Why is the SGC Pop Report Getting Ignored?
 

I have found it to be quite interesting that since SGC dropped there set registry that know it seems that there pop reports are getting ignored by Pre War collectors and dealers.

I may be wrong but it looks like they are keeping the pop report updated. If this is the case, and even if they are no, their pop report on Pre War cards should not be ignored since a large percentage a Pre War has been graded by SGC and continues to be.

As we all know you can choose to take information the way you want, but leaving out important information such as this or when selling or backing up a theory is not telling the whole story.

Pop reports are not say all tell all's but they are good indicators to leave out a big player seems strange.

Just a thought, Happy Holidays

Lee

There still is no set registry. Just an app to show you your own cards.

A couple of reasons for me. PSA is very quick info.

SGC is trying to guess the set name, i.e- T213 "no results" T213-2 "no results" and on and on trying to guess the specific text they have it under.

Also, they have a robot check. I have to click on the boxes that have "ladders" oops, I missed one. Next click on boxes that have motorcycles. etc

And, I have to stop and scroll all the way to the right to see pop numbers, and back to the left to see the player. Maybe I don't know how to work the computer to resize the page.

And the results are similar % wise for heavily graded cards like T206 or 52 Topps. See my 52T thread in the postwar section where I talk about the PSA and SGC pops for 52 Topps.

Hi Robert,

I do agree it is a pain to access the pop report. Why you just can't type T206 and get the front page makes no sense to me. Had a hell of a time trying to bring up the pop report for the Evans card on SGC but some how did finally get to it.

Lee

Psa t206 pop report takes forever to load. Glitchy as hell

Sgc t206 pop report is broken down into 50 different things. 1909. 1909-11. 1910. Etc etc.

Neither are great IMO.

The website asks me to do the image captcha AFTER logging in

Terrible

+1 I'ts exhausting just trying to find anything.

I'd kill for some ladders and motorcycles. I keep getting bumblebees.

That's great. haha. I'm glad everyone has to do it, at least.

Their database is trash and horrible. Good luck even finding the sets half the time.

Example of the user experience:
I search "T220" and do the stupid captcha. It says I need to use 8 or more characters.

I search "T220 Silver" and do the stupid captcha. It says 0 results.

I search "T220 boxing" and fill out the stupid captcha. It says 0 results.

I search "T220 Mecca" and fill out the stupid captcha. I finally get the set.

It doesn't split the silver set and the white set so I have to account pops by hand to filter. Then it becomes apparent that this dataset is wildly incomplete and inaccurate with tons of SGC graded cards obviously not included. The Donovan silver, which they have graded, is not even listed as a valid card. Nor is the Corbett, which they have not graded before.

I realize this is not only a pain to use but garbage and incomplete data, and then go to PSA's site and get their data within 60 seconds in a usable format.

SGC is okay for T206's but they don't break them down by factory and PSA has been doing that for years so you can get a pretty good idea on the numbers for the ones that were graded prior to the factory designation.

For example there are 76 Sweet Caporal 350 Steve Evans in their pop report with this breakdown

Sweet Caporal 350 = 76
Sweet Caporal 350/25 = 6
Sweet Caporal 350/30 = 38

There are 32 Sweet Caporal 350's in the pop report that don't have the factory designation but using the 13.63% that the factory 25's represent in the ones that have the factory numbers would put the total around 65-66 factory 30 and 10-11 factory 25's.

Attachment 600467

I ALWAYS check the SGC pop report

I was checking both the PSA and the SGC pop report over a few days for the recent thread I started on the Sports Co. of America/Spalding set (PSA lists as Spalding, SGC as Sports Co. of America, the latter being how this set is most commonly referred to currently). Definitely the PSA site is much easier to access, whereas the SGC has 5 separate listings to 'captcha'. In addition I had to remember to click on the 'Show Old Grading' to make sure that I was getting a more complete record of what has 'supposedly' been graded when it came to the 4 different possible backs (this 'supposed' nugget also applies to PSA).

So not as nice, but still potentially useful. YMMV (Your Misanthropy May Vary).


Brian

I'm still trying to figure out why some years have multiple designations for their pop reports.

1887 Gold Coin (Buchner) (N284) - Baseball
1887 Gold Coin (Buchner) (N284) (N284) - Baseball

They are both well populated and it's not broken up by old-label-flip year designations like 1886-1890 Old Judge cards.

