Options
PSA Announcement - Hand-cut/Perforated issues in Master Sets
JoeOrlando
Posts: 122 mod
Dear Set Registry Members,
There has been a lot of discussion and debate over the hand-cut/perforated issues as it relates to the Master Sets in the PSA Registry.
We have listened to feedback and we even held a poll. The poll reflected that the majority wished to keep the sets as is. That said, after much thought, I have decided to review each of these issues on a case by case basis and slowly begin modifying the Master Sets where appropriate.
Whether you agree with this approach or not, please understand that we are doing this in what we believe are the best interests of the registrants and with the big picture in mind.
The truth of the matter is that some of these so-called variations are not variations at all. They are the exact same item that has been cut in various ways by hand. In my opinion, if we don’t make the adjustments now, it will create a host of unnecessary and nonsensical requirements for collectors in the long run.
The modifications that we make will not happen overnight and, even if some of items are eliminated from the Master Sets, that will not prevent you from placing those items in the Collectors Showcase. It certainly doesn’t prevent people from collecting them outside of the PSA Registry.
While this was a hard decision, we do believe it is the right one.
The PSA Set Registry is an ever-evolving venue, and as it continues to grow, it is inevitable that other controversial issues will arise. The Registry staff will continue to manage issues like this as best they can in hopes of providing the best possible experience for the collectors.
Sincerely,
Joe Orlando
PSA President
Joe Orlando
CEO, Collectors Universe, Inc.
CEO, Collectors Universe, Inc.
0
Comments
I don't see how you can allow Star cards in the master sets ? Star cards are borders/ basement cards at best. How come we don't see any Jordan Star cards in
the registry? What because those are the only ones that were reprinted years later and sold? You are 100% sure that
no other sets or cards were reprinted? Was it just the Basketball? How about the 1988 Star Griffeys? I find it funny they were
the only company that was smart enough to capture Ken Griffey Jr in 1988 in a Mariners uniform?
How about the 84 Nestle's? Legit in sheet form were cut down after market so why don't you allow those?
How about cameos? I would consider them like team cards? How come you don't allow them?
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
<< <i>Great Joe since your listening to our complaints.
I don't see how you can allow Star cards in the master sets ? Star cards are borders/ basement cards at best. How come we don't see any Jordan Star cards in
the registry? What because those are the only ones that were reprinted years later and sold? You are 100% sure that
no other sets or cards were reprinted? Was it just the Basketball? How about the 1988 Star Griffeys? I find it funny they were
the only company that was smart enough to capture Ken Griffey Jr in 1988 in a Mariners uniform?
How about the 84 Nestle's? Legit in sheet form were cut down after market so why don't you allow those?
How about cameos? I would consider them like team cards? How come you don't allow them? >>
Seriously-- why is this an issue? You would probably need to spend apprx. $200K in GRADING FEES ALONE to come within 5% of finishing the Griffey Master. If you get to that point, and all that's between you and 100% completion is a random Star Nova set, then fine-- otherwise, cross that bridge when you come to it.
collecting 1977 topps baseball in psa 9 and psa 10
Looking for 1970 MLB Photostamps
- uncut
Positive Transactions - tennesseebanker, Ahmanfan, Donruss, Colebear, CDsNuts, rbdjr1, Downtown1974, yankeeno7, drewsef, mnolan, mrbud60, msassin, RipublicaninMass, AkbarClone, rustywilly, lsutigers1973, julen23 and nam812, plus many others...
