Can all sets with variations be treated the same?

BJ

First opinion -
All sets with variations can be treated the same. What defines that treatment has yet to be determined, i.e. it could be that a set with variations becomes two sets, one basic, one with variations only, and then a combined score is calculated. Or it could be two sets are composed, one basic, one complete with all variations. Or it could be that one set is formed where all variations are listed as either/or. But regardless of which method is chosen, all sets can be treated the same.

Second opinion -
Not all sets with variations are the same. Each set should be reviewed individually. Some sets with variations can be mixed whereas some of the variations in the set are required. Some are either/or. Some are not defined at all. Another set with variations has all variations listed as either/or. Another set has no variations identified. All sets must be reviewed on a case by case basis.

jrinck

Someone had a great idea that a set can actually be composed of more than 100%. The first 100% would be composed of all normal cards. The most common variation of a card would be included in the first 100%. The rare variations would be "extra" and could bring the total to over 100%.

So having 100% would still mean something, but anybody with OVER 100% would be even more special.

NickM

Variations range from the extremely important (e.g., 1954 Bowman baseball #66 as Piersall or Williams) to the moderately important (e.g., 1959 Topps baseball with/without traded lines and 1974 Topps baseball San Diego Padres vs. Washington Nat'l) to the minute and often ignored (1972 Topps Bill Bonham and 3 others with green or yellow under the team name). There is no way that all of the differences should be treated the same. Set collectors for each set and vintage card dealers should be asked to give input as to how to treat variations in that set.

Nick

waitilltheytrytosell

Most Topps and Bowman sets with variations can be treated the same - A basic set that can contain either variation, and a variation only set that contains the tougher "major" variations that people collect. These major variations are the kind that you identify on your labels. There are also minor variations that to varying degrees less people collect. These aren't identified on your label, but if somebody wants to put them together they should be able to list them. For these minor variations it must rely on the honor system. Minor variations are going to be things like 1950 Bowman Copyright variations, 1952 Topps Red/Black/Gray Backs, 1953 reverse text colors, 1954 Gray backs, 1956 White/Gray backs, 1959 White/Gray Backs, 1960 White/Gray backs, and 1962 Green Tints. For these minor variations you need to have more than just 2 sets you can list.

Examples

1958
1) A Complete Set - consisting of 494 cards.
2) A major Variation Set - containing only your 33/34 Yellows, 4 teams, and gulp - Pancho.
Other sets that would be handled in a similar fashion to this would be - 1949B, 1955B, 1951T, 1961, 1963 to 1969, and 1970 and up.

1960
1) A Complete Set - consisting of 572 cards
2) A Minor Variation Set - containing only the cards from 375-440 that come with white or gray backs.
Other sets that would be handled in a similar fashion to this would be - 1950B(CR's), 1953(text), 1954(Gray).

1959
1) A Complete Set - consisting of 572 cards.
2) A Major Variation Set - containing the 5 No Options/Trades and the 2 extra Spahns.
3) A Minor Variation Set - containing only the paper stock variation cards numbering from 199 to 286.
Other sets that would be handled in a similar fashion to this would be - 1952T*, 1954B(Majors)(bios), 1956(Teams)(W/G), 1962(Vars)(GT's)

Others of note
1957
1) A Complete Set - consisting of 407 cards.
2) An Extras and Variation Set - containing the stupid Bakep card, and all your checklists(with variations) and contest cards.

1956
1) A complete Set - consisting of 340 cards plus the 2 Checklists.
2) A Major Variation Set - containing only your team variations.
3) A Minor Variation Set - containing all the cards available with a gray/white back from 1 to 180. You can even add your line color variations like the Williams.


If you notice the checklists were included in the main set in 1956 but not in 1957. This is due to their excessive value and two variations of each.


*1952 Topps can also be handled like the 1959 example above, but more sets need to be added for the real obscure variations.
1) A Complete Set - consisting of 407 cards.
2) A Major Variation Set - containing the Page and Sain. I'd like to see the Campos, and 311 to 313 in here too but that won't be popular
3) A Minor Variation Set - containing either the red/black paper stock cards from 1 to 80.
4) A Minor Variation Set - containing the Gray back cards from 131 to 190.


There are a lot of other obscure but collected variations that can also be added to sets mentioned and unmentioned. There are also variations I missed above. As new ones are added, graded, or discovered the variation sets are simply expanded with no impact on what the regular main set is composed of.