I always check and use both PSA and SGC pop reports for the sets I collect.
Like it has been previously stated both have their issues PSA with the slow loading, glitches when getting a breakdown. SGC with the captcha boxes and typing in the set names accurately.

I always check the SGC pop report too. Really wish they’d clean it up a bit more though and get a registry back. It would be a nice service for them to take it to another level for the hobby/collectors.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe because I had to do 6 different Captchas for EACH item I wanted to look up? Annoying beyond words.

It's interesting to read these responses. I had always assumed that pop reports in general were ignored when it benefits the listing:

"Only one graded by ABC! Pop 1!" (Ignores grading co XYZ pop of 10)

Or

"Only two graded by XYZ! Highest grade!" (Ignores twenty graded higher by ABC)

Well, for those of us who are set registry goons, the pop for the other guys isn’t relevant when it comes to the competition. Except if we’re considering buying one and trying to cross it over.

Very true...my mind always thinks "but what about the other company?"

On a slightly different note, ABC and XYZ are currently my preferences when sending cards off to get graded. They do a much more consistent job with their grading than PSA and SGC, and their turnarounds are virtually non-existent.


Brian

SGC population report is the worst.

Original Question: Why is the SGC Pop Report Getting Ignored?

Answer: Because SGC has always ignored the SGC pop report.

Steve, that is my point spot on. But if people are willing to ignore it that is up to them. Just do not understand why you would. Especially on lower pop items.

The responses have been interesting, definitely shows both companies have work to do cleaning up there pop reports.

SGC could easily start by making the search function easier and not requiring 8 characters.

Lee

The clock was ticking down in H&S. I have the Sam Thompson hand at belt, or whatever it's called. I look at my checklist and see that I need the hands chest high. I check psa pop and in seconds see that they have only graded 1 chest high card, so I throw in a bid and win. It's low grade, but it's the tougher variation, which is the info I needed before bidding again.

I looked just now on SGC.

N284 category results listed alphabetically under "B" for Big Sam Thompson.

Hand at belt 8
Hands chest high 2
hHgh (sic) 1


and in their (n284) (n284)

Hand at belt 5
Hand at chest 5

I didn't look to see if they have an old label category, or what.


I do not reference pops if I'm selling. "Only 24 PSA 4.5 OC's extant."

Questions:

Why do people reference population reports?

1) determine scarcity
2) see who has the best graded item (assume cards)

If it's to determine scarcity then you need to ask yourself, just how accurate are the pop reports. First, we all know subjectivity for TPGs is notoriously crappy. So, just because the pop report indicates X number of "8" grades, you ask yourself, could there be "6's" or "7's" in there? Then, what about all the cross-overs. The crossed-over cards are not removed from another TPGs database so the aggregate count on a specific card for a certain grade may be overstated when considering all TPGs accounting.

What about cards that people just didn't bother grading because how many people really want an Evans T206? Using T206 as an example, how well did the TPGs document the backs? For N172, the TPGs initially didn't include the pose number and now only SGC does (that I'm aware of). What's sad is CSG doesn't reference by pose number and that's sad because they actually had a chance to be the only TPG that had accurate counts on quantities of pose numbers (I'll just stop there for N172 because there could be other variations accounted for).

For those that are doing a registry, they usually stick to a certain TPG (i.e., PSA or SGC). Their motivation is finding out who has the highest graded registry set. They probably contribute to inaccuracy of overall population because those registry collectors will cross-over and add to the inaccuracy of the overall population of the cards in existence.

Also, if I were a TPG and my overall quantities graded paled in comparison to the competition, why would I want to make that public because it could bias people to perhaps get their cards graded by the company that has actually handled the most and probably has a greater number of collectors dedicated to their registry collections.


Edited to add: And what about all the grading mistakes and mislabels. Sure those would be considered the exception, not the rule, however, we've all seen it.

