Does "Low Pop" Need A Qualifier?

scottsusor

Just curious here, really. When looking at the "low pop" cards in the PSA Population Report, how many of you also take the time to figure out how many of them are currently locked into registered sets? Now, of course, not all registered sets are actively being added to and updated, but -- If there are (for example) a total of 6 1968 Topps #52 Mike Andrews in PSA 8 or 9, and 4 registered sets have one of them, then there are only 2 that are currently available. That also means that, potentially, 54 set-builders are going begging for this card. If you "scored" that card, it would get a -54. Maybe that "Low Pop" needs a Qualifier to make it a "10" in the "Low Pop" category, eh?

Scott

Stump

Scott

I am sure you are referring to the 69 Andrews. I think you will find there is one more in the Clubhouse Turn set that is not open for viewing which leaves just 1 possible to be had. The second 9 was just recently graded(last 3 weeks) and it was about the time Bob(gaspipe) was turning in his submissions so he may have that one also. The 69 Andrews is truly tough. If you dont get knocked down on centering then the snow will get you, if not the snow than the tilt will do it. I have submitted 6 altogether and have recieved 2 6's and 4 7's. These are cards that I thought would 8.

Dave

helionaut

For the sets I follow, I keep track of what tough cards the top people have and in what grades, and what they are missing altogether. If a low pop gets picked up by someone whose set I don't know, I'll check their history and see what else they're going after. It could be a player collector, or someone going after rare variations.

For my main 75Tset, though, the high-end population has grown so much that most of the top guys have completed their sets in 8 or are close to complete but seem to have switched to focusing on 9s, so 8s that would complete a few sets seem to be underbid relative to where they might have been a 6-12 months ago. There are some 8s that have low numbers that seem to be available regularly, and there are others with similar numbers that only come up a couple times a year. Yet there is no real pattern to the prices realized on those cards, I think mainly due to the completion rate and competition among the top players.

gemint

Darn, now I no longer have the only 9 of that card. Oh well, it's nice to know someone else will have a shot of adding that to their set. Hopefully Bob submitted it since he's the one who sold me the 9 a few years ago.

It will be interesting to see if that one hits eBay and what it would go for. Any guesses? I'd say $700-$800.

scottsusor

Dave -- You're right -- I meant to type 1969, not 1968 -- slip of the old fingers there.

But what I'm getting at here is that maybe "Low Pop" isn't really descriptive enough anymore when used by itself. Now, of course it all relative and pops can and will change. But obviously the '69 Andrews would be rated a "Low Pop 10" if we used the 1-10 PSA scale of grading on the pops of cards.

What "standard" would everybody use for declaring a card (like the '69 Andrews) a "Low Pop 10" vs. a "Low Pop 9" vs. a "Low Pop 8" etc. etc. etc.?

To be safe, and less confusing, maybe we should call them "Low Pop A" and "Low Pop B" and "Low Pop C" -- But do you understand what I'm getting at here?

Scott

shouldabeena10

well then of course you'll need half grades too ... low pop A.5 low pop B.5

gemint

This is why it is so difficult to quantify exactly how difficult a card is. The 1969 #110 Mike Shannon is a good example. For a long time, there was zero population above PSA 7. Then DSL (or was it DH Cards?) graded many of their vending beauties and generated a small group of PSA 8's, SGC 88/92's and even a 9. For a short while, those cards found their way to eBay and the price went from $499 for the first 8 sold by MINT STATE, down to under $100 (I bought my SGC92 for under $100 and crossed it to an 8). Since those have been absorbed into collections, there has been another dry spell. There are a few other cards I need for my set that aren't nearly as rare as the Shannon based on populations, yet I've been unable to obtain them since they are locked up in collections.

I think the market is just too volitile and the supply too inconsistant to create any accurate indicator for the difficulty of a particular card.

mcastaldi

gemint> I think "low pop" is definitely a relative term. If a card has a pop of say 18 and there are 20 people actively building the set, then I'd say that is a "low pop" card. At the same time, another card may have a population of 2 but if noone cares. . .

I think what often gets overlooked is the difference between a "low pop" card and a tough card. Ask yourself how many more examples of Card X will I see in a given grade when 5,000 more cards from the set have been graded? 10,000 more? I mean with a set like 1979 Topps, there are tons of 1/1 and 1/2 PSA9s. But I think it'd be foolhardy to consider these "low pop" since so many gradeable 1979s have yet to be submitted. In time, the tough cards will seperate themselves as the populations increase.

The more you know about the issue/set and the more cards graded overall from a set, the easier it is to tell the difference.

Mike

jaxxr

Indeed, a low-pop is NOT always equal to a tough card.

Age is a big factor of course, the aforementioned 79s have almost 18,000 copies submitted, a ten year prior set 69, has over 50,000, another ten years and the 59s have over 60,000. The older the set the more accurate the population information. Perhaps, if not just for the registry, a true population might include data from the other "reputable" grading companies.

Speaking of the 79s, somewhat a tougher set than most think, via a current thread on the 78 Molitor RC, I would like to re-ask about the 1979 card # 11, Marc Hill (smudge prone), has anyone ever seen a nice 8 or 9 quality card ?? I know there's plenty raw out there, but it seems odd not even one has ever been submitted to PSA yet alone get a high grade !!