Ain't sending in no stinkin inserts

coynclecter

<< <i>Pop reports should represent the number of unique coins that have been graded, and are only inaccurate if one coin is counted more than once (which has happened hundreds of times already) >>



I didn't want to hijack the other thread but wanted to express an opinion. I believe the pop reports have long ago lost any resemblence to reality. There are so many grading services and so many multple submissions. They have also been abused so many times by sellers that "claim' them to be the bible of how many are actually in existance.

I would be much happier if they didn't exist and I have no intentiuon of perpetuating the farce by sending in my inserts. Now if PCGS would refund half the slab fee I might consider it. These are just being used to inaccurately claim rarity and increase asking prices.

How do others feel about the pop reports and are they being used to justify increased asking prices.

dbldie55

I made the statement and do believe the pop reports are so long gone there is no use in sending in the inserts. Why take your own time to do something that will make no difference? At this time, I own all of the coins that I have the inserts for, so the inserts are still valid. The coins are not in another holder with another insert so they can be listed in the PCGS/NGC/ANACS pop reports.

Russ

I can confirm that the pop reports for the 1964 kennedy proofs are off by at least 18 coins - so far.

Russ, NCNE

gmarguli

How can you say they are inaccurate? Just because there are instances where PCGS has graded more coins than were minted doesn't mean the pop reports are inaccurate.

shirohniichan

Why should reality have anything to do with coin prices and grading? There will always be someone putting a spin on rarity no matter how it's packaged. Changing grade standards mean that the population reports would be off even if we didn't have to worry about resubmissions sinply because a new MS-66 may be the same as an old MS-65.

braddick

It's a pipe dream and probably way too late, but I wish both NGC and PCGS had set up a system years ago that would have allowed them to share information regarding coins that crossed. Both Services would have benefited.

gmarguli

I was told by someone at PCGS that the grading services send the old inserts on crossover to the other company. However, that doesn't go along with the fact that when I cross a coin they send the insert back.

CharlieB

I wish long ago that the services had thought about the
problem that reports would slowly become inaccurate with
break outs. Maybe the slabs should have been handled
like returnable bottles in the old days and the buyer just
picked up the cost. But it has gone too far now and update reports
are a real waste of money to buy. Unfortunately I can see no
way to correct things. Pop reports are very skewed.
Too bad we don't have a universal slab, looks the same for every
company all new and every grading service uses it with just their
unique logo and emblem in it. Can you imagine having to get your
slabs redone if they did this?

WWBillman

Well since it was my post that started all this I guess I should chime in.

Yes the pop reports are not accurate.

Yes it would be nice if the grading services had a system to inform each other of coins crossed, but they don't.

Why, because they send them back to the collector who submitted it with the coin.

It is ultimately to responsibility of the dealers, crack out kings, and collectors in general to inform the services of a cross or crack out.

You do what you want. This is our hobby not theirs and we are the ones ultimately responsible when it flourishes or perishes.

If you want to be part of the problem, go ahead the only one you have to justify your actions to is yourself.

If you like inflated pop reports so you can try and get coins cheaper and then realize less when you decide to sell them, whatever floats your boat.

But coming on here and preaching to everybody to not care about them and do as you have chosen is a disservice.