Consistency in the registry - basic vs variation

BJ

If you are tuning in late, I have deleted a poll that was specific to the 1969 Topps set. Another poll will go up this evening that addresses how we will handle all sets in the registry in the future. Please read this thread, respond if you have an opinion, and then vote when the poll goes up.

Thank you for all of your feedback.

mikeschmidt

BJ:

None of your choices were truly in line with what I was thinking or hoping, but I do recognize that you have programming limitations. Though I do not collect the 1969 Topps set, I think that my choice is helpful as it will affect other sets I do collect.

I voted for one set, for the reasons listed in the other thread on this topic. Given the programming options available, I would say that it is most important to keep only one 1969 Topps set so as to not dilute the competition. However, based on the programming options, I would add this as another choice:

1) Keep one 1969 Topps basic set.
2) Add one 31-card set entitled "1969 Topps variations" for which people could enter any/all of the variations they collect from the set.

That way, all the cards can be entered, without having to be entered twice, while still allowing those with the variations to be recognized for the achievements of collecting those rare variations.

MS

BJ

Mike,

Interesting idea. We'll see how the voting goes. If the basic set is the overwhelming choice, then certainly we could add the 31-card variety set. That would make sense.

waitilltheytrytosell

It's a hard choice from the options. I don't see the need to duplicate 664 cards in the secondary master set. Wouldn't it just be easier to make the second just for the variation cards. As a collector you could say - I have a complete set that is 100% complete with an average of 8.5, and a variation set that is 100% complete with an average of 7.6. My collection has a master set rating of 105% complete with an average of 8.8. The increased weighting of the variations would increase the master rating number. It just pulls the numbers from both sets, adds the additional cards to the percent complete number, and then weights the whole lot of them together. This doesn't seem like it would be out of the realm of programming possibilites.

gaspipe26

BJ,
As one of the 3 people who either have all the variations in a high grade or is close to finishing the variations in high grade. I'm not really sure it should be put to a vote by all the members of the registry. I think it should be a choice by the people who have 1969 sets registered. The result only affects those who have the sets registered, not those who dont. So it should be the choce of those it directly affects.

Bob-gaspipe26 #5 set 1969.

dude

This poll is a bit confusing. The Current Set "as is" contains 687 cards - which I assume is a Master Set with 8 cards missing.

I assume that the next option is a Basic Set (664) and one can use either type of variation to fill in one spot. This would be my choice out of the 5, but I haven't voted yet since I'm not 100% certain that's what you are after.

The double and triple set options don't cut it for me.

I'm open to other comments and clarifications before I vote.

TWINRON

BJ--
THE 2 SET IDEA SEEMS TO BE THE MOST POPULAR (664 AND 695). HOWEVER, THESE WILL BE OVERLAPPING, REQUIRING REGISTERING 664 CARDS TWICE--- MAKE IT TWO DISCRETE SETS OF 664 AND 31. IN ANY CASE PLEASE NO EITHER/OR AND DON'T INCLUDE THE ODDBALL LESS RECOGNIZED CHECKLIST VARS OTHER THAN #107 AND #582---THANKS

RayBShotz

Dude- I think that BJ/PSA will show the base set as a base set only. No variations; no either/or's.
BJ, correct me if I'm not right about that.

A vote should exist for just a Base Set or just a Master Set.

I admit to being totally perplexed about what to vote for, and like the Dude I still havent voted yet?

Someone convince me there is a good choice here...other than number 1 (leave the whole thing alone and forget it ever came up).

I am inclined to pick number 2 if I were selfish because I have most of the variations; but I am not. I'd rather see the rest of our group happy with some sort of consensus.

I still havent voted.
RayB69Topps

BJ

Dan -

The current set has a mixture of some variations that are required and some that are either/or.

The second option would allow either variation. If you add the rarer card, you would get the higher weight.

A basic set would allow either variation, with no difference in weighting.

