NEW RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

carkim

We have just added a buy/sell policy to the RULES section of the registry which reads as follows:

Buying and Selling Policy

The PSA Set Registry is to be used to list collections of cards and is not to be used to sell cards. Listing a card(s) with the intent to sell it and/or pricing a card(s) in the registry will not be accepted. The set registry is self-policing. Should you see a infraction of this policy, please report it to setregistry@collectors.com.


I do not like the new rule...How does everyone else feel?

Carlos

Wayne8348

Carlos - I honestly like the new rule. I don't think it should be wrong for someone who decides to sell their set to reference their set on the registry to aid in the sale but I would hate to see auction houses using the reigistry strictly for selling collections. I guess overall it's not really a major issue with me.

Wayne

RayBShotz

Selling should be left to the Trading/Selling Message Board only. I like the new rule. There is ample free space here at this site to advertise cards for sale.Text

RayB69Topps

acowa

I am seeing more and more sets which reference the set registry in the description. I have not seen the comments fields used as a place to list the price. The simple solution is for CU to get rid of the comment field and replace it with something worthwhile...like the population for the listed grade or SMR for the specific grade.

Personally, I have several "trading" sets listed. Are these now illegal?

Regards,


Alan

calleocho

i saw someone selling a football set the other day on ebay. and they mentioned that it was the 3rd all time set and they had a picture of the registry page. i didnt mind...

i guess putting "asking prices" in the owner's comment box is not very nice. i mean get your own website if you want to do that. but letting collectors know that a certain set will be sold, its ok. around 1% of my set has come from other set collectors within my own category...so i guess people could get around this new rule.

JH

I like the new rule...using the registry to try to sell sets is not even close to it's intended purpose.... there are plenty of other vehicles for advertising ones cards for sale..... the registry should not be one of them...

carkim

I don't think it should be wrong for someone who decides to sell their set to reference their set on the registry to aid in the sale

Wayne,

The way I read the rule...I think that would be illegal.


Also...Would Bob had to remove his set before consigning it to Superior????


Carlos

carkim

JH & RayB,

What if no mention of a sale is listed on the registry...But is refered to via eBay or in Bob's (1969 set) Superior? Why is that wrong???

Carlos

vorthian

>> i saw someone selling a football set the other day on ebay. and they mentioned that it was the 3rd all time set and they had a picture of the registry page. i didnt mind... <<

I'm in agreement - I have no problems with this. However, when I saw the "Mastronet Spring 2002 Ramly Set" listed prior to their auction, I was perplexed as I didn't think they would allow the registry to be used in that format.

acowa

The way I read the rul was that people were offering prices to individual cards in the comments fields. I don't see how CU can control whether someone states that a set is such and such rank on the registry...and why should they care? It's free advertising for the registry.


Regards,


Alan

carkim

Alan,

You just made my next point...Thanks

Carlos

calleocho

like acowa said... many people have trading sets. as long as you dont abuse the registry im pretty sure that collectors will find a way around it.

i dont like spam and i agree that posting asking prices is abusive of the system.

but if something if its done w/ taste and found meaningful by most board members ..like the sale of the 1969 set ...there is nothing wrong w/ that... it adds recognizion to the registry as a whole.

carkim

Listing a card(s) with the intent to sell it.

Does this mean we must never intend to sell a card that we have listed?

The set registry is self-policing. Should you see a infraction of this policy, please report it.

Unless the rule is clearly defined...this could get out of hand.


Maybe it is just me, but the rule needs to removed or CLEARLY defined.

Carlos

calleocho

its a hobby...not politics.

i hope this rule is used w/ discreption and common sense.

rules can be bend. i mean as long as you dont use the registry as a second ebay.. then i guess you would be fine.

JH

carkim - I personally have no problem with people selling their sets, while they are on the registry, as long as there is no reference to it, or pricing on the registry.....

Wayne8348

Carlos - I agree with what you are saying. I think it's great for Bob to be able to reference his set in the Superior Auction as the #1 set on the registry. His set was registered a long time ago and he didn't do it for the single purpose of selling it. I believe that selling graded sets either complete or near complete will be a viable alternative to selling cards in the future if it's not already. With this being said, I would hate to see a dozen new sets registered every few months when Superior has their auction for the sole purpose of promoting the sale for the auction. If it's someone who has their set already registered and has been working on it then I don't see that as being abusive. I honestly can't think of anyone abusing this yet but I do see the potential for it in the future. Just my thoughts but I would also like to see some clarification to the rules.

