Thoughts about SMR?

1967topps

SMR doesn't seem to take population (or ebay sales??) into account, for example 1967 high # commons are almost all $28
regardless of whether its a DP Doug Camilli (pop 66) or cards that I never see go for cheap like Boswell (pop 18 in PSA 8)
Bunker or Abernathy (each pop 24 in PSA 8).
Does that really do any service to those of us trying to sell cards to the person who checks SMR for each and every auction? They don't care if there's 21 Hamiltons or 13 Sims in PSA8, "SMR is listed at only $15"

Tough question to ask, perhaps, considering the sponsor of this forum, but what do you think?

marz

SMR is a joke.however,how could they take population into account when,like the SMR values should..............change all th time?

scottsusor

While I wouldn't go so far as to characterize the SMR as a "joke," it can be very misleading when it comes to commons, due to not taking in the various production and emotional factors I mentioned in my "True Value" thread. However -- think about it. What kind of time and effort requirements would it take to keep every common card in every set updated value-wise? It would be a Herculean task and that's probably an understatement. I dare say you could have a staff of 10 people working around the clock and still not be able to keep the SMR reasonably accurate for commons. Thus, its really an "all or nothing" proposition and PSA has probably made the logical (not to mention financially feasible) choice in choosing the "nothing."

Marz -- You're quite correct in that "changing all the time" is far more applicable to commons than stars. Further, those changes are apt to be a lot more volatile. For example, if there are 300 PSA 8 Mickey Mantles and one more gets graded an 8, it will not affect the "supply" all that much (i.e. +0.33%). But if there are 9 PSA 8 Joe Blows and one more gets graded an 8, then the percentage increase in supply will be +10%. An existing Mantle's value would remain essentially unchanged but the existing Joe Blows would (or at least should) see a 10% decrease. Multiply such a change by about a zillion common cards, and you'll recognize that it would be virtually impossible to maintain accurate SMR values on commons.

Scott

1420sports

There are some 67 experts that could price the set accordingly but that would not be fair for the other sets. The 67 collectors are serious collectors and good guys.

gemint

I think the prices on low pop commons are too volitile to accurately show them in the SMR. The best we can do is highlight those like the PSA 9 1969 Mike Shannon where they list a note at the bottom of the set listing stating that it's a tough card and one sold for $X in a recent auction. If you feel there are a few cards that always sell for a significant premium over SMR, send the info to Joe Orlando and he'll update it in a future SMR. He adjusted the 1969 Brock upward after I quoted him some recent auction results.