Pop Reports / Resubmissions

[tejas1836]

When the TPG's first started the Population reports, what did you think about the reports at the time compared to what you think about them now? With resubmissions continually diluting the figures over time, what might the services have done differently in hindsight?

[supertooth]

Don't imagine that hardly anyone could plan what might happen over 20+ years. I'm sure that, in hindsight, the services would have done a few things differently.

 

In real life, I don't guess we can plan what will happen in 20 years time. Where we might be? What we might be doing? etc. etc. Surely, we can make an attempt at it. But, circumstances might change. And, in those changes, new plans will have to be formed.

 

Although the population reports now have flaws----and likely could NEVER be fixed going back those 20+ years---I still believe that they have and do serve a valid purpose. One just needs to understand that the numbers likely WILL NOT be exact. But, certainly they will supply a trend for most series----and the coins within that series.

 

I'll use Walkers as my example. We will probably never know exactly the numbers that exist for the "early" dates and mints----no matter which grade that we are looking at. But, if you look at the combination of population reports, from NGC and PCGS and ANACS, you can easily acquire the trends for every coin within the series. You'll get an idea of which ones are harder to acquire. You'll see which coins are harder to find in XF [or in any grade]. Naturally, you must assume that the numbers ARE NOT totally accurate. But, you certainly also must know that certain dates and mints are much more available than others. You'll know where to spend more money in your search.

 

In combination with Heritage figures and other avenues of research, the population reports can still be a source of great numismatic knowledge IMHO. Bob [supertooth]

[James_OldeTowne]

A huge help would have been to charge much more for grading and decline certifying low-value coins. Charging more would have had three positive effects:

 

1. greatly reduce the "slush" submissions

2. reduce the incentive to "crackout" by increasing the cost of doing so (re-grading fees)

3. increase time actually spent grading by reducing submission volume

 

Seriously, I believe grading should cost about $100 per coin. But in return, ALL coins should have been slabbed WITH A GRADE, and the guarantee should have been ROCK SOLID, against both overgrades and undergrades. No wishy washy copouts.

[BillJones]

I place a lot more stock in the opinions provided by numismatic writers and the condition census records that some collectors maintain than the pop reports. At least the collectors and writers make an effort to weed out duplicate coins among the condition census pieces while the pop reports keep adding and adding new submissions with virtually no adjustment for crack outs. (The exception is that I think the services used to pay 50 cents each for the old slab labels, but I don’t think that went very far.

 

As for charging $100 per coin to have graded, I’m really opposed to that. There are good reasons for getting coins that are worth $300 to $1,000 graded and authenticated, and adding $100 to cost of the those coins would be counterproductive for collectors and dealers.