted only once over cards that have been submitted over and over again. So, the value of the card, all things remaining equal, will be determined by how many times it has been cracked out and reslabbed -- the more times this has been done, the lower its value will be. This, of course, does not take into account condition, but is instead based on an artifical indicia of scarcity. What a silly reason to go after high-grade common cards.

Obviously the prices don't lie, but the sustainability of such prices over the long term in such an irrational market is highly questionable.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Amen, Ted.

I do crack the little rascals out, but I've never submitted a card. I hate the slabs. And I hope my acts of liberation screw up the population reports.

Frank.

[Archive]

Posted By: andy becker

thanks for confirming that the info i'm looking for cannot be found.

the pop reports are misleading.....we all know that.

james, i belive that psa will reduce it's population if you send in the holder label. not a photocopy, not an email....it has to be the original cert from the broken holder.

[Archive]

Posted By: Griffin's

I've cracked about 50 Cracker Jacks out of SGC holders and put them into PSA's (about half stayed the same grade, the other half bumped up). When I had mixed stacks I just shot them across the room, so it was easier to have a uniform holder stack. I'm sure in the end it all evens up.
The pop reports on both SGC and PSA are out of whack, but at least it's a guideline. I talked to one dealer who cracks and submits up to 12 times on a given card until he gets the grade he thinks it deserves. The pops are never adjusted. The only one that would seem accurate is PSA's T3 pops, but with SGC grading them soon I'm sure it will be off as well.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I thought I heard a few years back that PSA stopped doing this. Makes sense to me. If you remove cards from your pop reposrt, that means, indirectly, that you ahve slabbed fewer. If they leave everything in the pop report, it looks as if they have graded far more cards than actually exist.

Just imagine all the PSA Wagners getting popped out and crossed to SGC, leaving no Wagners in a PSA slab. Wouldn't look very good for PSA, thus the reason they less than motivated to reduce pop numbers.

Jay

Growing old is not optional, growing up is.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rick

It could be a nice tool...a tool among many others.

Nothing beats experience...but for someone who its not familiar with a particular set, it could offer some insight into which cards are harder to find than others.

Collectors can really help make this a better tool by simply returning the flips...just wait until you a few and send them all in at once. Good karma anyways.

In the coin hobby PCGS (PSA's sister company) they offer 50 cents per flip as an incentive to return them.

Maybe PSA should do that as well

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

Assumes that most people crack them out before submitting them to SGC. And, it also assumes that people care about preserving the sanctity of the PSA population reports.

I have never cracked a card out of a PSA holder before submitting it to SGC. I have crossed over about 50 T206 cards this way.

Also, I could really care less about the PSA population report. Based on my personal experience, I do not think that PSA is a consistent or even a quality grader of vintage baseball cards. If PSA graded 8 T206 Unglaubs higher than a 7, how many of those were trimmed and got past the inconsistent graders working at that company?

[Archive]

Posted By: Rick

How about returning the flips to SGC ...

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

cmoking

OK, here goes my response to your query. As prior posters have already noted the
constant "churning" with collectors "flipping" cards to get a better grades does
certainly "muddy up the waters" to the point that these reports are no longer re-
presentative of what T206's are really out there. And, the pop reports on the T206
commons are where I really have a problem. It is obvious to most that HOFers, Stars,
and tougher variations are going to get much more action (due to big $$ they garner)
than commons. Therefore, these reports are heavily weighted towards these higher
priced cards..

You asked for specific examples and here are some....

Burch (batting vs fldg)....their #s are about even....a 150-only card vs a very available 350 card.

Dahlen (Boston vs Brooklyn).....DITTO......never true in the real world, Brooklyn is tougher.

Demmitt (NY vs St Louis).........DITTO......this is absurd, and everyone knows it.

Elberfeld (NY vs Washington portrait)....DITTO....Washington is very much tougher.

Kleinow (NY vs Boston - catching)........DITTO....not so in reality, Boston is tougher.

Reulbach (Cubs vs no glove).....DITTO.....the Cubs card is a 150-only, while the "no glove"
version is a much more available 350 Series card.

I am currently 80% near complete on my 3rd T206 set; and, in the past 27 years I've had
at least 6000 T206's.....so I think I know what I am talking about. I hope I have given you
enough specifics to back-up my prior comments...."pop reports are mis-leading".

T-REx Ted

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Certainly the pop reports of PSA, SGC, and GAI are all skewed because of crossovers and resubmittals. I used to own an SGC 88 E93 Chase that I crossed to a PSA 8 because the rest of my set is in PSA holders. But the SGC pop report still lists a Chase in an 88. One thing we know is that there are no more than the stated amounts. For example if the PSA pop report says there are 2 PSA 8s of some card and SGC says they have one and GAI none, then we know that the maximum number of graded nm/mt examples of that card are 3. There may only be one that was first sumbitted to PSA, the crossed to SGC by another owner, then crossed back to PSA by yet another owner. BUt if no crossovers took place, the max is 3 currently graded at that level.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: David Vargha

For the most part, Pop. Reports serve as a valuable "guide" to relative market scarcity for most cards. As time goes on, they (in theory) should actually become more accurate as the sample size grows, despite resubmissions and crackouts. If you use the information as such, they serve their purpose. If you are demanding scientific precision and accuracy, then it's probably best to just get your time from an atomic clock and consider everything else a waste of time and effort.

DavidVargha@hotmail.com

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

Ted, those are great examples. Thank you for taking the time.

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

David,

I disagree that as time goes by, they become more accurate. I believe, as time goes by and more and more of the same cards are being resubmitted and crossed from company to company, it simply further skews the number.

T206 collector makes a valid point, whenever you cross from one company to another without cracking the cards out of their slabs first, nothing will be adjusted on the pop reports because the grading companies are not going to send flips back and forth to each other (though if they did, it would certainly help the situation). Therefore, you would have to request that the grading company send the old flips back to you and do it yourself. I asked one grading company to do that with a t227 cobb that I crossed. Unfortunately I never got it. I feel fairly save in assuming that this is the norm.

Jim B - did you send sgc the flip?

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Josh,
I did not because before they sent it to me, I asked the dealer I bought it from to submit it to PSA for me with a group they were submitting that day anyway. So it was never actually in my hands in the SGC holder. I don't know if the dealer sent the flip to SGC or not, but I doubt it.
Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: Scot Reader

What Ted says about price skew in the pop reports is true, but the pop reports are still useful if you compare like-priced subjects, that is, common major leaguers to common major leaguers, southern leaguers to southern leaguers, etc. In the past there has been no greater incentive to submit a Miller (Pittsburg) than a Shaw (St. Louis), yet the Shaw (St. Louis) pop is about half that of Miller (Pittsburg). This tells us that Shaw (St. Louis) is the scarcer subject.

One can also compare the number of high grade examples rather than the total population to get a sense of relative scarcity. For example, even if there are more graded Demmitt (New York) specimens than Demmitt (St. Louis) specimens (I have not checked recently), most of the Demmitt (St. Louis) specimens are PSA 1 - PSA 4 which is not the case for the New York version. If you compare the PSA 5+ populations for two versions it becomes evident that the St. Louis version has a much lower population and is thus scarcer.

Indeed, the population totals can be weighted to account, albeit inexactly, for the effects of price skew. For example, you can weight the populations based on grade and/or the base price of the subject to normalize the data.