Should sets with variations offer greater than 100% options?

acowa

I would like to see the registry adopt a consistent approach on sets with variation cards. Is anyone else interested in having "extra credit" for sets that have the variation cards in addition to the regular version?

The approach that makes sense to me is:

If a collector has one of every card in a particular issue, then they would be at 100% (i.e. there's no penalty for not going after the variation cards) . For every card that they have the variation and the regular issue, the set would get an extra 1 divided by total cards in the set. Even if the registry doesn't like the idea of the completion percentage being bumped up over 100%, I would like to be able to list both the regular and variation card in the registry (versus the one or the other that we list now).

Regards,



Alan

mikeschmidt

Alan:

I think that that is a good approach. With 1955 Bowman, having the six variation cards is a bonus, since any of them are hard to track down in top grade.

I think that some other accomodation should be/eventually could be made with certain sets -- like the 1952 Topps with red and black backs or the 1956 Topps with the white backs.

But I think that the "bonus" system would be a great system to implement across the board, and to eliminate the inconsistency of some sets require variations, others don't, while some offer the "bonus" (1952 Topps Page/Sain wrong backs, for example)

FB

Agreed,

This way both the regular as well as the advanced collectors can hit that 100% mark by simply having one of each card originally specified for the set. At that point, the advanced collectors can take it to the next level and include the variations that can be a significant challenge for most.

Acowa - I like the thought of either the standard or the variation counting up until 100%. But only the variations would be able to raise the percentage above that figure.

waitilltheytrytosell

A complete set should be considered complete without the more difficult variations. There should however be an incentive or bonus for also collecting the set with the variations. The problem with variations is that collectors seem to put them into two different categories - major and minor ones. Take 1959 for example, the No Options and No Trades are popular, more valuable, and collected. Most people assembling sets will include them in their collection. But, 1959 also has a series of cards that come with different color backs. Then you also have 3 variations of the Spahn card. These are collected by some, but ignored by most. The same goes with 1956, 1960, 1962's with the Green tints. 1952 Topps has the 1 to 80 black/red back variations which are a lot more collected than those from the other years listed above, but then people choose to ignore the 131 to 190 Gray backs from the same set. They collect the Page and Sain variations, but ignore the Campos, Mantle, Robinson, and Thomson variations. Whatever the variation may be, there are people who do want to collect it. PSA should give people who want to collect them all the ability to put them in. In 1959 for example you should have 3 sets you can list - the regular 572 card set, the No Lines and Spahns, and the 199 to 286 back colors. The problem you run into with the back colors is that PSA doesn't identify these on the label like they do for the major variations - and they shouldn't start doing it now. There would be no way of knowing for sure that you were registering a card with the correct back color. You are just going to have to use the honor system when registering a set of the minor variations.

RayBShotz

Great post acowa!
I'll speak to the 69' set and it's variations. The 69' registry was one of the initial ones to be set up. As a 69'er I was just happy to have it at the time.
There are quite a few inconsistencies on it that have been pointed out by its main registrants in the past.
The tough White Letter variations (23 of them) are a requirement for completion currently. You need both the YL and the WL to get to 100%. There is a friendly conflict of opinion regarding whether or not they should be included. I like them in bacause I collect them but others do not. It certainly makes the set extremely tough to complete especially in high grade; and thats probably an understatement.
The set also contains a number of other variations (8 standard) that the PSA registry treats as an either/or entry or chooses not to recognize in the set at all.
You might then say there are 31 variations in total in the set; the set goes from 664 to 695 cards. PSA shows the total at 687 currently. These variations are, hence, handled in 3 different ways.
I think 69'ers would like to see them handled consistently. Either handle them all the same or handle "Whites" one way and all the others another.
Bonus percentage above 100% would be ok by me.
I think if the top 5 or 6 registrants and each set could work together to agree on the handling of variations then you could go to PSA with a consensus as to what adjustments should be made.
It's always fun to open up this topic because variations are seen differently, to some extent, by every individual.
RayB69Topps

acowa

Waitil,

Since the registry allows one to post a scan of the card...we could track the variations w/o PSA having to reslab all of them. Additionally, this could actually make the comment field useful for something.

Your 1952 example is perfect. For an advanced collector that has all of the redback and blackback cards...the difference between a set that has all of the variations and one that doesn't is very pronounced. At the very least, I believe that people who have both should be able to register them (even if they don't get additional credit).

Regards,


Alan

carkim

How many sets have variations as a requirement to complete the set?

