just how accurate are PSA population reports?
abc
Posts: 36
I have a high-end BGS 9.5 card that started its life as a PSA 10. Seller threw away flip, but kept scan of card as a PSA 10. I contacted PSA and they said they cannot change pop report w/o flip, I told them original flip was gone but I have a scan of card, after which they did not respond back. I felt ethically compelled to make the necessary change as this card is a low-numbered one, so even an adjustment of a few cards in 9.5/100 form would make a huge difference on total # of gems on the market. Which brings me to my point- can I trust the PSA pop report? If I cannot change this obvious mistake, then I am assuming that there are a lot less actual PSA 10 gems. Can it be that PSA is just protecting its turf? I also wonder if there are significant BGS-to-PSA transfers to also significantly affect the pop report?
abc
0
Comments
Now someone will have to pay to switch it back.
Current Sets in Progress:
1956 Topps Master Set PSA 6 or better
1978 Topps PSA 9 or 10
1981 Donruss Golf PSA 9 or 10
1989 Upper Deck PSA 9 or 10
Nolan Ryan Master Set
Pete Rose Master Set
Now someone will have to pay to switch it back.>>
Assuming
1. It doesn't get even the slightest ding in the process of regrading
2. What was a 10 once would still be seen as a 10 at any other time.
You have to wonder, why mess with perfection?
Always looking for Topps Salesman Samples, pre '51 unopened packs, E90-2, E91a, N690 Kalamazoo Bats, and T204 Square Frame Ramly's
All that being said - no, the population reports are not completely accurate. They never are - and never will be. Your one card is piddling in the grand scheme of things. Most don't send in their flips to PSA - and many who do, don't see the population reports change.
There are some common thoughts on this:
A) The population report for cards graded PSA 1-2 is pretty reliable.
C) PSA 6s and PSA 7s are much more reliable than PSA 8s. The bump from PSA 8 to 9 is the most significant value-creater in the crack-and-resubmit game.
D) The population report for PSA 10s is pretty darn accurate. Modern there may be some exceptions (like your case) - but they are rare.
E) Population reports are probably inaccurate across the spectrum (e.g. SGC, BGS, PSA)
F) With moderns, key rookies may have a lot of broken out PSA 9s hoping for 10s.
G) At the end of the day, advanced player collectors and advanced set collectors generally don't need a Population Report to know which cards, which examples are rare. More than anything else - their intimate knowledge of the set is a much better indicator of rarity.
H) Just like SMR and other publications, I would treat the Population Report as a guide. In some sense, you are worried about a 95/5 rule. 95+% of the Population Report is accurate. Correcting the final 5% is extremely labor-intensive, time-consuming, etc.
I) Finally, remember that there are other potential over-representations in the population report: Cards lost in a fire, cards simply lost, etc. that all lead to some minor distortions in the true accuracy of the report.
Overall - it is a fabulous resource.
<< <i>If I cannot change this obvious mistake, then I am assuming that there are a lot less actual PSA 10 gems. >>
Was it that obvious? I appreciate what you are trying to accomplish, but a scan of a card in a PSA holder does not prove that it was removed from the holder, so you can't fault PSA for not acting on your word. Maybe a scan of the flip after having been removed, but not the card still encased.
If they were to just take someone's word for it, there would be lots of scammers trying to get PSA 10s removed from the database to artificially increase card values.
I'm sure he never submits the flip to PSA.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
one other thing to note , do you think GAI is returning the flips that they cross to their holders? the pops would drop on every card that wayne varner has for sale for example.