Why is the SGC Pop Report Getting Ignored?

[BioCRN]

I'm still trying to figure out why some years have multiple designations for their pop reports.

1887 Gold Coin (Buchner) (N284) - Baseball
1887 Gold Coin (Buchner) (N284) (N284) - Baseball

They are both well populated and it's not broken up by old-label-flip year designations like 1886-1890 Old Judge cards.

[Kidnapped18]

I always check and use both PSA and SGC pop reports for the sets I collect.
Like it has been previously stated both have their issues PSA with the slow loading, glitches when getting a breakdown. SGC with the captcha boxes and typing in the set names accurately.

[RCMcKenzie]

Originally Posted by BioCRN

I'm still trying to figure out why some years have multiple designations for their pop reports.

1887 Gold Coin (Buchner) (N284) - Baseball
1887 Gold Coin (Buchner) (N284) (N284) - Baseball

They are both well populated and it's not broken up by old-label-flip year designations like 1886-1890 Old Judge cards.

The clock was ticking down in H&S. I have the Sam Thompson hand at belt, or whatever it's called. I look at my checklist and see that I need the hands chest high. I check psa pop and in seconds see that they have only graded 1 chest high card, so I throw in a bid and win. It's low grade, but it's the tougher variation, which is the info I needed before bidding again.

I looked just now on SGC.

N284 category results listed alphabetically under "B" for Big Sam Thompson.

Hand at belt 8
Hands chest high 2
hHgh (sic) 1


and in their (n284) (n284)

Hand at belt 5
Hand at chest 5

I didn't look to see if they have an old label category, or what.


I do not reference pops if I'm selling. "Only 24 PSA 4.5 OC's extant."

[Fred]

Questions:

Why do people reference population reports?

1) determine scarcity
2) see who has the best graded item (assume cards)

If it's to determine scarcity then you need to ask yourself, just how accurate are the pop reports. First, we all know subjectivity for TPGs is notoriously crappy. So, just because the pop report indicates X number of "8" grades, you ask yourself, could there be "6's" or "7's" in there? Then, what about all the cross-overs. The crossed-over cards are not removed from another TPGs database so the aggregate count on a specific card for a certain grade may be overstated when considering all TPGs accounting.

What about cards that people just didn't bother grading because how many people really want an Evans T206? Using T206 as an example, how well did the TPGs document the backs? For N172, the TPGs initially didn't include the pose number and now only SGC does (that I'm aware of). What's sad is CSG doesn't reference by pose number and that's sad because they actually had a chance to be the only TPG that had accurate counts on quantities of pose numbers (I'll just stop there for N172 because there could be other variations accounted for).

For those that are doing a registry, they usually stick to a certain TPG (i.e., PSA or SGC). Their motivation is finding out who has the highest graded registry set. They probably contribute to inaccuracy of overall population because those registry collectors will cross-over and add to the inaccuracy of the overall population of the cards in existence.

Also, if I were a TPG and my overall quantities graded paled in comparison to the competition, why would I want to make that public because it could bias people to perhaps get their cards graded by the company that has actually handled the most and probably has a greater number of collectors dedicated to their registry collections.


Edited to add: And what about all the grading mistakes and mislabels. Sure those would be considered the exception, not the rule, however, we've all seen it.

[ClementeFanOh]

Interesting question. My oft-stated preference is SGC and I also own PSA
slabs. I can't recall the last time I checked a pop report for either- it doesn't
interest me. I find myself most concerned with the eye appeal of the specific
card I'm holding rather than it's hierarchy in a report that is likely to be
incomplete (I don't believe for a second that PSA does a reliable job with
theirs, they do a poor job with everything else). The responses to this
question support my position, as it sounds like the best you can get is
"Kentucky windage" regarding a card's hierarchy unless it is extraordinarily
scarce. Is a T206 Jake Atz SGC 50/4 Sweet Cap one of 112 in that grade,
or is it actually one of 102? Doesn't move the meter for me.

Trent King