I know of two...

1969 Topps Baseball
1974 Topps Baseball

What are some of the others?

Carlos

jaxxr

I think it's too bad, or actually wrong, that the 1979 Topps Registered set does not recognize that Bump Wills has two different cards , one as a Blue Jay and one as a Ranger.

I have both, one as a 9 and the one I did NOT register as an 8.

TWINRON

I AGREE WITH RAY ON THE 1969 TOPPS-- THE "REGULAR' SET HAS 664 CARDS--BUT THERE 31 HIGHER PRICED/MORE DIFFICULT VARIATIONS THAT DO INDEED INCLUDE THE OTHER NONE WHITE BACK 8 VARIATIONS-- THANKS FOR READING

Alfiewt

acowa,

I agree 100% with your post. I think there should be consistancy in the way PSA handles variations in the registry. I also think that people should be able to list any variations that they have , but the variations should not be required for completion of the set.

mcastaldi

jaxxr> The problem you mention in the 79 set regarding the Wills variations doesn't seem to be so much in the registry itself. Rather, the pop report seems to be pretty ambiguous at describing the variation. One option says "Rangers" and the other has no additional designation. So it seems possible to me that the original designation could potentially have both versions of the card under that header.

I think this whole thread brings up an interesting point. That is that it is absolutely critical that the first graded example of a variation be designated correctly. Otherwise there is chaos and uncertainty. For example, take the 1972T "Green" and "Yellow" letter Cubs variations. In particular take the Bonham #29. I know that nearly half the holders saying "Green Letters" in fact have the Yellow letter version of the card inside the holder. This definitely throws off the pop report - and the set registry in that one could have two Yellow letter cards but the registry sees them as one of each because of inaccuracies in dealing with the variation from the get-go.

Mike

crazysc

One idea may be to have two set ratings - for COMPLETE set and COMPLETE MASTER sets. Of course, same problem comes with determining what a master set is...considering sets that have multiples types....let's not even get into a T206 "Master" set!

Waittill - can you enlighten me, what are the variations on the 52T Mantle, Thomson, Robinson, Campos? I'm not really familiar with any that I can recall...

mikeschmidt

Crazysc:

I believe that BMW considers the 1952 Topps Jackie Robinson with a red "overprint" back to be a variation, for what it is worth.

toppsgun

I think it depends from set to set. In 1963 and 1959, the main variations (error cards) are not that difficult. There are enough of them floating around that I think they should be required for completion. In 1969, the White Letters are just too difficult and in short supply. I heard the White Letters was a regional distribution anamoly, is that true? With the sets ('52, '59) with color back differences, that's insane to require them all. And as already mentioned, the certification doesn't distinguish any difference.

Which brings up a related problem. Many of the variations have not been noted in the grading. For instance, look at 1963. For at least every one of the six variation cards, there are 3 listings, not 2. Card #454-Fowler is listed (a) 454-Fowler, (b) 454-Fowler white card number on back and (c) 454-Fowler yellow card number on back. Choice (a) should not appear at all. How many of (a) should really be in the population for (b) and how many for (c) is the real dilemma?

A number of people holding these cards would need to resubmit them as mechanical errors or regrades.

NickM

PSA has not been separately designating the '52 Topps red vs. black backs for quite some time. Considering the quantity graded without regard to back color, it would be a logistical nightmare to try to get collectors to send their cards back for grading with the new back variety listing - and who is responsible to pay for that? This area should be left alone.

Nick

waitilltheytrytosell

crazy - There are 97 different 52 highs. There were 100 cards on a sheet. Topps repeated or double printed 3 cards - 311, 312, 313. Each of these cards come two different ways. There are differences on the front and the back. On the back, each card comes with the stitching on the baseball pointing in one of two ways - left or right. The difference on the front has mainly to do with picture quality, with one type coming sharper, cleaner, and brighter than the other type. It's like they simply copied the printing pieces they needed rather than creating what they needed from scratch like they did for the original 97 cards. There are also other differences on the front beyond just photo quality. On the Mantle it comes with a different type of line around the Yankee logo and signature box. The Mantle signature comes two different ways - with the loop of the "e" at the end of Mantle pointing up or down. The white speck you often see in the blue background on the left about an inch up from the bat is found on one type but not the other. On the Thomson the most noticeable difference on the front is the top of the wall to the left of his hat. It comes either brown or green. The are no major differences on the front of the Robinson, other than the difference in picture quality.