Bob -

You are right. I'm not sure voting on a set for which you aren't registered or have no plans to register makes much sense. The people most effected by the results of this poll should be the ones voting.

waitilltheytrytosell

gaspipe - Although this poll is for 1969, it really applies to the way any sets with variations are handled. The problem is that variations are being handled differently across different sets. Whatever makes sense for 1969 makes sense for 1968, 1966, 1958, or any other set with variations. Once they come up with something that makes the most sense for 1969, they can apply the same thinking to the other sets.

TWINRON

BJ--
ONCE YOU SOLVE THIS 69 TOPPS ISSUE, I HOPE YOU APPLY THE SAME CONCLUSIONS TO THE VARIATIONS and EITHER/OR's IN THE OTHER SETS (eg. 51T REDS, 52T, 53T, 56T, 49B, 55B, etc...) ALSO , AS I HAVE MENTIONED BEFORE, PLEASE DEFINE EACH SET IN THE REGISTRY WITH "NUMBER OF CARDS" and "TOTAL SUM OF THE WEIGHTS" IN EACH SET---THANKS

BJ

Ron,

Each set does list the number of cards in the set. Are you referring to something else?

Alfiewt

BJ,

Is there a way to make it so that the basic set has the variations as either/or, but also make it so that if you have both variations you can add both.

-Alfred

BJ

Does everyone agree that all sets in the registry should be handled the same way with respect to variations? If that's the case, then I should delete this poll and set one up that is generalized, i.e.

1. Basic set, no variations
2. Basic set with all variations designated either/or
3. Complete set with variations required
4. Two sets - one basic, one complete (this is how we do it in the coin set registry)
5. Two sets - one with variations designated either or and one complete
6. Two sets - one basic and one with just variations listed


Or should variations be handled on a case by case basis?

You're the experts. You tell me.

acowa

There should be consistency in the way sets are handled.

Regards,


Alan

theBobs

<< <i>The result only affects those who have the sets registered, not those who dont. So it should be the choce of those it directly affects. >>

Waittil beat me to the punch. If this set sets the tone for how other sets are registered then it most certainly affects those not building 1969 right now.

dude

BJ,

I agree that all set should be consistant -- therefore, I'd delete this poll and start again.


Thanks for listening to us,

Dan

mikeschmidt

BJ:

I think that there should be a standardized answer to all baseball card sets -- so in that case, perhaps a new poll might be more appropriate.

Not knowing how a poll with six different choices might work, perhaps it would work well to have one initial poll with all six choices -- and then have a re-poll with only the two best choices. (so those that voted for the other four can at least choose the "lesser of two evils")

waitilltheytrytosell

So ideally, and this would cross over well to any other set, you would have the following:

1) 1969 Complete Set - Complete at 664 cards - Allows you to list either variation of a card, but you just need one for a complete set.

2) 1969 Variations Set - Complete at 31 cards with the ability to expand if new ones are found - Allows you to only register what is considered to be the tougher variation.

Each set would have a separate completion and rating number.

A column could be added to the main display page for who is collecting the 1969 set, that would show when a collector is also collecting a variations set, with a link to that set, and then list the rating and completion numbers for that set.

Another column could then be added which adds a number to 100% completion based on the additition of the 31 cards - to say 105%. All cards from both sets would then be weighted, and a rating number would be displayed for the "master set". The master set isn't a separate set. It's just a calculated field that works a couple numbers together from both sets.

Mitochondria

BJ,

I agree with Acowa. There should be consistency throughout all years. In addition, I would consult all the individuals involved with the 1969 set in defining what a "master set" contains. This is not clear cut after reviewing everyone's input.

Ron

theBobs

<< <i>Not knowing how a poll with six different choices might work, perhaps it would work well to have one initial poll with all six choices -- and then have a re-poll with only the two best choices. (so those that voted for the other four can at least choose the "lesser of two evils") >>



The difference is between Majority and Plurality. The trick is having the winning option over 50.1% otherwise a Ross Perot can enter the picture and change the end result.

Davalillo

In my opinion, all sets should be complete with all variations required. This means for example that for 1952 Topps that both red back and black back variations would be included 1-80, not as an either/or proposition. If collectors just want to collect the basic set then those who collect that set will recognize for example that 97.7% completion means that the basic set is complete.
Does anyone really support an either/or option which would mean that a 1969 set could be complete without a white letter Mickey Mantle???