Wayne

Wayne8348

calleocho - well put. I could have saved a lot of space if I would have seen your post first.

Wayne

BJ

Hi Everyone,

Please do not read more into the policy than is there. Obviously, it should be expected that many collectors put together their sets with the intention of eventually selling them. Some sooner than others. That's why we have the ATF section, so that those great collections, even though sold, can still be enjoyed. What the policy is referring to is the blatant use of the registry to gain profit. That is not in keeping with the spirit of the registry, which is this... a place where collectors can come together, list their sets, and compete in a friendly environment.

A person who has no intention of building a set, is invited to list his/her coins for sale in the PSA buy, sell & trade messageboards. If you list cards in the registry for the SOLE purpose of selling them off, then you are in the wrong venue. Place your cards in the buy/sell forum, on ebay, in an auction, etc. The registry is not intended to be a commerce site.

If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free email me directly. I'll be happy to address them. Thanks.

BTW, the registry is a work in progress. Mention was made of tying in the population report, which we have already done on the PCGS Coin set registry. This is something we are definitely planning to do, but there's a great deal of prep work that must be done first. Just know that we are doing our darnest to make the registry the best it possibly can be. There are several of us working full time on the registry programs and we hope you are able to appreciate the progress that has been made since our launch less than a year ago.

Thanks again.

Wayne8348

Thanks BJ - That sounds great! I'm very glad to hear that the pop report is in progress.

Wayne

mikeschmidt

BJ:

We love you dearly and all that you have done for the Registry. We may be a bunch of fickle old men who like to yell and moan about the Registry -- but you know that you are in our hearts and have made significant strides that were not in place one year ago.

We will challenge you for constant improvement -- and love you every step of the way.

theBobs

<< <i>Personally, I have several "trading" sets listed. Are these now illegal? >>



Sounds like this is ok...

carkim

BJ,

Thanks for the clarification, not only on this thread but on the phone as well.

All in all you are looking out for the best interest of collectors...not dealer, which is commendable. THANKS

Carlos

carkim

<< Personally, I have several "trading" sets listed. Are these now illegal? >>

Sounds like this is ok...


You may have to change the TITLE of your set...But it is ok to list the cards.

Carlos

dude

BJ,

That is great news regarding the Population listing on the Registry. Thank you!

Vargha

BJ -- I want you to know that I am not complaining. But I know what you mean about all of those other guys. They are really starting to hack me off as well.

acowa

BJ,

I got a kick out of your statement <blatant use of the registry to gain profit.>

It's found this statement to be kind ironic now that the registry has spawned a whole breed of set collectors. I have to believe that registry has swayed a number of collectors that were "on the fence" with regards to which grader to use. Grading all of these commons that used to stay put in plastic pages has to profit someone....doesn't it?


Regards,


Alan

BJ

Alan,

Of course, there is no question the PSA is profiting from the set registry as well it should. We are putting some pretty serious man power into the registry and someone has to pay for that. PSA is a business, afterall. But, also profiting from the registry are dealers and collectors alike. The dealers when they sell their cards to the collectors, the collectors when they sell their cards on ebay or through auction. The registry is a win-win for everyone. We'd like to keep it that way. We hope you feel that way, too.

sixdart

Listing a complete set for resell is fine - to reference it as a entire set.

To just sell individual cards is wrong, within the PSA Set Registry.

I have seen people listing cards in their sets saying that they were already sold on EBAY and then listing the sold prices in the comment field. That is not biulding a set to complete - it is advertising or record keeping.

acowa

BJ,

I think you clarified the statement later with <If you list cards in the registry for the SOLE purpose of selling them off, then you are in the wrong venue.>

I fully understand where CU is coming from on the issue. I don't disagree with anything you've said. The registry was/is a brilliant marketing move for CU. It is most certainly one of the most significant innovation to hit the collecting world in the past couple of years.

Regards,


Alan

brucemo

I'm a set collector. I registered a couple of my sets. If I decide to sell them, I might mention the set registry and provide a pointer to the sets. I don't see why there should be anything wrong with this.

I've also received a surprisingly large number of offers on cards in my sets. Some of these have been too good to pass up, so I've taken them. I don't see why there should be anything wrong with this.

If someone is putting prices in their comment fields, there is something wrong with that. I agree that the set registry should be for display, not for sale. An external pointer into the set registry should be fine, as described in my first paragraph, but a set called "This set for sale -- $5000!" with individual prices for cards in comment fields -- no way.

