Why is the SGC Pop Report Getting Ignored?

[Sterling Sports Auctions]

I have found it to be quite interesting that since SGC dropped there set registry that know it seems that there pop reports are getting ignored by Pre War collectors and dealers.

I may be wrong but it looks like they are keeping the pop report updated. If this is the case, and even if they are no, their pop report on Pre War cards should not be ignored since a large percentage a Pre War has been graded by SGC and continues to be.

As we all know you can choose to take information the way you want, but leaving out important information such as this or when selling or backing up a theory is not telling the whole story.

Pop reports are not say all tell all's but they are good indicators to leave out a big player seems strange.

Just a thought, Happy Holidays

Lee

[Lucas00]

There still is no set registry. Just an app to show you your own cards.

[RCMcKenzie]

A couple of reasons for me. PSA is very quick info.

SGC is trying to guess the set name, i.e- T213 "no results" T213-2 "no results" and on and on trying to guess the specific text they have it under.

Also, they have a robot check. I have to click on the boxes that have "ladders" oops, I missed one. Next click on boxes that have motorcycles. etc

And, I have to stop and scroll all the way to the right to see pop numbers, and back to the left to see the player. Maybe I don't know how to work the computer to resize the page.

And the results are similar % wise for heavily graded cards like T206 or 52 Topps. See my 52T thread in the postwar section where I talk about the PSA and SGC pops for 52 Topps.

[Sterling Sports Auctions]

Hi Robert,

I do agree it is a pain to access the pop report. Why you just can't type T206 and get the front page makes no sense to me. Had a hell of a time trying to bring up the pop report for the Evans card on SGC but some how did finally get to it.

Lee

[notfast]

Psa t206 pop report takes forever to load. Glitchy as hell

Sgc t206 pop report is broken down into 50 different things. 1909. 1909-11. 1910. Etc etc.

Neither are great IMO.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

A couple of reasons for me. PSA is very quick info.

SGC is trying to guess the set name, i.e- T213 "no results" T213-2 "no results" and on and on trying to guess the specific text they have it under.

Also, they have a robot check. I have to click on the boxes that have "ladders" oops, I missed one. Next click on boxes that have motorcycles. etc

And, I have to stop and scroll all the way to the right to see pop numbers, and back to the left to see the player. Maybe I don't know how to work the computer to resize the page.

And the results are similar % wise for heavily graded cards like T206 or 52 Topps. See my 52T thread in the postwar section where I talk about the PSA and SGC pops for 52 Topps.

+1 I'ts exhausting just trying to find anything.

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

Also, they have a robot check. I have to click on the boxes that have "ladders" oops, I missed one. Next click on boxes that have motorcycles. etc

I'd kill for some ladders and motorcycles. I keep getting bumblebees.

[RCMcKenzie]

Originally Posted by gunboat82

I'd kill for some ladders and motorcycles. I keep getting bumblebees.

That's great. haha. I'm glad everyone has to do it, at least.

[G1911]

Their database is trash and horrible. Good luck even finding the sets half the time.

Example of the user experience:
I search "T220" and do the stupid captcha. It says I need to use 8 or more characters.

I search "T220 Silver" and do the stupid captcha. It says 0 results.

I search "T220 boxing" and fill out the stupid captcha. It says 0 results.

I search "T220 Mecca" and fill out the stupid captcha. I finally get the set.

It doesn't split the silver set and the white set so I have to account pops by hand to filter. Then it becomes apparent that this dataset is wildly incomplete and inaccurate with tons of SGC graded cards obviously not included. The Donovan silver, which they have graded, is not even listed as a valid card. Nor is the Corbett, which they have not graded before.

I realize this is not only a pain to use but garbage and incomplete data, and then go to PSA's site and get their data within 60 seconds in a usable format.

[theshowandme]

The website asks me to do the image captcha AFTER logging in

Terrible

[pcoz]

I always check the SGC pop report too. Really wish they’d clean it up a bit more though and get a registry back. It would be a nice service for them to take it to another level for the hobby/collectors.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Maybe because I had to do 6 different Captchas for EACH item I wanted to look up? Annoying beyond words.

[brass_rat]

It's interesting to read these responses. I had always assumed that pop reports in general were ignored when it benefits the listing:

"Only one graded by ABC! Pop 1!" (Ignores grading co XYZ pop of 10)

Or

"Only two graded by XYZ! Highest grade!" (Ignores twenty graded higher by ABC)

[raulus]

Originally Posted by brass_rat

It's interesting to read these responses. I had always assumed that pop reports in general were ignored when it benefits the listing:

"Only one graded by ABC! Pop 1!" (Ignores grading co XYZ pop of 10)

Or

"Only two graded by XYZ! Highest grade!" (Ignores twenty graded higher by ABC)

Well, for those of us who are set registry goons, the pop for the other guys isn’t relevant when it comes to the competition. Except if we’re considering buying one and trying to cross it over.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by brass_rat

It's interesting to read these responses. I had always assumed that pop reports in general were ignored when it benefits the listing:

"Only one graded by ABC! Pop 1!" (Ignores grading co XYZ pop of 10)

Or

"Only two graded by XYZ! Highest grade!" (Ignores twenty graded higher by ABC)

Very true...my mind always thinks "but what about the other company?"

On a slightly different note, ABC and XYZ are currently my preferences when sending cards off to get graded. They do a much more consistent job with their grading than PSA and SGC, and their turnarounds are virtually non-existent.


Brian

[ejharrington]

SGC population report is the worst.

[Sterling Sports Auctions]

Originally Posted by brass_rat

It's interesting to read these responses. I had always assumed that pop reports in general were ignored when it benefits the listing:

"Only one graded by ABC! Pop 1!" (Ignores grading co XYZ pop of 10)

Or

"Only two graded by XYZ! Highest grade!" (Ignores twenty graded higher by ABC)

Steve, that is my point spot on. But if people are willing to ignore it that is up to them. Just do not understand why you would. Especially on lower pop items.

The responses have been interesting, definitely shows both companies have work to do cleaning up there pop reports.

SGC could easily start by making the search function easier and not requiring 8 characters.

Lee

[frohme]

Yes, the 8 char minimum in SGC's search is annoying, but that's only the start.

If you start with the year, it works well enough. e.g. "1912 T207" got me right to the T207's broken down by back ... and the fun starts there ...

Even though things evolve and there's not much way to correct past mistakes, omissions, etc... there is still much that could be improved:

Primarily data accuracy - fix things that are very clearly wrong.

After that, my biggest pet peeve is ... WHO SORTS BY FIRST NAME??... separate the damned names, please, or fix the sort ordering. I see that PSA has fixed this and that they are now ordered by default by last name. I will give SGC credit for being able to sort on any column simply by clicking the column headers ...

Also, for me, the entire table fits onscreen (no left/right scrolling) at least as long as 'Show old grading' is not selected.

Do I consult it much? not any more. Do I care? not really, but it is interesting to see how the populations have evolved over the last decade or so. Do I have graded cards? Almost entirely, and mostly SGC but the former registry has faded from the rear window and interest in the registry mostly with it... would I like to see it back. Maybe if they revisited the registry in more friendly way, but it would need work they're not willing to invest, I believe.