Attention 69'ers - How do we feel about this?

RayBShotz

How do we feel about making White Letter variations an either/ or choice?

Should all variations in this set be reevaluated?
PSA has the set at 687 cards.
Base set is 664 cards.
Hobby recognized variation total 31 cards.
Master Set 695 cards.

All variations in for 695 cards?
All variations either/or for 664 cards?

If a change is going to be made we might as well bring up the missing variations now.
How do we feel?

RayB69Topps

RayBShotz

Sorry I forgot this:

7/23/02
Attention 1969 Topps baseball set builders:
We are in the process of making the white letter variations in the 1969 Topps set an either/or requirement. If you notice your set completion factor changing, please be patient as this process may take a couple of days. Should you have any questions, please email bj@collectors.com. Thank you.

In the PSA news today.
RayB69Topps

dude

Ray,

I strongly believe that the base set (664) is all that is required for having the set complete. The 695 set should certainly be recognized, but I'm not sure how.

carkim

I hope they don't do this to the 1974 Topps Baseball set!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Carlos

acowa

PSA should not require the variation...but give you a place to register both. If they wan't to allow 100 plus percent sets...alll the better. This set is a perfect example of the best way to handle variations under the present system.

1952 set with variations

Regards,


Alan

Davalillo

Since I plan to register my set shortly, I told BJ I thought this was a bad idea and that sets should be all inclusive. In response she said she will do a poll on it tomorrow.

69topps8

Davalillo,

What is your GPA and % completion? I'm looking forward to seeing your set included.

I have to disagree with the all inclusive requirement though. I'll admit that I've been the one lobbying to get the set composition changed. A complete set means you have one of each card. There are microscopic variations such as the McLain checklist with variations to the cropping of the photo, checklists with varying degrees of missing letters to player names and likely there are variations that haven't even been discovered yet. If we tallied up all the variations, it could be well over 700 cards. I don't think you should have to buy 10 of the same card to consider a set complete.

The white letters are extremely rare and should be part of a Master set, but not a requirement to complete the set. Otherwise, most collectors will be blocked from completing the set once the few white letters are registered. And many of the sets will be forced to include very low grade WLs because there are a few or no high grade WLs available. If what Bob C. states is true (and I believe it is), these cards were only issued in regional rack packs in the north east. That means purchasing a set from Topps back in 1969 would not have the possibility of including white letters. That would also imply that all collectors not living in the northeast would have had no possibility of completing the set.

But then again, this is America and a poll would be the right way to decide. I would say include it as an either/or but give more weight to the white letter versions.

Davalillo

69 Topps8,

My set is complete ungraded nrmt-mt with a fair amount of centering issues(somehow tha was not as important when I assembled the set). I will send in every card that I think has a shot at an 8.
I do not see the importance of saying you completed the set. If the cards are out there lets put them in to make it more challenging.

TWINRON

THE 69T SET IN THE REGISTRY SHOULD BE THE REGULAR 664 CARDS OR THE 695 CARDS NOT THE 687 CARDS---THERE ARE 31 VARIATIONS IN THE SET NOT 23--- MY VOTE IS TO USE THE 695 CARD SET OR THE 664-CARD SET--WITH SPECIAL RECOGNITION FOR THE 695-CARD SET
PSA NEEDS TO BE CONSISTANT WITH THE SETS THAT HAVE IMPORTANT VARIATIONS (ie 51T RED BACKS.52T,53T,56T,49B,54B,55B, etc.)---THANKS, RON

Mitochondria

I vote to make the base set (664 cards) the target for the 1969 registry.

Again, I would define the master set as follows:

1) Regular issue 664
2) White letters 23
3) Checklist variations 5
McClain photo crop
Gibson "John Purdin"
3rd Series "4" stem
5th Series "L" cut
7th Series "White" dot
4) Popovich "C" 1
5) Rodriguez "q" variation 1
6) Perranoski "LA" 1
7) Perranoski "Small brush out" 1
8) Nettles Rookie with "LOOP" 1
9) Dalrymple "Phillies" 1
10) Clendenon "Expos" 1

It appears as if PSA does not recognize all these variations anyway. I agree with Ron Hobbs in that the 1969 variations include more than just the "white letter" variations.

