PCGS pop tables, when do they become obsolete?

DesertLizard

Just finished doing a study of Barber quarter and halves pop tables and am wondering if they are worth analyzing any more. So many coins are showing high MS64 that just cannot be true, I suspect many are resubmitted trying to get into that MS65 holder.

When will people finally say these numbers are meaningless given the crackouts and resubmissions over the past 6-7 years? What happens in 5 years, what reference will we use?

What happens if today you have a MS68, one of 12 finest and every year 3-4 enter the grade due to crackouts? Or are they really crackouts and not "new" coins? What happens to the value of your 12/0 coin which now becomes 36/0 in 6 years?

Is PCGS trying to hold the line on this by grading so tough? Giving people pause before resubmitting and risking a down grade?


Anyone have any innovative solutions? I asked D Hall on the Q & A forum and the question was ignored. Too hot to handle?

gmarguli

When will people finally say these numbers are meaningless given the crackouts and resubmissions over the past 6-7 years?

Yesterday.


What happens in 5 years, what reference will we use?

We'll use what we use now. Market data (dealer sales, auction records, etc).

Lakesammman

Agree - in and of themselves, they are meaningless....obsolete the day they are printed.

But, they are very useful to determine trends when saved and comparing populations year to year.

DesertLizard

We'll use what we use now. Market data (dealer sales, auction records, etc).

OK, but do these really reflect rarity as in "this is the finest of 12 in MS67" ? Sales give price direction but what about absolute figures?

Lakesammman

Problem is you don't know if there are 12, 6 or 2 coins or 50, 38 unsubmitted. Due to crackouts and re-submissions w/o tags, you really don't know. There is no one piece to the coin jigsaw puzzle that gives you the overall picture....you need many pieces to see the whole perspective properly.

jom

I agree with Greg. The Pop Reports are worthless the day they are published.

The data is skewed, the grading is not precise to one grade point and they've had different graders over the years so the accuracy is meaningless. IMO, it is best to use your own experience over a number of years to figure what is the difficulty to finding a particular issue. AND...do not pay huge premiums for small steps in the grading scale.

jom

roadrunner

I totally disagree that the pops are useless. It may be true that on particular coins (look at a PCGS No Drapery half in 63 for example) the numbers are horribly skewed by a coin or two being tried many times. Many of those standout like a sore thumb. You can look at the grades around that one, as well as surrounding dates, or the NGC pops to get a fair comparison. The data is out there and it can be used successfully on 80% of the coins. It may take more work than just looking up one number however.

For comparing type coins
(like MS65 Barbers vs. MS65 3c silvers ) the data is probably very accurate, much more so than our "guess" based on what we think we've seen over the years. For individual rare dates some are puffed up and others have zero resubmissions. If you have the first UNC graded of a date, the pop confirms the rarity of that. If there are a dozen graded, well that's inconclusive. My pops are now 16 months old and I use 'em every day to support me in determining what is underpriced, overpriced, or indeterminate. I tread lightly when the answer is "undefined." But many things jump right out as underpriced. It's impossbile (unless your name is Breen) to remember everything you've seen and reach a logical conclusion without references. Before POP reports we had Taxay's Book and other references that based on what the pops show, have many glaring errors. IF one neglects the pops or fails to consult a current price sheet, you will eventually leave money on the table either buying or selling. I don't care if you're an expert in the series.

The tools are there. While not perfect, pops have real value today and will continue to do so for many years, especially for type coin buyers looking for value. They offer good data too on specfic dates in specific grades. I'm happy when a seller doesn't consult a POP to see if a coin just might be a bit better date or is underpriced relative to other dates in a series. I get the coin cheaper in the end.

roadrunner

gmarguli

OK, but do these really reflect rarity as in "this is the finest of 12 in MS67" ? Sales give price direction but what about absolute figures?

The pop reports don't tell you about condition either. They just tell you about grade.

