What can be done to fix the population reports?

Longacre

It seems the general view is that the population reports are very far off for some issues/series. What, if anything, can be done to correct these? I can't think of a way to "fix" the resubmissions problem. Do you think these reports are destined to become truly useless (if they haven't already)>

IrishMike

The cow has left the barn.

coinguy1

Realistically, it's too late to "fix" the reports and nothing major can be done at this point.

There are far too many already-discarded grading labels which are lost-forever, and individuals who currently possess labels don't usually have enough incentive to turn them in to the grading companies.

The figures listed in the population reports are often heavily skewed/distorted due to:

1) resubmissions by submitters looking for up-grades and profits
2) lack of submissions in some areas, due to economic reasons, such as a coin's value not meriting the grading fee.

However, in many cases these reports can still serve as highly valuable references, particularly for those who seek information regarding the RELATIVE rarity of various issues.

OKbustchaser

The only way would be to toss out current reports and recall ALL slabs from a particular TGP for regrade.

Not going to happen.

Jim

Shamika

If everyone wants to agree that pop reports are important and should be more accurate, PCGS could start all over again with the populations.

The slaps would have to undergo some sort of significant visual change so that all will know that slabs predating the new design are not included in the pop reports.

Also, a 50 cent reward for turning in each grading label is a joke. Try $5.00 per label (or more) and people won't be so quick to through them out.

These are just my suggestions. I know they aren't perfect so if you want to throw tomatoes at me, go right ahead.

Conder101

Yes there one way to "fix" the reports.

Make a major change in the slab.

Roll all pops back to zero.

Impliment computer scanning technology that can create a digital "fingerprint" of each coin by mapping out the number size and location of all marks, spots,blemishes etc on the coin. All submitted coins will be scanned and their "fingerprint" compared to the archives to see if it has been submited before. (If it has it gets flagged in the computer so is not allowed to get upgraded. This ends the crackout game. If it stays the same the pops are not increased, if it goes down the pops are adjusted automaticly.)

Pops from this point on will only reflect coins slabbed AFTER the new slab was introduced.

This won't adjust for pieces that are cracked out or submitted to another service, but if the coin ever comes BACK and gets regraded it won't artificially increase the pops.

Since all of the previously slabbed coins are no longer reflected in the pops, there may be some incentive to resubmite to get them into the pops, plus even if someone sells an older slab and quotes the pops at least they will have some meaning.

solid

I do like the idea of creating a digital fingerprint to identify coins, but it does
have pitfalls. If the coin changes (dipped, toned, etc), this could affect the
fingerprint and the system may not recognize it as a previously scanned
coin. Also, when the scanner hardware is changed to a new model, it would
most certainly affect the fingerprint.

I believe the only way to positively identify coins would be to micro-laser-etch
a serial number permanently into the coin. They do it with diamonds and this
can be so small as to be invisible to the naked eye. It could be done on the
rim of the coin, say at 12 o'clock. It could probably be done between reed marks,
it is that small.

Then, start the pops anew and all is well (until somebody grinds off the serial
number), and would also help with provenance, stolen coins, grading history, etc.

Ken

TheLiberator

I have often thought it interesting that the pop reports are so inaccurate, yet they are still so important...

TUMUSS

<< <i>The cow has left the barn. >>



...and he ain't comin home.

Outhaul

The pop reports are totally useless. I've been saying this for a long time. PCGS makes it seem like a benefit to pay a fee to have access to them, but how does one benefit from totally inaccurate and useless data?

Still trying to figger this one out.

Cheers,

Bob

longtimecollector

IMHO, the "pops" are perfectly accurate to within 4 weeks........ as long as the coin you're looking at is a "pop 1" none finer ( 1/0 )

badger

Solid,


I like the idea of the micro etch on the rim. Would help with identifying stolen coins. I suppose you could file the etch off the coin. Then we would be trying to determine if a raw was filed on the rim.