Snap...Crack(le)...and Pops
HoofHearted
Posts: 2,537 ✭✭
Reading these boards has got me to wondering about the accuracy of the Population Reports. It sounds like cracking graded cards, especially higher graded ones, and resubbing them is a common occurrence. I'm not sure I'd put much faith in the pop rpts as time passes.
Any other thoughts on this?
Thanks,
hh
Any other thoughts on this?
Thanks,
hh
0
Comments
But I am not sure the average vintage collector would risk cracking some 8's and 9's to achieve higher.
I don't want to start a flame war, Harry, but with all due respect--- how do you know?
My best guess is that the impact is indeed minor when dealing with real high-dollar cards ('54 Aarons, etc.), and with real low dollar cards. But it wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn that the pop reports are totally skewed when you're looking at cards in the $50-$200 range.
hh
But for commons and lower grade stuff...its probably pretty accurate.
the POP report its an incredible tool..just not perfect.
Groucho Marx
hh
<< <i>With the success of the PSA Set Registry, it wouldn't surprise me if the pop numbers are more off for the other grading companies, as collectors crack and submit their cards to PSA for their sets. I did it recently to both BVG and PGC holders to add to my PSA set. >>
I cracked non-PSA holders, sent cards to PSA and the results were favorable--- point--- population of other companies are 'off' if anything. IMO