BJ

The number I took is the number that is listed in the Standard Catalogue, but I could certainly poll the '69ers to get a majority opinion.

Yes, if the voting seemed split, a second poll may be warranted.

OK... seems like we are all in agreement that what we decide to do here should cross over the entire registry. I'll give it another few hours to allow time for everyone to respond and assuming we all still agree, I'll set up the second poll this evening. I'll delete the first poll now to elminate further confusion.

theBobs

Good job BJ. Thanks.

RayBShotz

Ron Sanders - I agree that a Master Set is 699 cards like you pointed out in a previous post. The additional 4 variations are real and should be counted. Having said that, I think PSA will tell you that they often refer to The Standard Catalog to determine whats in a set. The Standard Catalog shows 695 cards which I could settle on too. For years I counted that as the Master Set number anyhow. Either choice would work as a Master Set for me.

BobC. - In reviewing everything, and the needs of all concerned it would appear that 2 sets; A Base set with no variations recognized and a Master Set as outlined above with all variations required suits the needs of all our members even those outside the 69 set.

This would be choice #3 in the poll. Or choice #4 in BJ's post at 4:37PM below.
Once we got over the initial hassle of entering 2 sets maintenance would not be too extensive. Hopefully, if required, BJ would roll our existing data into both of the newly established registrys if we choose to participate in both for comparisons sake.

Is there a better answer? Yes probably. But software changes appear to be out of the question.
I guess I will vote choice #3 in the poll.
I will vote in the morning unless this poll is taken down by then.
I am signing out for tonight and will read others feedback when I return tomorrow AM.

RayB69Topps

carkim

I do not know what effect all this voting will have on the 1974 Topps Baseball Set?

But I do NOT want it to be changed in any way.

Please do NOT change the 1974 Topps Baseball set.

Carlos

BJ

Carlos,

I count 17 variations in the '74 Topps set according to the Standard Catalogue. In the registry we have the set listed with some variations required, some either/or. This is exactly the same situation as the '69 Topps set and why this issue has come to everyone's attention.

What I'm hearing everyone say is that there can and should be consistency throughout the registry with how variations are handled. Assuming that everyone is correct in this assessment, I would recommend that you vote because the outcome could effect the '74 Topps set as well.

And just so we are all clear here... I wasn't planning to have an option in the poll that keeps sets (such as the 69 and 74) mixed, with some variations required and some either/or. The way I was reading your posts was that we can standardize all sets into basic and complete or basic and variety only. If that is not the case, and we can have mixed sets, then what I said earlier... each set must be reviewed on a case by case basis... still stands and there is no need for a general poll. We'll go back to the '69 set and vote on it. And then when someone has an issue with the way the variations are set up in the '74 set, we'll vote on it.... etc.

Let's make sure we are all on the same page.

FB

Guys,

One of the ideas that was on the board before was to combine the best of both (think that it was mikeschmidt). Set up the 69 Topps set to have BOTH calculations (664 and 695) and change to a 7 column info grid. If a person only enters cards that are part of the Basic Set and NO Variations - simply calculate the Basic Completion and Rating. Then if that same person adds one variation - the calculation is also done using the Master calculation.

I think that it would be a shame to have 2 different 69 Set Registries to accomodate both sides of the same coin.

1969 Topps

Required cards: 664 - Basic Set Finest Possible Set Rating: 8.75
695 - Master Set Finest Possible Set Rating: 8.45

The 1969 Topps set is one of the more interesting sets of the decade.
The combination of star cards, condition obstacles and variations make
this set very appealing. Key rookie cards like that of legendary slugger
Reggie Jackson and Hall of Fame pitcher Rollie Fingers help pace the set
in addition to other keys like Mickey Mantle’s last card from his playing
days and the tough White Letter variations (which also includes Mantle).
The Mantle White Letter variation is considered one of his most desirable
cards. While the cards can be found sharp, centering a print problems
plague this issue. Most cards were produced with a "tilt" resulting in
many off-center examples. The sheer size of this set, coupled with the
condition problems, creates a real challenge for set builders.


