Pop Reports. Who do you rely on?

Nic · February 17, 2019 2:03PM

The pop reports are a pain in my side.

PC are way off; no harm intended. CAC are stable.

CommemKing · February 17, 2019 2:05PM

Never could sfford a top pop so I dont care. Too much politics in it anyway.

Nic · February 17, 2019 2:55PM

Not just top pops ….

Edthelorax · February 17, 2019 3:13PM

I sent in a 1925D Lincoln and studied the Trueviews for weeks before sending mine in. I know for a fact that the same coin was shown 12 times at MS65RD pop. was 72 and one time at MS65RD+ so I have to assume that the pop. of 65RD is not 74 as listed, mine and another were added since but maximum pop. of 64, if not lower. That is 15% or more off.

lusterlover · February 17, 2019 6:28PM

@Edthelorax said:
I sent in a 1925D Lincoln and studied the Trueviews for weeks before sending mine in. I know for a fact that the same coin was shown 12 times at MS65RD pop. was 72 and one time at MS65RD+ so I have to assume that the pop. of 65RD is not 74 as listed, mine and another were added since but maximum pop. of 64, if not lower. That is 15% or more off.

This is a good example of where the pops are way off because the price jump to the next + or grade is significant.

BillJones · February 17, 2019 6:31PM

The best rarity estimates come from the die variety works and the specialist clubs. They are not precise, but usually the people do them don’t have a ax to grind (most of the time). The usual axes are over which coin is the finest known.

koynekwest · February 17, 2019 8:40PM

Pop reports are so skewed by the crack-out game I don't pay 'em much heed.

Walkerfan · February 17, 2019 9:18PM

Population reports are highly overstated due to crack outs and resubmissions.

Zoins · February 17, 2019 9:40PM

I use both PCGS and NGC pop reports pretty extensively. They seem to be very useful for exonumia.

cameonut2011 · February 17, 2019 9:43PM

The CAC population report is the most stable; however, it only looks at a very narrow segment of the available population and can create artificial sticker/plastic rarity. The PCGS and NGC population reports are pretty much worthless at this point other than establishing a cap. In general, I don't rely on them at all (unless I am selling and it plays into my marketing plan/ item description).

Zoins · February 17, 2019 9:44PM

One issue with CAC is that it seems that they still include old cert numbers that no longer validate at the TPG.

cameonut2011 · February 17, 2019 9:56PM

@Zoins said:
One issue with CAC is that it seems that they still include old cert numbers that no longer validate at the TPG.

You'll never be able to completely avoid the crack-out game, but usually the distortion will be much less than the distortion in the PCGS/NGC population reports. Usually several attempts will be made to get the coin in the right holder before CAC. Without doubt there are people that try to upgrade CAC coins via regrade and lose the original cert numbers.

Zoins · February 17, 2019 9:58PM

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:
One issue with CAC is that it seems that they still include old cert numbers that no longer validate at the TPG.

You'll never be able to completely avoid the crack-out game, but usually the effect will be diminished compared to the services. Usually several attempts will be made to get the coin in the right holder before CAC. Without doubt there are people that try to upgrade CAC coins via regrade and lose the original cert numbers.

This is slightly different as the same coin can be in the CAC database multiple times even when the multiple entries for the same coin have been removed from the TPG pops. Seems like a sync would be useful.

ms70 · February 17, 2019 11:29PM

I don't understand how anyone can rely on them after decades of crack & resubmit.

Zoins · February 18, 2019 12:41AM

@ms70 said:
I don't understand how anyone can rely on them after decades of crack & resubmit.

I think there’s a lot less of that for exonumia.

MFeld · February 18, 2019 4:23AM

@ms70 said:
I don't understand how anyone can rely on them after decades of crack & resubmit.

Although they’re typically inaccurate in terms of actual populations,
they can still be quite useful in terms of relative numbers and rarity.

jmlanzaf · February 18, 2019 7:24AM

@MFeld said:

@ms70 said:
I don't understand how anyone can rely on them after decades of crack & resubmit.

Although they’re typically inaccurate in terms of actual populations,
they can still be quite useful in terms of relative numbers and rarity.

Unfortunately, this is probably more true of high pop coins than low pop coins.

BillJones · February 18, 2019 7:44AM

@jmlanzaf said:

@MFeld said:

@ms70 said:
I don't understand how anyone can rely on them after decades of crack & resubmit.

Although they’re typically inaccurate in terms of actual populations,
they can still be quite useful in terms of relative numbers and rarity.

Unfortunately, this is probably more true of high pop coins than low pop coins.

Yes, the incentive to get a scarce coin that is a condition rarity into a holder with one more point on it is huge. The 1854-D Three Dollar Gold and the 1834 Crosslet 4 $5 gold come immediately to mind.

jmlanzaf · February 18, 2019 7:47AM

@BillJones said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@MFeld said:

@ms70 said:
I don't understand how anyone can rely on them after decades of crack & resubmit.