I was referring to "dealer sales, auction records, etc" as in finding out the number of times a certain coin has been offered. For example, take an unpopular series like Shield nickels. Lets say there is one coin with a pop of 20, yet over the last ten years you can only find 3 different examples of this coin trading hands. That's a fairly good indicator that the pop of 20 is likely high. Now if you could find 12 examples trading over that same time period, then the pop is probably pretty accurate.

shirohniichan

Of course, the lower the surviving population the easier it is to track. Shylock has done a great job of comparing auction photos to match resubmitted and crossed coins. Seeing former MS-62 RB coins in MS-65 RD holder serves as a warning that even copper coins aren't free from doctoring and that you really need to buy the coin, not the holder.

roadrunner

Greg, it's a huge and continuing time investment to see every coin or go to all the auctions. I made 4 auctions in the past 12 months but missed nearly every one from 1990-2001. The pops are one way to get data if you don't have time for heavy research. In the 1975-1990 time frame I tracked dozens of seated coins by date. No longer have the time or means to keep on top of it like that. The pops now offer an alternative of sorts. And you're right, just because a coin is graded 64 doesn't mean it is, esp. for a rare date where it may be the highest graded. That's one more thing to have to take into account when finally buying the coin.

Until the pops disappear they will be taken as "accurate" enough by the 95% of buyers who are not experts in many particular areas.
And unfortunately they will shy away from dates with relatively big pops whether inflated or not. The PCGS pops for UNC 1866s quarters above MS63 is no doubt accurate (just one coin), the pops of 1871-s quarters above MS63 is 8. I'm sure that's inflated by at least 2 if not 4 pieces. Same comment on the NGC #'s. But, I would have a hard time paying strong for an 1871-s quarter today. The pops could be right. Then again, the 66s quarter is the clear winner based on pops vs CDN price. I would never have concluded this wide a disparity based on my own experience, even after studying and tracking these 2 dates over a 15 year period. You can't see or experience everything.

roadrunner

jom

Road: So...which dates/series have YOU decided are over-blown in pops which aren't. How did you come to that decision? By experience? Also, how did you know about that MS66 piece? Did you see it? How do you know it isn't a piece of crap?

I'll continue to use my experience in the series I focus on. I do take a look at a pop report once in a while for curiosity sake but to buy those things any more than once a year at best is waste of money, IMO.

jom

zep

Roadrunner,
It is nice to chat with someone who appreciates and understands Seated Liberty rarities. Frankly I would have no problem with either an MS66 1866 S or an 1871 S for my collection. I saw the 1866 S quarter several times over the years (first time the the late 1980s) and it is very nice. The last time it was for sale in a set of 1866 S coins offered by Jesse Lipka. Unfortunately I only wanted the quarter and not the other denominations.

We are fortunate to have the Heaton reference and the Gobrecht Journal as guides and the population reports basically verify the prior research findings regarding rare dates.

RotatedRainbows

As stated above they are not very accurate for a given grade but they do give you a general idea of which coins are tougher to come by in MS (all grades from 60 on up).

shirohniichan

Those who read the Gobrecht Journal can testify to the imprecision of population estimates based on PCGS and NGC pop reports (read the XF-AU seated dollar article). If anyone believe the pop reports, I'm willing to trade my 1873 in PCGS AU-50 for an 1859-S dollar in either PCGS or NGC AU-55 (the pop reports say mine is scarcer).

Fairlaneman

The population reports are almost completely useless IMO. From watching the Web Sites, Ebay, Auctions and going to Coin Shows and not seeing certain common date coins but maybe once or twice a year you have to believe the reports are bogus. I'm talking about coins here that are not extremely rare according to the reports. Looks like collectors are hoarding some coins or they just plain do not exist.