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
Congratulations on your leadership here-
<< <i>Your best play would probably be to keep whatever variations that are currently listed in player sets as part of that master set, and put a moratorium on any new additions. Very few player sets have more than 15-20 of these variations included as of right now, and if a guy can pick all those up for about $10-$15 each (which shouldn't be difficult), that's only about a $300 outlay-- which should not be enough money to make someone who's making a serious run at completing a master set blanche. This way you keep the sets from becoming thronged with these variations, but you don't screw the guys who have (in many cases) spent significant sums to obtain these cards. >>
This isn't really an issue of money. It doesn't matter if these BS variations cost a nickel or $500. The issue at hand is the integrity of master set building. Since we've already established that the cards being discussed (all-star game stamps or other variations that feature the same card in multiple variations attached to other cards) aren't really variations, then why would you suggest that we allow those cards that are already registered to remain? You have to take them out, otherwise everyone else in that registry will have to buy them too. You can't tell me that the 1st guy who bought the Ripken stamp, then the same Ripken stamp attached to another stamp, then the same Ripken stamp attached to 3 other stamps in a "quad" really thought he was adding something authentic and genuine to his collection. Anyone who paid for that garbage was only doing it b/c PSA said they were required. Tough cookies for anyone who sunk a few hundred bucks on this stuff. I agree with Joe 100% that these need to be removed from the registry, otherwise you force everyone else to buy the same junk to get thier sets to 100%.
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
<< <i>
<< <i>Your best play would probably be to keep whatever variations that are currently listed in player sets as part of that master set, and put a moratorium on any new additions. Very few player sets have more than 15-20 of these variations included as of right now, and if a guy can pick all those up for about $10-$15 each (which shouldn't be difficult), that's only about a $300 outlay-- which should not be enough money to make someone who's making a serious run at completing a master set blanche. This way you keep the sets from becoming thronged with these variations, but you don't screw the guys who have (in many cases) spent significant sums to obtain these cards. >>
This isn't really an issue of money. It doesn't matter if these BS variations cost a nickel or $500. The issue at hand is the integrity of master set building. Since we've already established that the cards being discussed (all-star game stamps or other variations that feature the same card in multiple variations attached to other cards) aren't really variations, then why would you suggest that we allow those cards that are already registered to remain? You have to take them out, otherwise everyone else in that registry will have to buy them too. You can't tell me that the 1st guy who bought the Ripken stamp, then the same Ripken stamp attached to another stamp, then the same Ripken stamp attached to 3 other stamps in a "quad" really thought he was adding something authentic and genuine to his collection. Anyone who paid for that garbage was only doing it b/c PSA said they were required. Tough cookies for anyone who sunk a few hundred bucks on this stuff. I agree with Joe 100% that these need to be removed from the registry, otherwise you force everyone else to buy the same junk to get thier sets to 100%. >>
You can look at it any way you want, but the bottom line is this-- guys who bought these cards did so because at the time of purchase they were admitted into the master sets. If you retroactively change the rules you are sticking it to the guys who bought these variations. And as far as the 'principle' of the issue is concerned, or the integrity of the set checklist, you (or anyone else) need not worry about that until you're within a par 3 of actually finishing a master set.
Most of the noise (not all, but most) on this issue has been made by guys with less than $2000 into their master sets. If you're 14% of the way done with the Ripken master, or whatever, the last thing you need to be worried about is All-Star panels. The time to concern yourself about these artifically created variations comes once you've sunk a quarter of a million dollars into your set and gotten within 100 cards of knocking it out. Until that point, who cares? I can see why Marc, or Jeff, or Cory (or Dave, for that matter), have real opinions on this issue (one way or another), because these guys have 10's of thousands of dollars wrapped up in their sets, and these variations comprise a very large percentage of the total number of cards that they might need to get to 100%. But for most people- and certainly most people who have weighted in on this issue here on the boards-- it's not an issue that should elicit any kind of fevered response.
Think of it like this: If you owned one PSA 3 T-206 common, and that was the only pre-1960 card you owned, would you have any real opinion on whether or not the T-205 set was added to the registry mega set? These issues only matter (or only SHOULD matter, IMO) after a critical point of completion has been met and surpassed.