I don't like the idea of "trading sets" either. A set listed in the registry should be someone's pride and joy. It should represent significant work. If someone has put years into building a set, it shouldn't be listed alongside a set that's just there to inspire business.

I'd suggest that sets under 25% complete simply not even show up. If you haven't gotten 1/4 of the cards, you don't have a set, you have a lot, and it's the set registry, not the lot registry. This will cut down on cases where people register two or three cards in order to try to inspire offers on these cards.

bruce

mikeschmidt

Brucemo:

As a team set collector, I will take a small exception to your rule. As I am probably one of but a handful of high grade Philadelphia Phillies team set collectors -- I don't think it is "wrong" for me to list my cards on the Registry. My set will always be near the bottom, and I am okay with that. However, I think I definitely have some nice vintage 8s, 9s and even a 10 or two that would be a great upgrade to even the best of the sets from any given year. Thus -- I think I should be allowed to keep my cards in the registry. They are generally not for sale -- and, like most others, if someone offered me an amount to which I could not say no -- then I might trade or sell the card.

boggs301012

I'd suggest that sets under 25% complete simply not even show up. If you haven't gotten 1/4 of the cards, you don't have a set, you have a lot, and it's the set registry, not the lot registry. This will cut down on cases where people register two or three cards in order to try to inspire offers on these cards.


I Think you are wrong on this , I think there should be some checks and balances in the system. An idea off the top of my head , you have to add a card every.......... (month or so )this show intent. If not it will be deleted. Or a warning from PSA first befor they delete the set saying your set is inactive and subject to removal.

BTW I try to add at least 2 a month.

Basilone

<< <i>you have to add a card every.......... (month or so )this show intent, If not it will be deleted. >>



Boggsey-

Although I can see where you are coming from, there are some points to consider. What happens if you have 20 different sets on the registry? Or if you are at 95% completion and cards are hard to come by or the set is very expensive? Also, some collectors like to buy in "spurts" and will take a month or two off then buy/add a bunch of cards in a few days. There are also collectors who add cards to the registry via buying collections or lots from other collectors as well.

John

mikeschmidt

For some sets -- won't this be at least a little self-correcting over time?

For example, with 1952 Topps -- the front page only shows the Top 20 Current Finest sets -- ever one of these sets is at least 9% complete. There are more than 20 sets registered -- but to see the sets that only have two or three cards, you have to make a special effort to go to the "Click here to view the entire current finest list" page.

But also, if a set is less than 5% complete, and has no updates in six months, perhaps it is best if it is de-listed after one e-mail warning with no response. They could always re-register again if it is a big problem...

1954

Boggs,
You bring up a great point. I also believe that you should not be able to register your set unless you are 25% complete (or really incomplete). It is rediculous when I look out on the set registry under 1975 Topps baseball and there are 34 people trying to make this set. The last ten have a completion rate of 3.4%. Then I list 200 out on Ebay and only 67 of them sell???? If someone has a card I need, I am all over it regards of pricing.
As for your comment about having your set taken off if you don't add a card to the set within a months time. I don't agree with this statement. If I add one card to my 1954 Wilson Weiner set with the next six months, I will consider myself lucky.

Leo/1954

carkim

MORE NEW RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


This may help the minimum % discussion.

Current sets that are not at least 10% complete and have not been updated for at least 12 months will be deleted from the registry.

Carlos

Basilone

Fair and Generous policy.....Thanks PSA for being proactive regarding this situation.

Vargha

If someone has a card I need, I am all over it regards of pricing.

Then I would definitely like your wantlist so I can profit heavily . . . er, I mean help you complete your set.

pinhigh

schmidty - Have you ever considered requesting a set for a run of team sets? Similarly, I collect all regular issue Topps complete team sets of the Atlanta Braves. These team sets are ungraded, but if this were to show up on the registry, it may persuade me to grade these team sets. I've often thought of requesting it but I didn't think there would be much interest.

mikeschmidt

Pinhigh-

I definitely will register specific team sets -- perhaps like the 1950 Phillies, 1964 Phillies and the 1980 Phillies. After that, I am not sure. Perhaps one day it will be an interesting thing to do -- but right now I am one of the primary people doing that. I got the Mike Schmidt registry up and moving -- but will probably wait with the others.

Eventually -- if the Registry will delete my sets for having less than 10%, I will move to get the team set from that year registered. What other options are there? I'm not entirely sure myself, but I will keep my eye on the situation.

brucemo

I sympathize with you regarding your point regarding team collecting, but a set registry is kind of a weird place to display a team set.