It doesn't matter to what extent you want to put a set together. If you only do a 1 level set, you can reach 100%. If you collect any subsets beyond that, you go over 100%, and your set rating increases based on the weighting of the set you are also doing. You can also just collect a variation subset and reach 100%, and be competitive with that as well. All this can be displayed right next to the set info and rankings on the main set page by adding a few columns.

Alfiewt

jrinck,

I don't think you have to make it so that the "extra" cards would bring the total to over 100%. Instead, have it so that the set is complete with just the basic cards, and then any variation cards will be bonus points. So the addition of the variations will increase the set rating, but not put the completion % over 100%. This way, all sets will be complete with the basic set, but if you have the variations, you will get credit for them, and you set rating will increase. Would everyone be happy with a system like this?

-Alfred

NickM

waitil - thanks for making me pull out my Beckett Almanac to figure out what some of the variations you were referring to are.
I think many of the collectors may disagree with you on the classification of certain of the variations you listed, including the '52 Topps red vs. black backs (eBay sellers normally list that one) and the 1957 checklists.
This issue would be well served by a detailed discussion on each set.

Nick

[Darn typo.]

carkim

Email from BJ

so far you are the only one who seems to think that each set is unique and should be handled on a case by case basis. i'm anxious to know if there are other like you out there.

BJ,

I think more collectors believe variation should be handled on a case by case basis.


MY $.02

The 1974 set, to me, is desirable because of the Washington National League cards. I always (even Pre-PSA) felt this set was incomplete without the WNL cards. I do not think that the Jesus Alou "No Position" card falls into this category. The Alou card IMO is an error card (mistake in printing) the WNL cards at the time of their production was NOT considered an error. I thought PSA shared this concept when the set was constructed for the registry. The WNL cards are REQUIRED to complete the set whereas the Alou card is an either/or proposition. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE .... Let's keep it that way.



I wanted to attempt a second 1974 set in the very near future. However this will most surely keep me from that endeavor. I'm not saying this not to hold it over your head. It is just how I feel about my beloved 1974 set.

Humblely,

Carlos

acowa

Carlos,

With all due respect, you've gotta be kidding!

<I wanted to attempt a second 1974 set in the very near future. However this will most surely keep me from that endeavor>

How specifically will any decision made about the registry keep you from building your set however you so desire?

Regards,


Alan

carkim

Alan,

Good question...

If I were to attempt another (PSA registry) set...I wanted to build a PSA 9+ only set. I'm currenly working on a 1972 Football set that I will upgrade to 9's or 10's.

However, if I was going to attempt a BIG (600+ cards) 9's and 10's set my first choice was 1974 Topps Baseball. If the WNL & SD cards are not part of that set then I may or may not chose another BIG set. Those cards are, to me, the big attraction to the 1974 set.

All kidding aside...I'm sorry, but that is how I feel.

Carlos

theBobs

Carlos,

I appreciate your passion. The registry stuff will work its way out, and BJ seems to be taking all input prior to making a decision. I am lucky that my set doesn't include any material variations, so I don't have to worry about it.

More importantly, good luck getting those final 6 cards!!!! I have those numbers memorized, but haven't seen any yet.

Brian

GangstaJayson

I agree with carlos.... Maybe because he is my brother...

zardoz51

Email from BJ to Carlos

"so far you are the only one who seems to think that each set is unique and should be handled on a case by case basis. i'm anxious to know if there are other like you out there."


So far the voting is almost 2 to 1 in favor of the sets being treated on a case by case basis.

Vox Populi

thegemmintman

Just for the record, I believe in the "case by case" approach to this problem.

waitilltheytrytosell

nickm - I agree, and mentioned that some are more popular than others. 1952 Topps lows are a perfect example of this. But, the reason I put them in a Minor Variation set is that PSA doesn't designate this on the label. They started to after grading 10's of thousands of them, and it turned into a mess, and now they've gone back to not labeling them. If people want to collect them, they can list them. And while the card is verified when you enter, the "color" of the back won't be. So for sets like this they are entered on the honor system.

BJ

Zardoz - which is exactly why I set up this poll. Silent majority.

FB

BJ,

As a collector, I think that it would be nice to handle case by case. But, if I were the business owner running the registry I would think that all sets with variations should be treated the same way.

The effort involved in customizing hundreds and eventually thousands of different sets will be a task that will soon overwhelm yourself and the others keeping this registry afloat. If its handled on a case by case basis, you will wind up with hundreds of different ideosyncracies that will be tough to remember and a nightmare to maintain.