M
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Your best play would probably be to keep whatever variations that are currently listed in player sets as part of that master set, and put a moratorium on any new additions. Very few player sets have more than 15-20 of these variations included as of right now, and if a guy can pick all those up for about $10-$15 each (which shouldn't be difficult), that's only about a $300 outlay-- which should not be enough money to make someone who's making a serious run at completing a master set blanche. This way you keep the sets from becoming thronged with these variations, but you don't screw the guys who have (in many cases) spent significant sums to obtain these cards. >>
This isn't really an issue of money. It doesn't matter if these BS variations cost a nickel or $500. The issue at hand is the integrity of master set building. Since we've already established that the cards being discussed (all-star game stamps or other variations that feature the same card in multiple variations attached to other cards) aren't really variations, then why would you suggest that we allow those cards that are already registered to remain? You have to take them out, otherwise everyone else in that registry will have to buy them too. You can't tell me that the 1st guy who bought the Ripken stamp, then the same Ripken stamp attached to another stamp, then the same Ripken stamp attached to 3 other stamps in a "quad" really thought he was adding something authentic and genuine to his collection. Anyone who paid for that garbage was only doing it b/c PSA said they were required. Tough cookies for anyone who sunk a few hundred bucks on this stuff. I agree with Joe 100% that these need to be removed from the registry, otherwise you force everyone else to buy the same junk to get thier sets to 100%. >>
You can look at it any way you want, but the bottom line is this-- guys who bought these cards did so because at the time of purchase they were admitted into the master sets. If you retroactively change the rules you are sticking it to the guys who bought these variations. And as far as the 'principle' of the issue is concerned, or the integrity of the set checklist, you (or anyone else) need not worry about that until you're within a par 3 of actually finishing a master set.
Most of the noise (not all, but most) on this issue has been made by guys with less than $2000 into their master sets. If you're 14% of the way done with the Ripken master, or whatever, the last thing you need to be worried about is All-Star panels. The time to concern yourself about these artifically created variations comes once you've sunk a quarter of a million dollars into your set and gotten within 100 cards of knocking it out. Until that point, who cares? I can see why Marc, or Jeff, or Cory (or Dave, for that matter), have real opinions on this issue (one way or another), because these guys have 10's of thousands of dollars wrapped up in their sets, and these variations comprise a very large percentage of the total number of cards that they might need to get to 100%. But for most people- and certainly most people who have weighted in on this issue here on the boards-- it's not an issue that should elicit any kind of fevered response.
Think of it like this: If you owned one PSA 3 T-206 common, and that was the only pre-1960 card you owned, would you have any real opinion on whether or not the T-205 set was added to the registry mega set? These issues only matter (or only SHOULD matter, IMO) after a critical point of completion has been met and surpassed. >>
Boopotts- Good read, thanks. Actually I haven't read many posts at all over the past month from people who share your opinion, so its nice to hear a different angle on this issue. Couple of points- 1) Not sure why you keep bringing $$ into this issue. There is nothing more irrelevant to the stamp/panel issue than when you say "most of the noise on this issue has been made by guys with less than $2000 into their master sets." Whether you're 65 and collecting Mantle's or 12 and collecting Joba's, the issue is the same. Also, if you're at 1% or at 80%, the issue is the same. 2) The guy in your example who is 14% finished with his Ripken set is important to this equation and here's why. If a master set is full of fake variations that no one would or should want to own, it serves as a disincentive for new collector's to enter a set. It also serves as a disincentive for guys with 14% of a set to try an get to 100%, or within a par 3, as you say. As a PSA fan who is interested in the continuance of master set building HERE, I want people to be interested and attracted to starting new sets. Your strategy achieves the opposite. All of them should recognize that a fake variation is a fake variation is a fake variation. C'mon even Joe recognizes this now. I empathize with people who have a lot invested in the fake variations (thats what I'm calling them from now on), but not enough that i would choose to force all new participants in a set to also make the same investment that the first guy made. Your viewpoint equates to this- since collector #1 made a bad purchase, lets make collector's #2 and 3 and 4 also make the same bad purchase. Doesn't smell right to me and that strategy won't be good for PSA going forward.
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
Kevin
1970's Hostess panels
1960's Transogram panels
1983 fleer stamp panels
1983 fleer sticker panels
1966 rub off panels
1969 photostamp panels
1971 dell stamp panels
1969 - 1970 milton bradley panels
1980's AS panels
1990 Publ Int panel
1961- 63, 64, 65, 66, 68 Bazooka panels
1981 topps scratch offs
1971 & 1986 tattoo panels
Atlantic oil perforated?
1969 stamp panels
this can was opened awhile ago...