Ken

roadrunner

Jom,

I agree that buying a pop report more than once every few
years is a waste. I shoot for every 3 years and if something comes
up where I have to know if something is still pop 1 I'll make a call.
As far as the MS66 coin you mentioned, my post had nothing to say about that. I was referring to the rare 1866-s quarter (66s). Of course our experience plays into evaluating the pop reports, how could it not. I just got done discussing the 59-0 and 56-0 half dimes in MS65 with a fellow board member. The pops show them to be very underrated per the CDN. NO question at all. The CDN prices in 65 are in fact just ludicrous. While some may have picked that up by their experience, I can admit that I never considered the 59-0 a tougher date in gem until POP reports came along. It was under the radar screen.

ZEP,

thanks for your comments about the 66-s. That's a date I've always loved. At one time I owned the finest known of that piece
in PCGS66. It came out of the Harold Blauvelt collection (Bowers and
Ruddy 1977). Jim Halperin plucked it out for his Rare Coin Fund. In only 3 years that coin went from $5,000 to $46,000 when he sold it at the NERCG Rare Coin Fund I auction in 1980. I guess that proves that better date seated doesn't perform well!! Halperin really picked some winners for his Rare Coin Fund in 1977. That fund was one of the best market moves I've ever seen. I only owned that 66s for a short while in 1988 when I got the coin on the rebound for around $13,000. I guess the owner who bought it for $46K finally had it long enough.


Shiro,

You are correct about the pops on the 73 vs. the 59-s dollar in AU.
I wouldn't have thought that at first. Glad I had the pops to check that. And it shows the 73 to be underrated vs. more common dates. While you wouldn't trade your 59-s for a 73 in AU maybe you would trade it for a 50-0 or 72-s which sheet for LESS money but by the pops are scarcer in AU. So while I'm no expert in Seated Dollars the pops tell me the 59-s is overpriced compard to the 50-0 and 72-s in AU grades. And quite a few other dates seem to be much better buys. Probably more a case of the 59-s having a small mintage, being a "magical" early
S mint, etc. And in fact price-wise, the 1873 looks to be a better "value" than the 59-s in AU grade. I wonder if EVP would agree with all this. It also appears to be underrated compared to many of the other "common" dates in the series. Good point. You helped to justify my theory on the POP reports. Thanks.

roadrunner

michael

i guess for me the pop reports are useful but you have to know waht you are looking at and specialize in a series and have a descerning eye
as the pop reports are skewewed for the most part

now there are rare exceptinos where a coin is a pop one or low under pop 3 coin since the beginnig of the services ngc pcgs keeping records as such then it is a no brainer low pop coin! now of course i do not mean a modern coin loike a xf 2002 cent say like an ms 67 1889 lib nick pop 2 ngc and none pcgs after many many years




or the 1878 dime ms 67 68 pop one bith grades and only a pop one coin 67 none higher until a few years ago

then a 66 made the 67 spot then a pop 2 coin then a pop one 67 again when the 66 that was upgraded to a 67 got upgraded to a 68.......lol

i have been carefluy following this as i know where the pop one 67 coin was the first graded and the only one graded 67 at pcgs until this 66 upgrade thing 67 then to 68 about 2 years ago

i would love to comapir the first 67 and that new within the last 2 years 68 coin!

sincerely mivhael

roadrunner

Michael, as always you hit the point dead on. I recently picked up an 1875-s seated dime in NGC-67. I bought the coin as essentially a type coin off a scan without giving it much thought until I got it in hand. I checked the pops and was sort of floored to see that it was the only 67 graded at either service. A little more reflection showed the trend that nearly every common date "S" mint becomes quite rare once you get to this grade. Not so for dates like 1882 or 1883 which are type coins in all grades. So there was a case where the pops helped me out quite a bit when it came time to sell the coin. Sometimes the answers are right there under your eyes and you can't see them. I wonder how many people have discovered the rarity of many moderns in 67 grade solely because of the pop reports. Don't tell me there has been enough first hand experience gained in the modern market over the past 2 years to see everything out there. It's still evolving and is so widely dispersed the pops are literally crutches to the sellers and buyers for low pop coins.

roadrunner

EVillageProwler

And in fact price-wise, the 1873 looks to be a better "value" than the 59-s in AU grade. I wonder if EVP would agree with all this. It also appears to be underrated compared to many of the other "common" dates in the series. Good point. You helped to justify my theory on the POP reports.

