Pop Report v. Registry Pops
coolkarma
Posts: 512 ✭✭
For several days now, the population report has differed from the numbers reported for individual registry sets. For example, the population report for proof Jefferson nickels lists the following in PR 69DCAM
1960 3
1961 10
1962 37
1963 52
1964 135
On the other hand, if you look at the Corso Collection, number 2 in the 1938-1964 Proof Jefferson registry, the numbers are:
1960 4
1961 12
1962 50
1963 60
1964 159
Of course, I find it interesting that they differ by so much. However, my question is: Does anyone know how long it takes before the two lists of numbers are "sync'd up"? I assume I should "believe" the numbers in the registry (since the registry used to contain the same numbers as in the population report), but if not, please let me know. Thanks.
Richard
1960 3
1961 10
1962 37
1963 52
1964 135
On the other hand, if you look at the Corso Collection, number 2 in the 1938-1964 Proof Jefferson registry, the numbers are:
1960 4
1961 12
1962 50
1963 60
1964 159
Of course, I find it interesting that they differ by so much. However, my question is: Does anyone know how long it takes before the two lists of numbers are "sync'd up"? I assume I should "believe" the numbers in the registry (since the registry used to contain the same numbers as in the population report), but if not, please let me know. Thanks.
Richard
0
Comments
Not sure what the problem is.
Russ, NCNE
M., Leaving for Balt. Tomorrow with newly graded Lincolns in hand!!! I but someone wonders what it is!!!
I agree, it is NOT an exact science and some dates are far tougher than others. BUT, It doesn't matter WHEN the coin was graded or when the cert # came into existence. What I was saying is that if you were to plug a cert # into a registry set and then look at that registry set (the same way anyone can - NOT being logged in in edit mode), the pop that gets reported in that registry set is the most up to date pop and usually MUCH more (BUT NEVER LESS) up to date than the online pop report. So for a potential buyer to determine ACCURATELY the most up to date pop, he necessarily needs the cert # to do this (IF HE DOES NOT HAVE A SUBSCRIPTION TO THE ONLINE POP REPORT ~ AND ~ if he can't find a similar coin in someone else's registry set - but why would a seller want to put someone thru searching for it in other people's registry sets just to get an accurate pop when they can help them accomplish this by SIMPLY GIVING THEM THE CERT#) But now that you've seen the light
e.g look @ the Domino Collection's coins with the pops reported Here. Look at the pop for the 72-S in 67RD e.g.. It says 5/0. If you go to the online pop report it only shows a pop of 2/0.
Now, let's say a seller e-mails me with a generous offer and tells me that they have a 72-S in 67RD that is a pop 2/0 (assuming NEITHER of us knew otherwise) and they tell me they'll let me have it for a steal at $1,499. I say GREAT, a pop 2/0 S-mint from the early 70's & I send the $ to them via PayPal 5 seconds after I accept like I normally do. If I were to trust the online pop report I'd be seriosly overpaying. If no one else had the coin in a "visible to the public" registry set for me to check the pop on AND IF THEY CONTINUED REFUSING TO PROVIDE THE CERT # BEFORE I PAID, then I'd really wind up getting screwed if I relied on the online pop report. If THEY chose to withold the cert # AND refused to let a buyer return the coin in some stated time I'd feel I'd been seriously ripped-off.
Of course I KNOW you would never do this
I dont trust the pops posted in the registry any more. They lied to me....
David
Wondercoin
<< <i>Since you apparently are clueless and don't get what I'm saying let me try to break it down in smaller itty bitty bites that even you can understand. >>
redcents,
That's a very convoluted and completely unnecessary method for verifying the current population of a particular coin. Again, as I stated above, all you need to do is plug the coin number in to "Lookup by PCGS No:" box in the upper right of the pop report page and click "Go". That will give you the most up-to-date pop for the coin. And, again, it is updated every Thursday morning like clockwork.
Mark is not the one who is "clueless" here.
Russ, NCNE
As Russ points out, if one accesses the on-line PCGS population data base via the “Lookup by PCGS No:" method, you seem to get current and presumably accurate info. It agrees with those pop numbers shown for registry sets. However, these data are inconsistent with what is shown in the master table for a series.
No wonder that Roger is frustrated. One place he finds a pop of 2, another place he sees a pop of 5.
This inconsistency between the two ways of accessing the pop data base is a new phenomena. The numbers used to agree. I noticed the discrepancies start at the beginning of July. I can only imagine that it must be a system glitch, which I’ve reported 3 times to PCGS. So far, they have not corrected the problem.
You are right on with your comments. The last time I checked this is the USA.
M. in Ohio now, In Balt. MD within 12 hours.
Friends don't let friends vote Democrat
P.S. Ready to upset the Lincoln Reg. sets,....
(Of course MANY potential buyers don't have the subscription, especially newbies - thus the "does anyone have a pop report" threads. To encourage more of them (newbies) do you want them to be treated like Mark seems to suggest or the way I suggest? Admittedly, any "serious" buyer that does not have the subscription is not too serious)
My Motto: Treat people like you'd like to be treated & I bet you'll never go wrong (unless you're a masochist).