Looking for 1970 MLB Photostamps
- uncut
Positive Transactions - tennesseebanker, Ahmanfan, Donruss, Colebear, CDsNuts, rbdjr1, Downtown1974, yankeeno7, drewsef, mnolan, mrbud60, msassin, RipublicaninMass, AkbarClone, rustywilly, lsutigers1973, julen23 and nam812, plus many others...
I also agree that there should not be any issues "grandfathered" into the registry -- either an issue meets the criteria or it doesn't.
IMO, the criteria should be as follows;
Any panel in its original form should be eligible for the registry (unless it's too large per PSA's current size limitation). In addition, the individual player issue (either perforated or hand-cut -- not both) should be included. In the case of perforated issues, e.g., 1971 Dell, anything "hand-cut" should be graded as "authentic".
For example, three-player (complete) Bazooka panels would qualify -- along with each individual player -- but two-player permutations of the same panel would not.
I expect that PSA's "case by case" review of each issue will evolve to what I just described.
Always plenty of PSA-graded cards in my ebay store -- https://ebay.com/str/thelumbercompanysportscards
<< <i>We should start a list... (just baseball)
1970's Hostess panels
1960's Transogram panels
1983 fleer stamp panels
1983 fleer sticker panels
1966 rub off panels
1969 photostamp panels
1971 dell stamp panels
1969 - 1970 milton bradley panels
1980's AS panels
1990 Publ Int panel
1961- 63, 64, 65, 66, 68 Bazooka panels
1981 topps scratch offs
1971 & 1986 tattoo panels
Atlantic oil perforated?
1969 stamp panels
this can was opened awhile ago... >>
You can add
1983 Topps Fold-outs
1978 SSPC
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
This issue is 50/50...They have a tough time deciding what goes and what stays, because either way someone is going to be unhappy and I'm sure I'm going to be one of them.
I feel they should be added as long as the card that is attached or touching the player you are collecting. Here are some examples:
This shouldn't be added because some of the players aren't touching Nolan Ryan
This should be added because both cards are touching Nolan Ryan
This should be added because the other card is touching Nolan Ryan
This one also is touching Nolan Ryan
Now this is the card that started all these variations above
Now I've gotten involved. I only added these cards to the Nolan Ryan Master set to be ahead of the game, because the way the registry was going someone was going to add them to the set anyways.
Roland-
I must commend you for making this decision quickly but two other difficult steps must be taken before you can close the book on this issue. You must stop grading these panels immediately and then make the collectors who own these PSA panels whole by removing this toxic PSA product from the marketplace. I have included my response to your original post below to refresh your memory of my stand on this issue:
Joe,
After reading this thread there is only one real solution to the issue at hand. Remove the panels which you as President feel should not be included in the Player Registry Sets. Then offer for PSA to buy back any of the deleted PSA graded panels at the documented cost to the owner. The auto industry has "Cash For Clunkers" so PSA can now have "Cash for Panels". Unfortunately PSA created this monster by grading the panels in the first place. Now PSA has to step up to the plate and do what's right for your customer base.
You have a chance to make a tough decision which may negatively impact PSA's bottom line in the short term but will be right for your PSA collecting
world for decades to come. A number of years ago Johnson and Johnson pulled Tylenol off the shelves in order to protect the public from possible product tampering. A desirable trait found in world class leaders includes the skill to take a decisive course of action. My strong recommendation is for PSA to immediately stop grading these panels and delete all from the PSA Registry. Simultaneously roll out the "Cash For Panels" program. At all cost, do not let your customer, the PSA collector, be left holding this toxic PSA product with no recourse. You must make the collector whole while getting this unfortunate situation behind you post-haste.
Jeff Korth
#1 Pete Rose Master Set
<< <i>Most of the noise (not all, but most) on this issue has been made by guys with less than $2000 into their master sets. If you're 14% of the way done with the Ripken master, or whatever, the last thing you need to be worried about is All-Star panels. >>
I think 14% on the Ripken Master set is probably more than $2k into it.
<< <i>
<< <i>Most of the noise (not all, but most) on this issue has been made by guys with less than $2000 into their master sets. If you're 14% of the way done with the Ripken master, or whatever, the last thing you need to be worried about is All-Star panels. >>
I think 14% on the Ripken Master set is probably more than $2k into it. >>
I think that number is a bit low actually...