I don't like the idea of deleting stuff for inactivity, once they get above a certain completion threshold. Some sets are *really* hard to do, as I'm sure you've experienced.

I see they've added the "300 great cards" set. That's pretty painful.

bruce

boggs301012

Remember guys I said a "month or so". I agree once a certain % is obtained it is harder. I say 50% shows serious intent and give it 2 years befor deletion if there is no activity, and an email befor hand. I would said 10% is fair to register your set. (Glad I decided to trim down the Boggs set) I do agree I 've sets lested months ago with a few cards and zero additions to the sets since they were added. People will loose intrest and money.

New Rules..already I would say Big Brother is listening . Or that was a coincidence.

PlayBall

I think that completion percentage is NOT necessarily a good way of judging a set, or whether it should be deleted. I lean toward the activity of adding cards to the set. This may be an extreme, but.......

1964 Topps Stand-Ups - 77 cards = 100%

1972 Topps - 77 cards = 9.78% - Goodbye!

I do understand that when a certain % is met, that finding additional cards will be a chore. Therefore, I believe that each set should be judged individually, or at least in groups by set size, price, and availability. This would make it more fair for people without the deep pockets, who can't buy cards whenever they want/need, just to stay on the registry.

Bernie

sixdart

<< <i>Current sets that are not at least 10% complete and have not been updated for at least 12 months will be deleted from the registry. >>



You can update your set without deleting or adding cards to it.

There has to be some policing on people starting a set with no intent to ever finish it. This just clutters the set listings. This issue will be more severe with the modern cards.

The 90% completition rate, for the all-time finest sets to remain a permanent listing, is reasonable. My personal opinion is that it should be 100% complete to even be in the all-time finest sets - the set should be completely assembled. Otherwise, they can remain in the current finest until complete.

A set that is 100% complete is more worthy of consideration and should be recognized as such. Even in a final grade of PSA 7 versus a 50%-60% complete set with a current grade of PSA 8. Best example would be HalleyGator's HOF set.

carkim

I have two questions about inactive sets and minimum completion percentage.


TO COLLECTORS ON THIS BOARD...
1) Does it really bother us so much that these sets HAVE to be deleted?

TO PSA...

2) Which costs your company more money? Having inactive sets in your data base or the man hours it takes to monitor and remove these sets?


My answer to question #1 is...

Of the nearly 2000 sets that are registered I only look at about 50 of them. The other 1950 sets do not hinder the viewing of my favorites. Therefore, if the cost is the same for PSA (And will not ultimately cause an increase in the price of submission), I say let them stay.

Carlos

brucemo

I think that the issue is not how much it costs PSA to let the 1% complete sets stay, but rather the problem is that a complete or nearly complete set should stand with other complete or nearly complete sets, rather than having to compete for attention with someone's type card that they registered for some unknown reason. And certainly a set entitled "Bill's labor of love -- 10 years in the making" should not have to compete with "Get your PSA-8 commons here! Will sell or trade!!".

bruce

FB

The only other reason that I can see for keeping sets so far from completion is as a record for my insurance company. If my collection should get wiped out in a fire, I can always print off the individual sets and show exactly what I lost.

Most of my sets are in the 25%+ range, but there are a few where I might only have 10 or 12 different cards and may be 16thin priority. So, to be honest, rather than have those sets below 10% deleted, I'd be happier if they just weren't visible to the public, but I could still check them out through the "Set Summary".

hench1

I wonder if Mastro started this controversy when they listed a T204 Ramly set from their Spring Auction in the Registry...???

Vargha

Levi Bleam (707 Sportscards) has cards listed with the price tags on the front of the slabs as well. You can't blame the dealers for taking advantage of such a situation. You also have to respect PSA's position as the owner of the server and corresponding database.

I sold two sets that are "all-time" sets -- 1949 Bowman and 1949 Bowman PCL. When I listed them, I had every intention of keeping them. It was a hard-made decision to go after a PSA 8 or better set rating on my 1951 Bowman set that made me choose to sell them. I don't think that my scenario is the one that PSA is concerned about. In fact, both of the buyers listed their new sets on the Registry. It is the 707 Sportscards situation and those like it that PSA is obviously seeking to rectify. I just hope that draconian measures aren't instituted to eliminate those that are deemed "less than serious".

sixdart

Here is a set with the owner not having position of a single card listed ...

PSA REGISTRY SET LISTING WITH ALL CARDS SOLD ON EBAY

... every card has been sold on EBAY, with the auction price in the comment field.

Is this someone who is attempting to build a PSA registry set?