Brian,

You just *had* to drag me into this all over again!!!

I do not agree with everything said here. Specifically, I think the reason that the pops show the 1873 (in EF-AU) to be rarer than the 1859-S is because no one cares about the stinking coin in that grade range (especially EF). The 1859-S is fully priced, so people will be more likely to submit, and re-submit, it.

I feel that the 1859-S is rarer than the 1873 in EF-AU, but I also think the 1873 is underpriced vs the 1859-S. The 1859-S is so-so common (for a Seated Dollar), yet is priced as one of the better dates. (It is very tough in true UNC, however!) The 1873 is also pretty common, but is considered a slightly better date because it is the last year of issue. Still, it is not priced to the moon. If you can find a nicely struck one in ChAU, then it should be a keeper. The date frequently comes poorly struck.

In a nutshell, the 1873 is more plentiful than the 1859-S in EF-AU, but is also a better buy because it is not as fully priced as the 1859-S.

IMO.

EVP

EVillageProwler

Hmmm...

PM's with Roadrunner caused me to check Bower's estimate of the two dates in question.

In circ grades (VF to AU), Bowers estimates 750 to 1250 specimens extant for the 1859-S, and only 260 to 500 for the 1873. In his book, Bowers also says that many 1873 specimens were melted.

I realize that we were talking about the EF to AU grade range, but I doubt that the relative rarity between these two coin would change simply because we chopped off the lower half of the grade range.

Still, my experiences suggest that there is not such a big pop difference between the two dates, and I've always *felt* that the 1873 was slightly less scarce.

Hmmm... Now I need to go back and think a bit more!

EVP

[edited to add that it is possible that the 1859-S is far more populous in the lower circ grades than the 1873.]

gemtone65

To me, third party grading was in the dark ages prior to the publication of the population reports. I conjecture that the success of PCGS and NGC is, in part, related to their decisions to offer this document, and share the grading results with the public.

While it's true that crackouts may distort certain results, I believe that for the most part the information is accurate and extremely valuable. And, the notion that many MS68's are actually cracked out and resubmitted raw is foolish. If anyone had an non-modern MS68 and didn't submit it in its holder for regarde, I would question their sanity.

As for Jim Halperin and his rare coin fund, his genius was in the timing of his purchases and sales, not so much in his coin selections. He could have thrown a dart at any uncirculated coin listing and made a fortune by buying in 1977 and selling in April, 1980.

roadrunner

Gemtone,

I disagree with your statement about Halperin's rare coin fund. It's been years since I looked through that NERCG catalog (April '80?)
and it always brings back fond memories of a period long gone.
But I tracked some of the best dated seated coinage he picked and he picked sleepers/winners. I already mentioned the superb Gem
1866 s quarter. He also bought the superb Gem 1867-s quarter
(ex Jame Stack 1975) for $5000 (it realized $30,000), and the Atwater 1841-0 in superb gem for under $5000 (realized $44,000).
Those were just 3 keys I remember. No dart board was used here.
If he had access to a finest known dated piece he went after it.
He knew the untapped potential of rare dated material. Halperin had a large number of better date seated in grades of 63-65 sprinkled throughout the sale. If he just picked average commercial 65 material (63/64) by today's standards he would have done far worse. He graded one or two of the above coins as "65" and they were absolutely superb and the finest known for the date (still are today too by a wide margin). All are 67's by today's standards.
He was paying $5000 a coin for top dates when no one wanted too.
The 1867-s had sold at auction 2 years earlier for $1800. It tripled in 3 years, then went up 6 more times in the 3 years he owned it. He cherrypicked the heck out of the coin market.....at least in seated.
Of course these all came crashing back down to earth by 1982-1986
to one third the levels they had been at. I have not seen the 1841-0 since 1980 and would love to know its whereabouts. It was the best pre-1853 dated seated quarter I have ever seen.