Total = 699

Ron

RayBShotz

I fall squarely in the camp of both Ron's.
664 or some complete number for variations (695 or 699); not something in between.

Ron S. - I agree on your total of 699 variations. I have always maintained the 695 number only because a lot of major publications in our hobby have defined this set to have 31 variations.

The McLain cropping
The 4 stem
The L cut
The Perranoski Brush out:
although definitive variations for sure were not always mentioned by published sources.

I would be good with 699 number also if thats what we decide, however.

69Topps8 - Your points are well taken. But I think at this point there will not be any unknown variations uncovered. I think we are very close to a variation inclusive final number that master set proponents could agree on.

As long as I can remember, I always felt you had to search these cards (variations) out and find them for your set in order that you have the 69' set complete.
I thought the challenge of it was the cool part, even if my WL cards were not up to my overall condition standards. I would continue to try and upgrade. Building a set is as much about the chase as it is completion. So, ultimately, I think I like the variations in.

RayB69Topps

waitilltheytrytosell

There are many people who have no desire to go after any of the variations. These people should be entitled to being able to collect a complete set. So the complete set of 1969's should be 664. Some people do want to collect all known variations. So you have a separate lising for a set called 1969 variations. If any news ones are discovered they can be added. If you have the regular set and the variation set, you have a master set. The only tricky part will be how to display them in the registry, and how to "merge" the two ratings together to create an accurate overall rating for comparing master sets with one another.

RayBShotz

Waittill - I think I like this a lot. Along the lines of what you said; I'm no programmer but it seems to me you would be able to post 3 sets.
One set to track the Base set (664 cards) Demands registrants data input.
One set to track the variations (31 or 35 whatever we decide). Demands registrants data input.
One set that can be self sustaining. Anytime a card is entered into set 1 or 2 it automatically appears in this set and recalculates based on the total card and weighting parameters carried over.
This way Base Set proponents have a clear view of their progress and Master Set proponents can clearly see where they stand and all collectors can admire the seperate achievements of each group.
Does this appeal to anybody else?
RayB69Topps

acowa

I think they need to have consistent standards to how variations are accounted for. Personally, I like the idea of having > 100% attainment. I don't see how anyone could argue that a "master set" with all variations should not rank higher than a set without. As long as the appropriate weights are assigned to the individual cards...this method should work just fine. A master set would simply have the ability to be 105% complete. This seems to be the cleanest way to do things across the board.

Regards,


Alan

dude

First, I'm not sure how I feel regarding being addressed as a "69'er"??

Second, I think there is a simple solution. They could revise the columns and show the Basic Set Rating and Basic Completion Percentage and the Master Set Rating and Master Completion Percentage. But if they show both, they should make the comparative Rankings of the sets based on the Basic 664 set and not the Master Set. The Master Set columns will just be for information sake and have no bearing on the rankings of the sets. Any thoughts on this?

69topps8

I would accept the both the basic set & master set listing if it's acceptable to PSA. One of my main objections to requiring variations is it smacks too much of the modern parallel set craze. Many of us vintage collectors have abandoned building modern sets because there are too many 1 of 1 inserts which makes collecting every card in the Topps, Donruss, Fleer, etc, set frustrating and nearly impossible. I enjoy the thrill of the chase to a point but I don't want to have to buy $1000 1 of 1 manufactured rarities (inserts), or a $5000 WL Mantle to get to 100%. In my book, if I have a YL Mantle, I've got the Mantle and I can rightfully check off #500 from my set checklist (but not on the Mantle checklist card . )

Having said that, I also recognize that the people who do go the extra mile and build the white letter set should get extra credit and recognition. So either a >100% completion for them or a separate master set listing should be an acceptable compromise.