So, I'd have to say - treat all sets with variations the same.

acowa

What are the arguments against providing a place to register variations and giving the set bonus points in terms of set rating.

Basically, I am thinking that we should

1) Have the base set be 100%

2) Provide additional set rating points for the registering variations.


Therefore, guys like Carlos that want the variations will have the highest attainable set rating. Those that don't...still have a 100% rated set.


Regards,



Alan

zardoz51

BJ

And that is why you are to be commended for setting up the poll and taking input from all concerned as opposed to initiating a policy that the majority of the collectors whould fine unfair.

JMAC

Greetings everyone... Just want to chime in with my 2 cents. I feel variations should be listed, as they are printing and design variations. Being an Art Director and used to dealing in the printing industry, I know what goes into a printing press each time a new job goes "on press." Case in point... 1952 Topps, the first 80 cards. I am actively trying to collector both black and red back variations. These cards are so different, backs AND fronts! A major variation that should be listed. Also, of course, there is the 1974 Topps Baseball "Washington National League" cards. Also a major variation. Even 1969 and 1972 (white and yellow lettering - color variations on some lettering) have design variations, that required seperate print runs. My feeling is... when you have very different print runs...you have different cards. Perhaps the registry could offer regular set card listings, as it does now...then have an additional "variation" listing for those sets containing major varieties. Of example... an additional list for 1952 Topps might include a new list for cards 1-80 (let's say for "Red" back variations... and the Joe Page/Johnny Sain variations...Topps first ever "error" cards), that way it will not reflect on someone who already has achieved 100%. A new challege would be to collect the variations from the variations list.

Thanks for reading everyone! Have a great weekend!!!

waitilltheytrytosell

There can be no argument for not listing the variations in any form. All that needs to be considered is how to list the variations in a way that is fair to the people who choose not to collect them, and rewards the people who decide to collect them. A completion percent of 100% must be possible either way, with recognition, incentive or bonus to those who persue them.

zardoz51

" with recognition, incentive or bonus to those who persue them"

Like 5 free gradings?

I didn't say that, I didn't say that......................

purelyPSA

Maybe Carlos is just removing his cookies and voting over and over again.

For what it's worth, I too voted for the case-by-case basis.

carkim

purelyPSA,

I didn't think of that...Thanks

Seriously though, if the votes say all sets will be changed then I will respect the vote. Furthermore, if PSA make the change to the 1974 set I will respect that as well. However, my hope is the set stays the way it is.

Do 1974 collectors feel the same way?

Why do NON-1974 collectors want this set to change? It doesn't effect you personally. Or am I missing something?

Carlos

carkim

Like 5 free gradings?

OUCH...Let's not go there again.

Carlos

waitilltheytrytosell

carkim - It's not just to do with 1974's. Variations are handled differently in almost every set. Some sets they are required, some they are not. Some sets don't recognize any, some recognize them all, and some recognize a portion. It must to be much harder for PSA to maintain, and make improvements to the set structures because of this. Most of the sets can be set up to deal with variations in the same manner. Your variations from 1974 are just like a guys variations from 1969. If somebody wants to collect them, they will be able to list them, and be rated accordingly.

toppsgun

I believe case-by-case is the best answer, but it begs the question: who decides?

I was stunned that '69 collectors have to get all the White Letter variations to complete the set. I am equalled stunned that '63 collectors don't get credit for the relatively easy six (6) variations in that set. If it's required in '69, what's the big deal about adding the same requirement to '63?

PSA (CU) gets to choose because it's their idea and they set the rules. If we don't like it, we can take our ball and go home. Unfortunately, in both of the above cases they made the WRONG choice. So fix it.

69topps8

I think to put the issue to bed all at once, this needs to be addressed for all sets. Otherwise, you'll either have unhappy master set collectors or unhappy basic set collectors. Using 1974 as an example (sorry Carlos), there aren't alot of people vigerously pursuing that set to completion at the moment. So there aren't many people concerned about how the registry is organized for that year at the moment. But over time, more people will hopefully start on that set. When they do, they may be basic set collectors and will start requesting to have a basic set registered.

I think the only solution is to come up with an acceptable practice for all sets that will satisfy both camps of collectors. Otherwise, you're just deferring the problem to the future. I also agree that having a consistant policy will make life easier for PSA. Since their resources are limited, the less time they have to devote to this issue, the more time they can spend making other improvements.