If anyone has an analysis of how Halperin did on gold or 20th century dated material that would be interesting to hear. But I think he mostly concentrated on 1840-1916 silver material. Barbers too.

I had the opportunity to buy all 3 of the above coins before he did, and felt they were VERY high priced for 1977. Little did I know that this was just the tip of the iceberg. Halperin knew what was coming. I didn't have a clue!

roadrunner

gemtone65

Roadrunner: I'll stick with my point that the main source of Halperin's astounding investment success with this fund was due to timing. I admit he supplemented that with excellent selections, but in a realtive sense, he could have done exceedingly well just stocking up on type coins.

roadrunner

Gemtone65,

I concur for the most part. But it was the superb type coins where he did the best. One common date seated quarter realized nearly
$20,000......I doubt he paid more than $2000 for it. Had he just picked so so type coins of commercial quality like most everyone else had, then his results would have been very average. I seem to recall he spent $350,000 in the Fund. And it realized as I recall about 4 to 5 times that. Back then I could just not fathom the extra premium dealers paid for superb coins over regular 65 pieces. Those were the forerunners of the 67's we know today.

roadrunner

gemtone65

roadrunner: As I recall that common date quarter you refer which sold for $20,000 was actually the finest known 1857 piece, which now resides in a PCGS67 holder, as you correctly surmised.

BillJones

To me the pop reports have not become obsolete because they were never relevant. They had so many problems that they were only of use to those wanted to show to less well informed customers that “Coin X” was rare because it had a low pop. Here’s the list of problems:

1. The pop reports covered only the coins that a given grading service had handled, not a truly representative sample of the known specimens.
2. The pop reports included resubmissions of the same coins that were sent in mostly for higher grades.
3. The preservation information in the pop reports was subject to the same grading inconsistencies that plague 3ud party grading in general.
4. The pop reports are bent toward coins that are most often sold in slabs. Rare die varieties and colonial coins, which are often sold raw are excluded. Just because very few of a given coin have been graded does not mean that the coin is rare.

I view the population reports as principally a marketing tool that is used to convinced the inexperienced coin buyer that certain issues are good investments when in fact the direct opposite may be true.

EVillageProwler

I've been thinking long and hard about how I feel about the pops. (Ok, not that long and not that hard, but I really did think about it for some time...)

I used to feel that I can use the pops to get a sense, or guide, of relative scarcity. For example, I can use the pops to tell me that ED's are rarer in MS60 and higher than Morgans. But, there are also examples where I'd say that the pops is wrong, like with the 1859 dollar in MS63. (The # is skewed by at least 9 due to a single coin's being resubmitted!)

I've been thinking... Is it reasonable to say that the pops is good for assessing relative rarity simply I have no issue with the data? Or, as in the case of the 1859 dollar, do I discount it because I know better?

Is it reasonable for me to pick and choose which I'll accept and which I will not?

I think in the first case, I am actually using the pops to support a belief of mine. When the pops run contrary, I dismiss the pops' version of the data.

If I were doing real numerical analysis, I'd be forced to discount the entirety of the pops data as primary supporting evidence. Used by themselves, they mean nothing. Perhaps they can be used to back other data, like experience.

Jim O'Donnell wrote a series of articles analyzing condition rarity of various Seated denominations using personal experience. Randy Wiley and Bill Bugert did the same thing for Seated Half varieties. Dick Osburn also wrote an article similar to Jim's, but for the Seated Halves. All of these people relied on personal experience obtained over many long years. None of them relied on PCGS and NGC pops.

The JRCS publishes rarity and census estimates of what're in their purview. They don't rely on the pops either. They rely on actual, confirmed specimens plus as statistical projection (with experience factored in).

In the end, I think I agree with BillJones. The pops never were relevent.

EVP