Is the census good or bad?

[mintcollector]

Since the 'dawn of third party grading' collectors have had use of this interesting tool (i.e. the 'census'). Whether it be coins, paper money, sports and non-sports cards, toys, action figures, or comic books; if it could be graded, a 'census' (i.e. ppoulation report) was considered a benefit of thrid party grading. Now here is my question; in almost any other collecting field (of most mass-produced items that does not feature third party grading), it is up to the individual collector/dealer/investor to ascertain approximately how many 'items' exist in 'X' condition. In my opinion this can can be good because there are generally no flawed population reports being maintained improperly due to an increase in multiple submissions, human error, and purposeful manipulation.

 

On the other side of the equation, collectors have a right to know that the item they thought was in limited supply or never mass-produced, exists in multiple quantities; whether due to the item being a 'warehouse find' or being the result of 'third party manipulation.'

 

That being said, I ask how do YOU view the census? Personally, I feel that no census truly reflects the market as it really is (as I am sure most collectors feel this way). In fact, I would say that the CGC census is most sensitive to unintented manipulation just due to the amount of resubmissions in relation to 'pressing' or just wanting a higher grade.

 

Let your opinions be heard...or forever hold your peace.

 

Respectfully yours,

 

'mint'

[goldust40]

The census is useful as an information tool provided one uses it with the assumption that it's taken with a grain of salt, and that knowledge of the market as a whole for whichever book you're checking up on is crucial for getting the overall picture. I think it's one of the better things that CGC has brought to the table, and it's free.

[architeuthis]

I don't have enough experience with graded comics to really weigh in on the census, but I've collected coins since (almost) the dawn of encapsulation in the mid/late 80s. Being around much longer than comics slabbing, the census numbers for coins are even more skewed and useless... in certain areas.

 

Morgan silver dollars (1878-1921), for instance, are a very readily available and highly collected area with tons of extant examples in higher grades. There are rarities, and plenty of them, but there are more grade rarities than actual survival rate rarities. Over 25 years, the coins that are quite readily available in lower uncirculated grades and relatively inexpensive in same (say, $100-500 in MS62-MS64 range) but are grade rare in MS65 and up (jumping to maybe $2500-25,000 in MS65 and sometimes $50,000-250,000 or more in MS66) have been resubmitted hundreds if not thousands of times, looking for the bump and the cash that comes with it. The census numbers are nearly useless here. This probably relates most closely to later Silver and Bronze age material. Quite a few examples are available of most issues, but in the rarified air of higher grade (9.0-9.8) census numbers start to become more iffy due to the dramatic jumps between grade.

 

Mint state (MS60 through MS70) coins are highly subjective in grading. They are all (theoretically) without any circulation wear (or loss of metal, which is visible to the trained eye), and the divisions are based on luster, surface/contact marks, toning, eye appeal, etc. It's very difficult to pass a MS61 or 62, which will be heavily bag marked with muted luster or unattractive toning (what most people call tarnish, but can be very vivid and colorful) and just generally lacking in eye appeal, as a MS66 or MS67, which will be lusterous, very attractive and have very minimal to no bag marks or dings. However, in a smaller spread (MS65 to MS66) the grade becomes very subjective. PCGS and NGC are both very good at it, and fairly consistent, but standards change over time. Playing the averages helps, as well. If you have a MS65 shot MS66 coin that is FMV at $1500 and will jump to $7500 if you get the bump, it's worth the $50 in submission fees to try, try again. And many do. Some make a healthy living doing just that.

 

Going back into the earlier years of the nineteenth century, the numbers settle down a bit more. More coins are genuinely rare by simple survival rate than just by grade. The census numbers in that era more closely reflect surviving available examples and are not as highly skewed from multiple resubmissions (still potentially skewed a bit, but just not as much). A coin in high circulated grade (EF45-AU55) will always still be circulated and cannot be faked into an uncirculated appearance (well, almost never). There's little point in trying for a grade jump on the much more rigidly defined grade levels that correspond to circulation wear, as the difference is pretty obvious and not as easily manipulated. This area probably most closely parallels older comics material which is simply rarer in survival rate to begin with, and probably lower grade to begin with... and less easily manipulated for the "big dollars grade jump".

 

My anyway...

[jimbo_707]

The census is a good thing, but some people make too much of it. Highest in the census is not "best existing" as some sellers claim. For one thing, the census can be manipulated. For instance, if someone owns the two nicest copies of a book, he can crack out the nicest one and send in the label so that it gets removed form the census. He can then sell his 2nd best copy and get a pile of money by advertising it as "highest-graded." After it sells, he can resubmit the nicer book, which will become the new highest graded copy (again), and then he can sell that one for a pile of money while the dupe who bought the first book suffers a loss in the value of his (now 2nd-best) book.

 

Solution: The census should include historical data.