PSA HOF Registry Set changes.

CVHJOS9

Question to all, just logged onto the Rams HOF registry forum and saw that I was no longer 100% complete. Then saw that 6 new players were added. All six may have played for the Rams for 1 year or 1 year at the end of their career, but none of them are known as Rams. Each guy I saw brought a different team to my mind. I had to wikipedia when the hell the played for the Rams. Tommy McDonald, James Lofton, Bob Brown, Tony Yary, and Bill George. If this is the case Joe Namath needs to be added. Shouldn't this had been brought to vote?

Am I just blowing this overboard, lol?

Thanks,

mcadams

I know they bring additions to a vote when it’s a “Best of (your team)” type of set. But that’s a subjective measure where they’d want your opinion. HOF feels more objective in that they’re either in or out.

I would be supportive of a rule change that each player can only be a part of 1 franchise’s HOF composite.

CVHJOS9

Thanks for commenting. I sent an email asking about it, and they said with the HOF sets they just need to play meet the qualifications of playing there and being in HOF. I agree with you, a player should only being on that teams checklist if they played at a hall of fame level with that team. Should be voted on.

BillsGridironGreats

I wish you luck. It seems that the common sense part of the registry is long gone. As an Ohio State grad, I once led the Ohio State All-time greats set. It then became a set that you went to Ohio State and had a rookie card set. More card requirements are good for PSA. I have since requested an Ohio State All pros set as a way to get back to the greats and it was shot down by PSA.

CVHJOS9

@BillsGridironGreats honored to have you chime in. I see you up there on a ton of sets. Never stopped to think about the benefit to PSA. Still naive and thinking like a kid i guess, lol. Maybe one day I'll put up a fight to see if we can get a little more inclusive on these HOF sets.

DMasci

Not sure what you do but it's very strange the cards picked. Another example is the HOF RC set, the card chosen for Kurt Warner is the 1999 Pacific that he shares with Tony Horne. Not sure why

BillsGridironGreats

The Warner card is an easy one - at the time it was his highest priced. We voted on it.

DMasci

@BillsGridironGreats said:
The Warner card is an easy one - at the time it was his highest priced. We voted on it.

Well since you're showing a Browns helmet...that makes sense to me

rhilbeli

Similar thoughts about the Packers Pro Football HOF Registry Set. Recently added was Jan Stenerud, who is better known as a Kansas City Chief, but played 4 good years for the Packers (1980-1983). He is a member of the Packers Team HOF, so I think it is a reasonable add.

Another that could be added for the Packers would be Emlen Tunnell (1959-1961). Wasn't a huge contributor at the end of his career, but did win a championship with the Packers, and was the first African American inducted in the HOF.

A more difficult decision would be on Ted Hendricks, who played only one season for the Packers (1974), but had a career year earning a Pro Bowl and 1st team All Pro.

Truthfully, I'm not sure where you draw the line though, as it's very subjective. I believe objective criteria for inclusion (played for the team; in the Pro FB HOF) is probably the right way to go, even if it leads to the dilution of the set.

I think it is fine for players to be on multiple sets. Examples from the Packers would be Reggie White (Eagles) and (soon) Charles Woodson (Raiders). Each had outstanding careers with both teams.

CVHJOS9

@rhilbeli is James Lofton on the Packers HOF registry? He ended up on the Rams HOF. I didn't even know he played 1 game with them. Kinda of crazy to add him to the registry.

rhilbeli

@CVHJOS9 said:
@rhilbeli is James Lofton on the Packers HOF registry? He ended up on the Rams HOF. I didn't even know he played 1 game with them. Kinda of crazy to add him to the registry.

Yes - James Lofton's best years were with the Packers. Here are his teams

As player:
Green Bay Packers (1978–1986)
Los Angeles Raiders (1987–1988)
Buffalo Bills (1989–1992)
Los Angeles Rams (1993)
Philadelphia Eagles (1993)

Interestingly though, Lofton did in fact play ONLY ONE game as a Ram, and had only 4 targets and one reception - Lofton Stats

I agree that it is asinine to include Lofton for the Rams. His inclusion is not in the spirit of the set, but I guess technically it is within the objective criteria.

DMasci

Is there any way to know which card will be the one added to a HOF RC set prior to the play making it into the HOF? In the old days it was easy one RC basically but now there are so many. My thinking is to plan ahead and get "the" RC for sure fire HOFers before they get there and the card values sky rocket. For example Peyton Manning, everyone expects him to be a first ballot but which RC will be included in the set? Is it usually the most expensive i.e. 2001 Topps Chrome LaDainian Tomlinson vs. his 2001 SP Authentic. Or which 2007 Adrian Peterson RC, do you go with one of the two above or something like his Exquisite Collection card? Just curious...thanks

CVHJOS9

I know what you are thinking. I also am trying to figure that out, lately Topps Chrome, But in the future Panini Prizm vs?

DMasci

@CVHJOS9 said:
I know what you are thinking. I also am trying to figure that out, lately Topps Chrome, But in the future Panini Prizm vs?

Exactly....or how is it decided that the RC that is going to be in a set is a player's Topps Chrome card while for another players it's their Topps Chrome Refractor? Is there some committee of members that vote for a given RC to be added to a set?