<< <i>If I read correctly in the Cosseta email thread Boopots was the creator of these things.
Kevin >>
I was the first person to grade an All Star Program quad panel. I was not the first to grade an '83 stamp panel. I'd also add that whether I created these or not has very little to do (in my case) with my opinion on whether these should be included in the Master set. My feeling- which I've articulated here, in earlier posts-- is that those variations which are already in the Master set should be kept, and any further solicitations for the addition of panels into the Master sets should be rejected. I also think that voting on this issue should be restricted to people who completed at least 15% of the set in question (for reasons I mentioned earlier).
<< <i>Your best play would probably be to keep whatever variations that are currently listed in player sets as part of that master set, and put a moratorium on any new additions. Very few player sets have more than 15-20 of these variations included as of right now, and if a guy can pick all those up for about $10-$15 each (which shouldn't be difficult), that's only about a $300 outlay-- which should not be enough money to make someone who's making a serious run at completing a master set blanche. This way you keep the sets from becoming thronged with these variations, but you don't screw the guys who have (in many cases) spent significant sums to obtain these cards. >>
You kind of contradict yourself here, at first you say "a guy can pick all those up for about $10-$15 each (which shouldn't be difficult), that's only about a $300 outlay", but then "you don't screw the guys who have (in many cases) spent significant sums to obtain these cards". So which are they, cheap cards you can pick up for $10-$15 or a significant sum?
Also, while I may not have a ton of money into my Ripken PSA set yet, I have quite a bit into my raw Ripken collection, and would like to have most of those in a PSA slab in the registry someday. So that's why the issue matters to me. I don't think I should be shunned of an opinion in the matter because I don't have as much $ into my collection. At any rate, as far as the Ripken master registry goes, the top 2 people voted #2 on this, as well as 3 others in the top 10, and not sure what the other 5 voted, if at all. The #3 guy is a huge buyer of PSA 10's on eBay, especially low pop ones, and he passed 3 times on these "variation" panels that were in PSA 10, and were pop 1 or 2. So it would appear he probably doesn't care for them either.
<< <i>
<< <i>Your best play would probably be to keep whatever variations that are currently listed in player sets as part of that master set, and put a moratorium on any new additions. Very few player sets have more than 15-20 of these variations included as of right now, and if a guy can pick all those up for about $10-$15 each (which shouldn't be difficult), that's only about a $300 outlay-- which should not be enough money to make someone who's making a serious run at completing a master set blanche. This way you keep the sets from becoming thronged with these variations, but you don't screw the guys who have (in many cases) spent significant sums to obtain these cards. >>
You kind of contradict yourself here, at first you say "a guy can pick all those up for about $10-$15 each (which shouldn't be difficult), that's only about a $300 outlay", but then "you don't screw the guys who have (in many cases) spent significant sums to obtain these cards". So which are they, cheap cards you can pick up for $10-$15 or a significant sum?
Also, while I may not have a ton of money into my Ripken PSA set yet, I have quite a bit into my raw Ripken collection, and would like to have most of those in a PSA slab in the registry someday. So that's why the issue matters to me. I don't think I should be shunned of an opinion in the matter because I don't have as much $ into my collection. At any rate, as far as the Ripken master registry goes, the top 2 people voted #2 on this, as well as 3 others in the top 10, and not sure what the other 5 voted, if at all. The #3 guy is a huge buyer of PSA 10's on eBay, especially low pop ones, and he passed 3 times on these "variation" panels that were in PSA 10, and were pop 1 or 2. So it would appear he probably doesn't care for them either. >>
C'mon, man-- I don't want this to get unnecessarily inflammatory, but this is 'Registry 101'. Obviously the first one-- or two-- will cost quite a bit of money. The fourth (or fifth, or sixth) example will cost $10-$15. WRT to your second point, I'll post more on that later if I can muster the energy for a 700 word post, but suffice to say that if it wasn't for a few guys with deep pockets who will spend big for the cards they need there wouldn't be many PSA 10's for the 'value seekers' to pick up. In other words, it's a market that's built around a few well heeled consumers, and if it wasn't for these consumers the market would collapse. As such, these few collectors should have a much larger say in how these sets are constructed than the guys who spend $1000 annually on $12-$15 PSA 10's. You are welcome to disagree, but IMO PSA does itself a huge disservice if they don't weight the opinions of the more serious collectors over the opinions of those collectors who spend less on PSA products.
collecting 1977 topps baseball in psa 9 and psa 10
Kevin
1. single card
2. whole panel
3. all cut variations (optional)
I personally like panels. What I don't like is having to find 10 variations of the same panel because it's been hand cut to fit every known size of PSA holder.
