N172 Old Judge Population Reports

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe_G.

As most of you know, my collecting passion lies within the Old Judge set, specifically, the Detroit players. As such, I follow and document all known transactions; the details of which would be boring too most here. However, I also track Old Judges on a more global basis, the details of which might be interesting to more of the forum readers. The data is not being presented to make an SGC vs PSA argument nor grading vs raw, but instead give us an idea of what is out there together with general trends that the population reports offer us. I posted similar information last year with positive feedback. This time around, the analysis is a little more thorough with more statistically significant populations.

My collection resides in SGC holders. With my customer password in hand I frequent the SGC population reports. On the other hand, I’ve had to rely on other board members to send me PSA population information. Hal lent a helping hand last year, Jim Crandell this year (thanks).

The first graph shows the total number of cards graded over time together with the average cumulative grade. I admit the PSA data is very low in resolution (two points), but the trends are obvious. SGC has nearly twice as many cards graded in total with new submissions better than twice that of PSA. This is quite opposite of many other pre-War issues.



It is also apparent that the average grade is dropping with time. Previous threads point out that tougher grading standards (arguable) and perhaps an increase in lower grade submissions are likely responsible. Following is the current SGC Old Judge grade distribution. A fairly normal distribution with 54% of the cards found in the SGC40-60 range with remainder equally split above and below that range (23% each).



There are a total of 520 players represented in the Old Judge set. At 2496 cards graded, SGC has a 4.6 card per player average. However, due to rarities such as the 19 California League cards and others, the current population report stands at 472, or 90.8% of the 520 players. Last year at this time, it stood at 80.1%.

The last table speaks to the hearts of the HOF collectors, one of the more popular ways of collecting Old Judges. The 27 members of the HOF found in the Old Judge set account for 15% of the total submissions. This disproportionately high submission rate for HOFers can be attributed to the higher value of the cards together with the fact that most of them were taken better care of over the last century (giving them an honest higher population). Here, PSA still has fewer submissions but not by a 2:1 count. The HOFers, more so than the commons, may also suffer from inflated numbers due to re-submissions and cross-overs. Then you have collectors like me who give the 3 Detroit HOFers added counts due to my collecting habits (12 Detroit submissions that otherwise may not have been).



Assuming the above factors equally bias each HOFer equally, rarity of each becomes evident. We have Wilbert Robinson & Bid McPhee at the top of the list with Ward, Keefe, & Kelly being the most common. The PSA pop report currently shows only 1 Ward which is in obvious error. Last year, PSA had 13 Wards pass through their hands. I’m using last year’s number until PSA corrects their population report. Also, PSA lumps many of their grades together in the pop report. For instance, they throw the PSA1s & PSA2s together, so in figuring the averages Jim & I simply took the midpoints, 1.5 in this case.

Lastly, it should be noted that these population report totals are exceeded by several independent collections. For the most part, the significant collections out there have been and continue to be put together in raw form. I would still trust the comments from such collectors over any conclusions drawn from the pop reports. But as time goes on, the data becomes more statistically significant.

In closing, Hal, you might need to update some of your website listings, there are some awful nice HOFers listed above

Supporting and counter-point comments welcome.

Regards,
Joe Gonsowski