Mitochondria

Nice points that are being brought up. Again, I think the base set (664 cards) would be most appropriate for the majority of collectors. If PSA wants to make another registry for a "master set", then that is fine for me since this most accurately reflects my personal goal. However, the base set (664 cards) needs to be the standard in order to draw the interest of most collectors. I don't like the idea of applying "extra credit" for variations to the base set because it indirectly penalizes those who enjoy the general 1969 set. I would prefer to either have the "master set" totally separate [much like what RayBShotz is suggesting] or to offer areas to showcase variations within one's 1969 base set registry with no additional points/credits etc. This strategy would encourage more individuals to register their 1969 sets and the ratings between sets would be closer and more competitive.

Ron

mikeschmidt

For what it's worth (and my opinion isn't often worth much of anything!!), I would say that the sets should be compared in the same place. It seems to me to be a little off-kilter to have two different Registry listings for 1969 Topps. I wouldn't have to click one place to see how many people have completed the 664 card set and then have to click to a totally separate new place to see how many people have completed the 699 card set.

My proprosal is this (And I credit Dude for the idea...):
Adopt a seven-column approach. Weigh the Set Rankings by base set only, and display them like that.

Column 1: Collection Name
Column 2: Base Set Weighted GPA
Column 3: Base Set Completion Percentage
Column 4: Base Set Set Rating
Column 5: Master Set Weighted GPA
Column 6: Master Set Completion Percentage
Column 7: Master Set Set Rating

So, you rank everyone by their Base Set Set Rating -- not penalizing anyone who doesn't collect the minutae variations in the set. However, by displaying the Master Set Set Rating, it should be clear to anyone who is interestd, whose set is most complete and has the highest Set Rating, from a master set perspective. This is the most agreeable solution that I can think of that marries the two concepts into one place, for all to see. Each collector can discuss/compare their sets as they see most fit, and there will be enough information for everyone to make their own assessments.

MS

dude

MS,

Great job on articulating my proposal. I seriously hope PSA seriously considers this approach and implements it soon!

Having two separate '69 Topps Baseball Registries would fragment the best group of graded set builders in the hobby!

RayBShotz

MS and Dude - This works for me. PSA's only difficulty would be whether this approach (7 columns) fits their software capabilities. This concept would clearly display the two sets (Base vs Master) retain the comparative qualities of each and likely satisfy us all to a large extent.

Dude - I would also have grave concerns about segmenting such an outstanding group of collecting comrades as currently constituted in the 69' registry. I think their is a very high and healthy level of respect for the achievements of each member and I personally think now that this concept would be best.

I am fearful that our poll choices will not include this option due to software issues.
In order to get a Base Set and a Master Set I think the choice will be one the other or both seperately. If we wanted to participate in both we likely will need to enter our sets twice.

Lastly, will this poll be open to all or just 69' collectors? Should 69' registrants votes carry extra weight? I think they should.

RayB69Topps

Wayne8348

I like doing things the democratic way - this is great. Therefore my vote is for sale to the highest bidder.

wayne

69topps8

Spoken like a true politician.

TWINRON

I AGREE WITH THE MORE TRADITIONAL 664 BASIC SET, THEN ESTABLISH A NEW 1969 TOPPS VARIATION SET 0F 23+8=31 CARDS. MOST 69's WILL REGISTER IN THE 664 SET, AND THOSE THAT WANT TO JOIN THE 69 VARIATION CLUB---WELCOME

gaspipe26

Its obvious that there are certain collectors who will not complete the 1969 set if the variations are included. If there were to be 2 catagories, thats fine with me. A complete set of WL in 8 are going to cost upwards of $15000. Thats a huge chunk of money. Out of the ideas I've read on this thread the one I like the best is a basic set for all those who do not wish to pursue the variations and a Master set with all variations. ( By the way, according to Dick Gilkeson's Variation Vol 2 there are 698 cards.) It doesnt both me if there are duplicate sets. (1 in the Basic and 1 in the Master) What I wouldnt like to see is breaking off the variations completely and making a second catagory for variations only. You want to be able to display the hard work your either working on or have completed in 1 spot. My vote........ 1969 Basic and 1969 Master.

TWINRON

NO ONE SHOULD ARGUE WITH gaspipe26, KING OF THE 1969 TOPPS EMPIRE----

69topps8

I would support that option.