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
<< <i>But what sense does it make to have even 1 variation if you've already included both the panel and the single player card in the master set? By that point, all you're adding is a duplicate (actually a triplicate at that point) of the player that you collect plus some combination of other player(s). Of all 3 things that K mentioned, we're still only talking about 1 distinct player item that belongs in a player's master set. I'd go with an either/or strategy involving the single player or the panel, but not both. And panel variations are out of the question. >>
Thats why the variations should be optional. I personally like full panels, especially full panels in high grade. Almost makes me appreciate how hard the seller worked to cut the single.
As for worrying about it when the time comes I find that sentiment ludicrous.
By doing that it could discourage some from even attempting such a set if they knew they had to
at one point 'create' such items. IMO one example should be allowed whichever way you choose to present it
it can be in a full panel, or any other possible combination.
Steve
Has anyone brought up the full box item discussion? Example, a full hostess box versus cutting out the three card panel?
I don't think PSA grades full boxes. (Maybe I am wrong.) So if you have to cut into the full box to produce a "gradable" item for master SINGLE player sets should a 3 card panel come into play? I have actually cut into Kraft boxes and separated stamps and removed squirt cards to get the single Pete Rose card for my collection. I really don't care about the other players.
Also won't it be difficult to update the current software to make a change for this issue?
PSA grades a lot of cards that are not part of the master player sets registry shouldn't all these variations should be placed in the showcase section?
As for the Collectors Showcase, you can put any PSA cards you have in there.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
Just wondering how things are progressing. No changes to the Mantle Master Registry Set yet ... (lots of variations ... should be interesting!).
PoppaJ
Always plenty of PSA-graded cards in my ebay store -- https://ebay.com/str/thelumbercompanysportscards
Regards,
Mike
<< <i>The Wade Boggs Master Set was changed to remove variations. For the Topps Stickers of the late 80s and early 90s, they removed all of the variations where Wade Boggs was on the sticker card with a different player on the actual sticker. The new slot allows you to add all cards with Wade Boggs on the sticker card with any player on the actual sticker.
Regards,
Mike >>
Topps Sticker variations I think should be allowed. It would however seem foolish collecting panel variations.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
it will be interesting to see if they go for crazy money in light of the changes...
Looking for 1970 MLB Photostamps
- uncut
Positive Transactions - tennesseebanker, Ahmanfan, Donruss, Colebear, CDsNuts, rbdjr1, Downtown1974, yankeeno7, drewsef, mnolan, mrbud60, msassin, RipublicaninMass, AkbarClone, rustywilly, lsutigers1973, julen23 and nam812, plus many others...
about making 2 ....3 ....4 card hand cut variations ! Is this policy going to
change also ?????? This kind of
relates to my earlier question of Hand cut sheet cards from
Topps sets being added to the registry !
Robbie
1963 Fleer
Lou Brock Master Set
<< <i>Please note that this is from five years ago ! Kinda answers my question
about making 2 ....3 ....4 card hand cut variations ! Is this policy going to
change also ?????? This kind of
relates to my earlier question of Hand cut sheet cards from
Topps sets being added to the registry !
Robbie >>
My reason for asking this question is that in the Lou Brock Master Set........a 1977 Topps Team Checklist
card #183 Cardinals Team ..............hand-cut from a sheet and designated as such , ...............was
added to the Master Set ! Does this mean that every card from a 1977 sheet can be hand cut and submitted for grading ??????
Can someone tell me how many different years exist of Topps sheet cards ????? Will all sheets now be cut up for grading ??
1963 Fleer
Lou Brock Master Set