|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Low Population VINTAGE Commons
I apologize in advance as I am sure this may have been asked.
Is there a basic "formula" to identify what common cards may be considered low(er) population. For example is a percentage of all graded 7 and/or 8 of the total graded a good measure? What would that number be? Any help would be appreciated. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Really depends on the set and specific card. White bordered versus colored borders. You basically look the cards up in the PSA Pop Report and see how many are graded overall and how many are 9s and 10s. Like I got a PSA 9 1969 card graded last month and there are 48 or so others of the same card in PSA 9. But the next highest 9 in the set only has like 22 graded.
Most people (eBay sellers) put the current pop in that grade, then the number higher. Because people who pay the major premiums for condition grades want the highest graded sets in the registry. If yours is a PSA 7, POP 1, No higher, it will be worth more than a similar card PSA 8.5, POP 26, 56 Higher.
__________________
-- PWCC: The Fish Stinks From the Head PSA: Regularly Get Cheated BGS: Can't detect trimming on modern SGC: Closed auto authentication business JSA: Approved same T206 Autos before SGC Oh, what a difference a year makes. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: Hoard of vintage commons 1957 to 1979 | jimivintage | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 10-25-2014 04:17 PM |
125+ Vintage Stars, Commons F/S $150 dlvd | mintacular | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 07-31-2012 09:04 AM |
Vintage Commons, worth it or not | HOF Yankees | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 8 | 09-25-2009 11:48 PM |
population reports on prewar commons vs. pricing | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 3 | 08-21-2005 10:54 PM |
Why Population Reports On Vintage Cards Is Misleading | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 29 | 08-21-2005 07:39 PM |