All-Time Finest

-------------------------Weighted-Basic------Basic-----Master----Master
Collection----------------GPA---Complete---Set Rate--Complete--Set-Rate
1 The Boehm Collection----7.75--75.25%-----6.02-------71.18%----5.69
2 Ron Sanders Jr. Major I--8.49--63.05%-----5.66-------58.81%----5.11
3 Dan Markel-----------------8.50--54.29%-----4.19-------N/A---------N/A
4 John Constantino---------8.00--46.14%-----4.04-------N/A---------N/A
5 RC's--------------------------8.20--47.47%-----3.99-------42.50%----3.75

(P.S. - all numbers not taken from the current registry were made up for arguments sake.)

carkim

each set must be reviewed on a case by case basis... still stands and there is no need for a general poll.

Please lets address the 1974 issue at a later date. Keep this a 1969 poll. I have a few issues with this change happening across the board that I will explain in better detail later. I am pressed for time today and this is moving way to fast. I would like more time to address the 1974 set.

Thanks

Carlos

BJ

Frank,

Just to clarify... if is voted that there should be two sets - basic and variety only - I just want everyone to understand there still must be TWO sets listed. I believe that our programmers could then combine the scores of those sets into a "combined" ratings grid.

BJ

Carlos,

This is not going to happen overnight. Please present your argument that every set is unique unto itself as soon as you can.

TWINRON

BJ-- ASSOCIATED WITH EACH SET IS THE NUMBER OF CARDS IN THE SET, THE SET RATING IS DEFINED WITH THE DENOMINATOR "SUM OF THE WEIGHTS" FOR THAT NUMBER OF CARDS. KNOWING THAT DENOMINATOR HELPS ME VERIFY THAT FOR MY RECORD I HAVE ASSIGNED THE RIGHT WEIGHT FOR EACH CARD--- ALSO, IT WOULD TELL ME IF ANY OF YOUR WEIGHTS WERE MODIFIED (ie.53 TOPPS NOT TOO LONG AGO,WHERE SEVERAL 2's BECAME 3's)

THANKS AGAIN FOR ALL YOU ARE DOING FOR THE HOBBY ON BEHALF OF PSA--- RON HOBBS

zardoz51

If I could add my .02

It really makes sense for the 1969 collectors, and only the 1969 collectors to decide this issue. A few simple emails to BJ from said 1969 Registry participants each pleading their case will solve the matter. Each year is different, vis a vis the 1974's , etc., and should be handled on a year by year basis with input from that specific years' resgistry listed collectors only.

BJ

Ron,

I'm still a little confused. Are you saying you'd like to know what the sum of the weights is, i.e. for the '53 set you'd like to know that our divisor is 649? If that's the case, I can certainly add that to the set description.

TWINRON

BJ-- EXACTLY--THAT WOULD BE A GREAT HELP. CASE IN POINT- MY TOTAL FOR THE 53 TOPPS IS 651 NOT 649-- THIS LETS ME KNOW THAT MY SPREADSHEET FOR THE WEIGHTS HAS A 2 WEIGHT ERROR.

MY CURRENT PARAMETERS FOR THE 69T SET IS 687 WEIGHTS (#CARDS) WITH A SET RATING DENOMINATOR (SUM OF THE WEIGHTS) AT 903.5----I WOULD LIKE TO CONFIRM THOSE PARAMETERS FOR ALL MY REGISTERED SETS---RON

BJ

Ron - I pulled that number off an old spreadsheet. I'll double check it and email you directly to confirm that number and also give you the 69T number. I can certainly start adding that number to set descriptions as we weight the sets. No problem. I will not be able to address the sets that are already weighted until I have a little more free time... which is at a premium right now. But I can certainly add them over time.

To All - I'm getting the sense that not everyone is in agreement about the variation issue. Therefore, the first poll will address that issue. Then we can move forward after we determine whether or not all sets can be universally handled with respect to variations. I'll post it shortly.

gaspipe26

Waittil,
I agree what will be decided should be for all sets with major variations, but the question on which we were voting was only on the 1969 set. Thats why I felt the only people who should vote should be the 1969 registered group. If the Registry decides to do this for all sets then everyone should vote.


