Misinterpreting the population reports on "difficulty" of a 10

RookieWax

I enjoy the SMR monthly articles on chosen sets or certain players. One thing that is typically discussed in those articles is the "difficulty" of a getting a Gem Mint 10. For example, they might say a certain card or set has only 12% of examples submitted receiving a 10. With vintage cards and certain modern cards, I think that type of argument is fair. My reasoning on this is that people will submit a vintage card that they might only realistically think has a shot at an 8 or 9 because a vintage PSA 8 or 9 will likely still sell for well more than the grading fee. I think the same is true for something like a 1986 Topps Jerry Rice or a 1989 Score Barry Sanders because those cards still sell well in a PSA 9.

Where I think this type of analysis is flawed is with a card such as a 1989 Pro Set Barry Sanders. Since a card like that in a PSA 9 is not even worth the grading fee, you are typically only going to submit cards that have a great shot at a 10. So the % of submitted cards getting a 10 shown in the population reports on these cards might lead you to think that Sanders' Score rookie is more condition sensitive than the Pro Set rookie. I don't believe this to be the case at all, as both cards have similar centering issues and have solid colored borders that show every slight factory nick. So with these types of examples, I think it is more telling to just compare the TOTAL PSA 10s to gauge the "rarity" or "difficulty" of card in a PSA 10.

CubsKiller99

I download the population report and import into MS-Excel.

Then I can do a PSA 9 / PSA 10 ratio for all cards. This will tell
you which ones are going to be a tough 10.

For me that is the most informative number for late 80s sets.
As you already said, people will generally only submit potential
9 or 10 so anything outside that is generally a submitter flaw
and I disregard it.