Although they’re typically inaccurate in terms of actual populations,
they can still be quite useful in terms of relative numbers and rarity.

Unfortunately, this is probably more true of high pop coins than low pop coins.

Yes, the incentive to get a scarce coin that is a condition rarity into a holder with one more point on it is huge. The 1854-D Three Dollar Gold and the 1834 Crosslet 4 $5 gold come immediately to mind.

Yes, someone mentioned a Liberty Nickel (?) that was a pop 1. The grade below had 12 coins but 9 of them - if I recall the number correctly - were resubmissions of the same coin trying to get it up a grade.

Zoins · February 18, 2019 11:24AM

@jmlanzaf said:

@BillJones said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@MFeld said:

@ms70 said:
I don't understand how anyone can rely on them after decades of crack & resubmit.

Although they’re typically inaccurate in terms of actual populations,
they can still be quite useful in terms of relative numbers and rarity.

Unfortunately, this is probably more true of high pop coins than low pop coins.

Yes, the incentive to get a scarce coin that is a condition rarity into a holder with one more point on it is huge. The 1854-D Three Dollar Gold and the 1834 Crosslet 4 $5 gold come immediately to mind.

Yes, someone mentioned a Liberty Nickel (?) that was a pop 1. The grade below had 12 coins but 9 of them - if I recall the number correctly - were resubmissions of the same coin trying to get it up a grade.

Was the 9 coins the same as the pop 1/0 coin?

jmlanzaf · February 18, 2019 11:41AM

@Zoins said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@BillJones said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@MFeld said:

@ms70 said:

>

Yes, someone mentioned a Liberty Nickel (?) that was a pop 1. The grade below had 12 coins but 9 of them - if I recall the number correctly - were resubmissions of the same coin trying to get it up a grade.

Was the 9 coins the same as the pop 1/0 coin?

I don't recall the details. I thought the 9 coins ended up making it a 2/0 at the end of all the submissions.

RogerB · February 18, 2019 12:17PM

None. All are too corrupted by years of abuse and systemic distortion that they are of little real value.

Gazes · February 18, 2019 1:31PM

I try to keep my own notes and that helps me determine the real "pop" minus resubmissions

scodal · February 18, 2019 1:36PM

I like to look at the pop reports of PCGS, NGC, ANACS and ICG at least to get a maximum possible population for the series and grade range I collect. From there, I discount PCGS totals by 25%, NGC by 33%, and ANACS and ICG by 50%. It's probably no more accurate than any other slightly educated guess, but that's been a helpful gauge for me when assessing whether to purchase a coin that falls short of being a total no-brainer or to hold off for the next one, even when auction records suggest I may be in for a long wait.

Nic · February 18, 2019 7:58PM

@MFeld said:

@ms70 said:
I don't understand how anyone can rely on them after decades of crack & resubmit.

Although they’re typically inaccurate in terms of actual populations,
they can still be quite useful in terms of relative numbers and rarity.

Or not. How about a pop 2 coin in 65, with 6 better up to 67, and there are only 3 total coins. Three coins eight grading events.

MFeld · February 18, 2019 8:03PM

@Nic said:

@MFeld said:

@ms70 said:
I don't understand how anyone can rely on them after decades of crack & resubmit.

Although they’re typically inaccurate in terms of actual populations,
they can still be quite useful in terms of relative numbers and rarity.

Or not. How about a pop 2 coin in 65, with 6 better up to 67, and there are only 3 total coins. Three coins eight grading events.

But how do those numbers (8 in total between 65 and 67) compare to other dates in the series?

Soldi · February 18, 2019 8:06PM

If you collect Morgan Dollars you can almost trust Michael "Miles" Standish, and not much has changed since Dave Bowers estimates and numbers in His two volume Silver Dollars Book.
Otherwise, David Lawrence when it was Feigelbaum's Barber coins books thin, but useful, SLQs in JH Clines RIP book.
It's not so different then their estimates

I have a source to the fact that there are rolls of many coins still extant. Not all coins, but many coins that were gathered up by Breen and Pukall and others raided the broken banks back in the day. Get the encyclopedia and read the prefaces to all series. Gives some incite.

WaterSport · February 19, 2019 6:46AM

I just don't worry about pop reports.

WS

Cougar1978 · February 19, 2019 7:17AM

I look at total pop for that issue like how many slabbed sets could be completed with that coin G04 to MS70.

Then I look at total for grade of my coin and number higher. So if it’s fairly low I feel good.

Bear in mind no idea of how many of the issue have been cracked and resubmitted (plus Cert number not removed) so it would be sane to try estimate some inflation number of the pop data from this process.

Consequently my only good choice look at raw pop data in estimation of any theoritical rarity factor.

Pop Reports. Who do you rely on?

Comments

Leave a Comment