BJ,
Do you have a headache yet?


I'm not sure who stated that variations should be part of any set, I believe it as Davalillo. I agree whole heartedly. Thats what collecting is all about in my opinion.


Twinron,
Thanks for the kind words about 1969's. IT really comes from years of searching and listening to other collectors and sellers about a particular series or set.

Davalillo

Gaspipe,

I can't believe this is even being debated. I collect almost every postwar set through 1972 and in many of the sets that there are variations. I have never considered a set complee unless I had all the variations. I will guarantee you that any serious collecor of vintage sets feels the same way.

gaspipe26

Davalillo,
I agree, you need all the variations in my opinion. If you ever go for the 69 set email me on the whites.

Bob

69topps8

I consider myself a serious vintage collector (NM-MT sets back to 1968-so far) but I don't feel my sets are incomplete without the variations. I guess I'm the exception to the rule?

NickM

Davalillo - for registry purposes, what do you do about the fact that PSA has normally not specified the back color on the '52s? You know that the two cards of Andy Pafko (picking a name out of a hat) are 1 red back and 1 black back, but if they are not labelled as such, PSA does not know. How does PSA make the registry accurate for a variation that they have traditionally not recognized?

Nick

PlayBall

I tend to agree with Marc S. on this one. Adding a 31 card variation set is in line with what PSA has already done. Ron Hobbs only collected the HOFer's from the 1940 Play Ball set, and instead on staying around the 20% mark on the set registry, he created the 1940 Play Ball HOFer's Set. This is really just a subset within a whole set, which would be similar to a subset for the variations of the 1969 set.

Bernie

Davalillo

69Topps8,

I was referring to sets before the era you collect. No offfense, but I would not consider sets from the 1970s to be "vintage".

Davalillo

Nick,

Good point. Since I think that serious collectors of 1952 Topps collect both, perhaps they could be convinced via reduced grading fees to reholder the cards?

crazysc

I'm not sure if I'm a traditionalist or not, but I've always felt the number of cards that are in a set is determined by the card #s. When I collected sets in pages (which I guess most PSA sets wouldn't be!), I always wanted the card numbers to be in the same spot on the same page - #91-99 would be on the 11th page in a 58T set as well as a 78T set. Think of it - go back 10-20 years and people stuck the yellow/white variations in the same spot in the page, one behind the other! Ah, for simpler times...

Certainly some people like variations, but I don't think anything above the checklisted # of cards in the base set should be REQUIRED for a set to be complete. Mostly, because I don't think you'll ever be able to come up with the proper number of variations for most sets. OK, the team variations in '56 are OK, but what about the back colors? To the best of my knowledge, PSA doesn't differentiate white/grey backs. Same with 52Ts - you have the Paige/Sain errors, but what about the backs? Some will consider them necessary, others not, even as waittil pointed out, some high # varitions which I don't think I can recall a collector ever asking me about...

There should be a few noteworthy exceptions of MAJOR variations, like the 54B Williams/Piersall, which I think should be required, but that's a case of the ENTIRE card being different, not just a color/spot variation.

So, as has been suggested, allow each their own, have:
1) base set of cards, including almost no variations
2) variation set, which should be as inclusive as possible
3) Some composite rating to combine the two, i.e.
Base set: 95% complete
Variation set: 75% complete
Master set: 91% complete (based on the above two numbers)

Of course, just MOO...though I will be listing a set this weekend if I find the time & motivation to do it...

TWINRON

BERNIE--- YOU ARE ABSOLUTLY RIGHT ABOUT THE 40 PLAYBALL SET-----A GEAT ANALOGY TO THE SUBSET VS THE MASTER SET THEORY

RON

Alfiewt

Bernie,

Instead of the variation set being consided a subset, couln't the base set be consided a subset of the master set? This would go along the line of haveing two set, the master set, and then the base set (or subset).

Would anyone be againt a system that left the set complete with the base set, but left the ability to add all variations. The variation cards would be worth extra points, so any one who has them would get credit for them.