On the Campos card, the variation comes on the back of the card. Down at the bottom where there are stars to the left and right of Topps Baseball. It comes either with both stars in red, or it comes with the star on the right also printed in black. The one with the addition of the black star is much more difficult.

You certainly don't have to collect them, but they do exist, and some people do. I don't want to even mention the variations in the low series red/black backs, like most notably the Ray Boone card.

waitilltheytrytosell

nickm - You're correct about the mess about them starting to identify things like this after they haven't in the past. It's like when PSA all of a sudden started noting "Black Back" on the label. They then added a separate listing for them in the pop, and then bozos started listing them as one of ones. Most of your high grade lows will be Black Backs.

mikeschmidt

I personaly don't have a problem with PSA identifying the different variations now -- even if there is some ambiguity about the population numbers in the past. More information is better than none at all.

It is easy for me to see that Harvey Kuenn in PSA 8 is a relatively easy card in the 1955 Bowman set. It is not clear from the population report whether the error (Kueen) or the corrected version is more difficult. However, anyone who has collected these variations know which ones are more difficult to find.

If buyers fall prey to a "1 of 1" listing because of PSA's more informative labelling of these cards, I don't really feel sorry for the buyer.

One changed I have always wanted was for PSA to at least put some sort of listing in for the advertising back on the T-206 cards. Only segregating the Ty Cobb backs seemed to be a very short-sighted move. Even simply classifications like Uzit, Drum, Cycle, American Beauty, Red and Brown Hindu, etc. would be so much more helpful to T-206 collectors...

RayBShotz

MikeSchmidt - You make an excellent point about the T-206 issue. Early on SGC made a committed effort to provide a lot of extra (needed) information on the label and form sized their slab insert to that specific issue size. The eye appeal is superior and the added info is great for collectors.
I understand PSA's hesitation now that so many cards are labeled a certain way but I think I agree with you; more information is better than none.
I have often though about starting up sets from this era, but being a PSA guy I have mixed feeling about investing in expensive cards in SGC holders even though they are well established especially with the tobacco and caramel issues.
I'd love to get your extended thoughts on that.
RayB69Topps

mikeschmidt

Though I don't have a huge inventory or collection of tobacco/caramel cards, it does seem to be that SGC has a relative expertise over PSA in its handling of vintage tobacco and caramel era cards.

They are such a fascinating beast -- and if and when I ever would embark on a set from that era, I would not have any huge preference towards PSA in purchasing cards. I would be hesitant to purchase raw cards unless I had sufficient expertise in the issues (which takes years to develop). But the only advantage PSA seems to offer in that realm is the Registry -- and you can take that for what it is worth. Many advanced collectors of the time frame seem to be wholly indiferrent to the grading phenomenon -- to the point that many will crack open their PSA or SGC cases just to store and display the cards raw.

They can and may be an eccentric bunch -- but the cards they collect are often the rarest of the rare and cost many times more than what we spend putting together our sets from the 1950s 1960s and 1970s....

brucemo

Does PSA record most of the major variations on the flip?

I think that all recorded "front" variations should be required. If they are rare, oh well. I'm less interested in back variations, even the famous ones like the Sain and Page errors in '52 Topps. I don't think those should be required.

For example, you shouldn't have to do '56 Topps white & gray backs both, but you should have to do the team card variations. Some of these back variations are unbelievably trivial, like the '50 Bowman "no copyright" variations. Nobody should be required to do that, which is well enough, since the flips don't record those variations anyway.

But YL '58 Topps, and WL '69 Topps, and "Washington NL" '74 Topps, why not?

Collecting PSA graded cards is often a little too much about numbers. The registry makes this even worse already, because of ranking. If people are going to be irritated because they are 97% complete rather than 100%, that's beyond worse. People need to lighten up a little and just collect the cards. If you are trying to collect a non-master set, and someone else passes you on the ranking list because they have a master set, this shouldn't wreck your life. Your kids are going to sell the whole bloody thing after you die anyway, and the guy who buys it is going to break it up.

bruce

acowa

Bruce,

I don't think ANY of the variations should be required to have a "complete" set. The registry just needs to provide consistent rules across sets. Most importantly, I would just like a place to register them. If a card has two variations...let me register both (versus either/or)

Personally, I want to have my cards labeled correctly from PSA for the variation type. If someone else doesn't care...that's their perogative. I am willing to resubmit/reholder to get them classified correctly.

BTW - My life has been ruined several times while building the 1967 set.


Regards,


Alan