SGC pop report
 

Interesting question. My oft-stated preference is SGC and I also own PSA
slabs. I can't recall the last time I checked a pop report for either- it doesn't
interest me. I find myself most concerned with the eye appeal of the specific
card I'm holding rather than it's hierarchy in a report that is likely to be
incomplete (I don't believe for a second that PSA does a reliable job with
theirs, they do a poor job with everything else). The responses to this
question support my position, as it sounds like the best you can get is
"Kentucky windage" regarding a card's hierarchy unless it is extraordinarily
scarce. Is a T206 Jake Atz SGC 50/4 Sweet Cap one of 112 in that grade,
or is it actually one of 102? Doesn't move the meter for me.

Trent King

Yes, the 8 char minimum in SGC's search is annoying, but that's only the start.

If you start with the year, it works well enough. e.g. "1912 T207" got me right to the T207's broken down by back ... and the fun starts there ...

Even though things evolve and there's not much way to correct past mistakes, omissions, etc... there is still much that could be improved:

Primarily data accuracy - fix things that are very clearly wrong.

After that, my biggest pet peeve is ... WHO SORTS BY FIRST NAME??... separate the damned names, please, or fix the sort ordering. I see that PSA has fixed this and that they are now ordered by default by last name. I will give SGC credit for being able to sort on any column simply by clicking the column headers ...

Also, for me, the entire table fits onscreen (no left/right scrolling) at least as long as 'Show old grading' is not selected.

Do I consult it much? not any more. Do I care? not really, but it is interesting to see how the populations have evolved over the last decade or so. Do I have graded cards? Almost entirely, and mostly SGC but the former registry has faded from the rear window and interest in the registry mostly with it... would I like to see it back. Maybe if they revisited the registry in more friendly way, but it would need work they're not willing to invest, I believe.

As a data guy, I suspect that SGC wants to resolve their pop report and registry issues, but they've probably been blindsided by the scope of just how challenging it is, and how big of a job it is, to fix everything.

I seem to recall hearing that their entire operation was only 8 people a few years back, before the hobby really started to expand again. I don't know if that's true, but if so, it gives you some insight into what their technical capabilities likely were until very recently.

I believe they have dozens of employees now, and they're clearly working on improving things on the technical side (improved website, built a fairly decent app, etc).

Fixing their pop reports and getting a useful registry up and running means a lot of work needs to get done on the backend to clean up all of the set redundancies you guys are talking about. It sounds like they weren't forward thinking enough in the early days about data quality, and now they have a mountain to climb in cleaning that up. Add in the complexity that ultra modern cards bring with the billions of distinct sets and checklists being printed each year now, and things start to just build and build.

They know the hobby wants a registry. I trust that they are indeed working on it. I just think it's a much bigger problem than they thought it was going to be, and they probably don't have all the technical resources necessary to get it done. Yet. Maybe 2024 will be the year!

Snowman, one can only hope. But I have heard the same thing for years and I am really curious if anyone at SGC is working on that.

The fact that they came out with an app this year was promising. And it allows you to place your graded cards into a "My Cards" repository/folder. This was a much easier project to tackle than rebuilding a useful registry, but it's a promising sign nonetheless.

I prefer not to say what side of the fence I am on as working with SGC is sure a lot easier and more reasonable than trying to work with PSA. If you are buying a very rare card its worth looking to see what is on the SGC pop report. I know a lot of people say SGC gets the same money as PSA. That is not true from what I see. There are countless examples of similar eye appeal cards (particularly T206's) where PSA cards do 10-20 % better numbers. For that reason alone valuable cards in the SGC pop report may have been crossed over to PSA. This makes SGC's report on specific cards potentially inaccurate. I also believe that the PSA has kept better records. Their population report is more extensive, with bigger quantities making it a better resource. I think that is the answer to the question on the original post. Still it is worthwhile to see what is on the SGC report when bidding or buying

.
Simply, because I suspect there are lots of SGC graded items, up to and exceeding a year old, that are not "yet" reflected in the report.
Adds another challenge to selling a high grade SCG vintage item when their own report does not show it in the population report. Even more discouraging when item held is two full numerical grades higher than next highest graded item on report. Afew interested parties suggested it was a fake since not reflected in report. What I am to say? Tell them what SGC told me? Which was that SGC working on it but it will not be a quick/speedy fix. So the SGC population report is like reading last years news. Sill informative (up to a point) but limited usefulness.

just tried looking at a set, got hit with the crosswalk captcha... then looked up and saw I was logged in.

It is the little things!

Someone answers the phone at SGc? Must be new technology