-Alfred

PlayBall

Alfred,

Sure, the base set could be considered a subset. I also like the "extra points" idea. Two sets both 100% at 8.13 weighted GPA. Set rating 8.13 (w/o variations), or 8.58 (w/ variations). Since the main sets I collect have no variations, my opinion will not matter in the end, but.......

if I did, I would make it all inclusive, or have a separate listing for just the variations. As a mid-grade collector, I probably could not afford the white letters in the 1969 set in higher grade, for example, but you know what......that's my problem.

Bernie

FB

69Topps (John),

I'm with you on this one. I honestly believe that if have a 600 cards set and I have one of each card #1 through#600) that I have a complete BASIC set. Yes, it would be nice to eventually add the variations as I come across them but I don't feel incomplete by NOT having them.

My understanding of a 100% complete Basic Set is having one of each # that Topps originally intended in the set. I would argue that all of the variations are above and beyond what Topps originally intended and would therefore define the difference between your Basic and Master sets. Heck - it would also define the difference between your Average versus Advanced collector as well if you want.

This is definitely not a one size fits all situation.

RayBShotz

PlayBall and Ron H. - Most respectfully guys; a subset such as the 1940 PlayBall HOF'ers is not an analogy for variations. In your example you are building a seperate set with the same exact player cards that appear in the complete set. A subset is then a portion of the original set newly defined. In the case of the 1940 PlayBall, this is a terrific achievement in high grade in either case and I would applaude all that endeavor to complete it either way.

Variations define a Master Set. Those cards are physically different than the standard card of the same number. Clay Dalrymple is featured in both a head and shoulders shot and a Catching pose on the same 69' card number. Donn Clendennon is featured with the Astros and then on a different card with the Expos in the 69' set. Never mind the daunting WL variations or others.

I by no means have deep pockets. But I have been chipping away at this 69' set, variations included, all my life. I may have to wait for my retirement party to finally get that nice WL Mantle and thats another 20 years! So be it! But then I will have the "Complete Set".

I think I am with BobC. and Davalillo on the set not being "complete" without the variations but thats just my personal choice. I value and respect the collector who chooses the "Base Set" as complete and wouldn't minimize their accomplishment in any way.

Dude feels pretty strongly that the "Base Set" should be all that is required and I highly respect his opinion. He is one of the classier hobbiests I have had the pleasure to deal with.

I am sure we will work this out.
RayB69Topps

waitilltheytrytosell

Pick up a Beckett, SCD, or any other price guide from the last 30 years. Look up what a complete set is worth. Look at how many cards they list for that complete set price. Virtually all of the prices listed for complete sets are for sets that contain no variations. People advertise and sell sets all the time as complete sets and they do not contain the variations. Beckett Vintage recently added a price for a Master Set in their guide. Most people do not collect variations. Some people do. The only thing that needs changing with the registry is consistent handling, and recognition of variations if somebody wants to collect them. You can own a 100% complete set without them, or you can own a 110% complete master set with them.

The 1974 set that Carlos is worried about will still get the recognition it deserves. With the old way he was 100% complete with a rating of 8.19. Let's assume he had only PSA 8's in the set(no 9's), and the reason it was over a perfect 8 at 8.19 was because he had all the variations listed. The extra weights of the variations put him to an 8.19.
With the new way, he will still get the bonus, but it comes in a diffferent way.
Carlos will own a 660 card complete set. He has only the common variations listed. Every card is a PSA 8, so he will have a set that is 100% complete at a rating of 8.
Carlos will own a Variation Set. Every card is a PSA 8. He will have a variation set that is 100% complete with it's own rating number.
He will own a Master Set which exists in "calculation" form only, that will combine the numbers from the two sets. It will show that he owns a Master set which is at 103% with a rating of 8.19. He owns exactly what he owned before, the numbers just got their a different way. The overall rating numbers could change a little if and when they cahnge all the sets over, but all of our sets are affected in the same way. It wouldn't matter if the set happened to drop to 8.11 because all other sets dropped in relation also.

On a side note, all variations need to be included in this particular set - The Washington's, Alou, Apodaco, and Freislebens. Most people when they go to the effort of collecting variations will also collect these others. Whether or not Carlos wants to is up to him, but other people will, and they need to be listed.