Curious minds want to know :-)

BillsGridironGreats

There used to be some consistency with the chrome card being the card of choice after SP went to low numbers and autographs. The players in the set at the time voted prior to the card being added. The reason that 2001 topps chrome refractors were chosen is because there are no non-refractors for those rookies and they were numbered to more than 999. Prior to that and since, the topps chrome card is the standard non-refractor card. The refractor card will not be accepted in place of the standard card. Also for 2006 (Devin Hester, Vince Young etc) they won't added the "special addition" to a set. To me things get dicey in 2012. Since Topps lost it's license in 2015, we switched to prizm as the "go too" for these. What do we do with 2012-2015 where they were both available. Looks like the chrome is being used now, but who knows going forward.

JasP24

@DMasci said:

@CVHJOS9 said:
I know what you are thinking. I also am trying to figure that out, lately Topps Chrome, But in the future Panini Prizm vs?

Exactly....or how is it decided that the RC that is going to be in a set is a player's Topps Chrome card while for another players it's their Topps Chrome Refractor? Is there some committee of members that vote for a given RC to be added to a set?

Curious minds want to know :-)

There's no vote...It used to be the most valuable RC for each player, with RC being defined by -- Beckett Rookie Card Encyclopedia. This was what the PSA Registry crew used to determine eligible RCs. First edition was through 2006, 2nd Edition 2014...Obviously that left some gaps of unknown/undetermined cards...In many of those cases, the Registry crew just added/used whatever card the requestor asked to add, usually because they already owned the card not because it was the correct card. After some complaints, they started to send out some polls to the Registered collectors of the set to vote on the card...

This created many inconsistencies. I used to help them try and police the HOF sets, as I was one of the original requestors of the HOF Rookie Players set to make sure the correct (most valuable) rookies were being used. But eventually through some changes in the Registry employees, it became a lost cause.

My advice? Collect what you like...Either you can wait for the card to be added to a set before you buy it, or be happy having the card you like the best and not be bothered if/when it ends up not fitting into the Registry...Trying to fix or make changes once a card is added tends to be big time headache.

CVHJOS9

Thanks for the wise advice jasP24. Once they added players to the registry that played one game for the Rams I gave up and just start collecting the cards I wanted.

dfr52

@BillsGridironGreats said:
There used to be some consistency with the chrome card being the card of choice after SP went to low numbers and autographs. The players in the set at the time voted prior to the card being added. The reason that 2001 topps chrome refractors were chosen is because there are no non-refractors for those rookies and they were numbered to more than 999. Prior to that and since, the topps chrome card is the standard non-refractor card. The refractor card will not be accepted in place of the standard card. Also for 2006 (Devin Hester, Vince Young etc) they won't added the "special addition" to a set. To me things get dicey in 2012. Since Topps lost it's license in 2015, we switched to prizm as the "go too" for these. What do we do with 2012-2015 where they were both available. Looks like the chrome is being used now, but who knows going forward.

Just reviewing the rookies selected previously (and someone who likes consistency) there is a definite pattern in the products used in the football registry.

1989: Score
1990: Score Supplemental if a player does not have a series two rookie or Action Packed
1991: Stadium Club
1992: Stadium Club
1993-2000: SP
2001-2002 Topps Chrome
2003-2009 SP if the cards are /999 and not an autograph or memorabilia. Topps Chrome would be the next option when a SP rookie does not meet those criteria.
2009-2015: Topps Chrome
2016-present: Prizm

In regards to the the introduction of Prizm I usually use it as the second option for players without a Topps Chrome rookie 2012-2015 and Optic as the second option for players without a Prizm rookie.

CVHJOS9

@dfr52 said:

@BillsGridironGreats said:
There used to be some consistency with the chrome card being the card of choice after SP went to low numbers and autographs. The players in the set at the time voted prior to the card being added. The reason that 2001 topps chrome refractors were chosen is because there are no non-refractors for those rookies and they were numbered to more than 999. Prior to that and since, the topps chrome card is the standard non-refractor card. The refractor card will not be accepted in place of the standard card. Also for 2006 (Devin Hester, Vince Young etc) they won't added the "special addition" to a set. To me things get dicey in 2012. Since Topps lost it's license in 2015, we switched to prizm as the "go too" for these. What do we do with 2012-2015 where they were both available. Looks like the chrome is being used now, but who knows going forward.

Just reviewing the rookies selected previously (and someone who likes consistency) there is a definite pattern in the products used in the football registry.

1989: Score
1990: Score Supplemental if a player does not have a series two rookie or Action Packed
1991: Stadium Club
1992: Stadium Club
1993-2000: SP
2001-2002 Topps Chrome
2003-2009 SP if the cards are /999 and not an autograph or memorabilia. Topps Chrome would be the next option when a SP rookie does not meet those criteria.
2009-2015: Topps Chrome
2016-present: Prizm

In regards to the the introduction of Prizm I usually use it as the second option for players without a Topps Chrome rookie 2012-2015 and Optic as the second option for players without a Prizm rookie.

Thanks for the easy reference to look at.