Mitch: If Russ wasn't 110% right, I would agree with you 100%, but it is now a mute point (for those that have a subscription to the online pop report).
Gerry: In light of my obvious previous ignorance to the method Russ mentioned, yes, you can see how I would've been frustrated. Of course no one that ever tried to sell me a coin ever pointed this feature out to me - I wonder why.
Mark: You always bust my chops. You know I respect, and TRUST you. My comments were tounge in cheek - thus the liberal use of the "cute" symbols (again tounge in cheek). Don't be so sensitive. Yes it now appears that there is no need (FOR THOSE THAT DO HAVE A SUBSCRIPTION TO THE ONLINE POP REPORT) for the cert # to verify pops (thanks to Russ bringing it to my & I'm sure to many other people's attention). I also have to beleive that this is news to you as well since we've had this discussion before but you NEVER mentioned to me this way of checking the most current pop. So, it appears that all that remains as a benefit to the buyer (FOR THOSE THAT DO HAVE A SUBSCRIPTION TO THE ONLINE POP REPORT) of getting the cert # BEFORE paying is for the buyer to verify that the coin is reported accurately in the PCGS database (I've bought some that wern't) AND to make sure it's not registered to someone else just to avoid the hassle of getting PCGS to get it released for you (I've bought some that were) AND to verify that the seller actually has the coin he says he does. OBVOIUSLY with a seller like you, trust is not an issue, but the first 2 items may be of interest to some buyers to obtain the cleanest most problem free transaction that they can. Yes, these may be minor considerations most of the time, but why would a seller NOT want a buyer to get as much info that he needs to feel comfortable about a transaction and thus thereby increase the probability of the transaction occuring? BTW, using a euphemism for the F word is really uncalled for. Another interesting observation I feel is that touting the pops as a main selling point seems to be becoming a 2-edged sword for sellers. If they're going to tout the "low pops" at least get the potential buyers on an even footing by providing them with as much info as you can that is available from PCGS. Since you are an authorized dealer I suspect either you knew of this function (that Russ explained) or at least "should've known" - either way it does not bode well for the appearance (to those that DON'T know you) of full disclosure. But hey, I still trust you. We all make mistakes. Please TRY to not take all hypothetical situations I describe as insinuastions or accusations or take it all personally and PLEASE reduce your caffeine intake - your going postal for no reason
- But for those that don't have a subscription to the online pop report, my original argument stands - surely a seller would be acting more ethically and would be just plain "nicer" to give the buyer the cert # instead of telling them to subscribe to the online pop report if they want the most up to date pops
p.s. What is your opinion? Should a seller disclose their return policy in the terms of the sale - whether he allows returns or not?
p.p.s. Baltimore was an almost spiritual experience for me. No fighting. Just peace, love, & crabs - dude.
p.p.p.s. Datentype won't sell me Lincoln's anymore!
Manorcourtman: Mark has a right to say whatever he wants and deal with whomever he chooses to. But the big question is do you think he is a champion of BUYER'S RIGHTS or a covetous protector of SELLER'S RIGHTS?
1. Roger - you have made some interesting observations (especially pertaining to pops in the online report vs. registry set pops), but, in doing so, you have hurt Mark's feelings (through brutal worded posts), even though you say you never intended to do so and you "love" Mark. For this, you owe Mark an sincere apology.
2. Mark - you know as well as I do that when you come on these boards to sell coins, you had better be prepared to address issues concerning your coins and your business practices surrounding those sales. Obviously, Roger had a positive impact on your business practices, because your latest offering on these boards included an explicit return privilege, which was different than how you offered coins in the past on this board. Just agree to restore Roger's bidding privileges on ebay after a 30 day cooling off period for you and let's move on and apologize for the "ant" reference.
First guy to offer his SINCERE apology to the other guy on this thread scores an extra point as well with me (and perhaps the remainder of the "peanut gallery". First guy to keep the debate going, loses 10 points
Wondercoin
But what do we do when the Beaver acts up again?
There is still time
Wondercoin
The libelous posts have been edited and currently show limited traces of the intent to publically emabarrass and hurt my business profits over the last few months but I know what they are. You may not remember them but i do and have about 10 emails from baord members (not including you) supporting me and many are in utter shock concerning his libelous intent. I have a copy of you getting slammed (wrongly the way I had read it, I might add) by a board member for offering to sell him coins still.
Your an Attorney and are used to Libel, slander and harrassment concepts does this still seem out of line?
Mark: Do you think I also have a "case" against this board member? I retired from law 6/02, but, my sales were light this week
But, seriously, consider putting an end to this now.
Wondercoin
AGAIN, I apologize for the reasons previously mentioned. And yes, if I think of a better way to say this later on I might just edit these words to acheive that goal.
Roger: Well done
Wondercoin