I have always questioned the true value of the population reports put out by the various coin grading services. Although I am certain that each service tries their best to maintain the accuracy of their reports inaccuracies abound. Plus working in a job that requires analyzing statistics I have found that they can be massaged to say just about anything you want them to. Normally I only express my opinion on the subject when asked, or the discussion drifts to population reports or data from a specific report; however something I saw in the October 20, 1997 issue of Coin World has inspired me to write this.

Before I discuss the circumstances in Coin World that prompted me to write this, first let me state my original concern with population reports. It is common knowledge in the hobby (I refuse to call it an industry) that borderline graded coins are routinely "cracked out" and resubmitted in hopes of "bumping" the grade up. This is purely economic and there is nothing wrong with the practice. Grading is subjective and variable depending on who, where, and when but that’s another subject. Just take a look at some of the jumps certain Morgan dollars make between MS-63 and MS-64. For example the 1889-CC in Coin World trends shows $12,000 for an MS-63 vs $30,000 for an MS-64. In another example, from my specialty Charlotte Gold, an 1838-C half eagle trends for $5750 in EF-45 but jumps to $14,500 in AU-50. Just scanning trends and one can easily see hundreds of other coins that if you felt they could come back just one grade level higher would be worth the gamble to crack them out and resubmit them. The grading services do ask that the paper insert showing the grade be returned from coins that have been "cracked out" so the population reports can be adjusted; however, this simple does not happen in many cases leading to inaccuracies. This tends to make certain coins appear more common than they truly are and those where "cracking out" is not economically justified scarcer in comparison.

Now for the other side of the coin, the potential misuse of population reports. Every week when I receive the new edition of Coin World I first scan the articles and then the advertisements noting any Charlotte pieces for sale. This helps me judge the market for when I am ready to purchase my next coin. Well as I went through the October 20^th edition I found an 1850-C gold dollar graded NGC-61. Well out of my league but I made a note of it anyway. Then seven pages later another 1850-C gold dollar again graded NGC-61, however this time noted population 1/0. This translates to one graded MS-61 with none higher. Whoa! Wait! How can this be? Two in one issue yet a population of only one. Upon reading the second dealer’s ad further I had my answer as he states "Populations are PCGS only". So based on just this issue of Coin World we know there are at least three MS-61s and have no clue if there are any graded higher. What does the NGC population report say, the ANACS, or even PCI, etc. say? We don’t know based on the information in the ads. So why would one use the PCGS population report to describe a NGC graded coin? Well it is the most quoted in the hobby. Other coins in the ad had no populations listed so why this coin? Could it be that the hint that this was perhaps the finest known would enhance the coin’s salability? I truly doubt it. It was most likely an oversight on the part of the dealer. He probably never considered that it could be construed to be purposely misleading. I am confident the population report information was included as a service to the customer; however, one must admit it does look bad. Either way this is an excellent example of how statistical information can be misleading whether accidentally or intentionally. It is also a good example of the worth of incomplete information. 

In addition to strategically using information from population reports to hype a certain coin I have also heard stories of dealers having a small number of more common coins slabbed in hopes of passing them off to uninformed or new collectors as rare based on the population report that results. One would hope that stories like this, if based in fact, would be very rare and limited. I have never seen this personally and consider it "sour grapes" or propaganda between rivals. I personally have found that the vast majority of professional numismatic dealers I have dealt with have been honest and trustworthy. This being said I still must warn against putting absolute faith in numbers – be they populations, mintages, or numerical grades. It’s your money so if nothing else remember these basic rules. "Buy the coin not the holder", "Read the book before you buy the coin" and "Caveat emptor" or "let the buyer beware!" Till next time enjoy the hobby!