New rating proposal

Wayne8348

I would like to make a proposal to psa that the rating system for cards to be changed as follows:

Psa 1 = 1 point
Psa 2 = 2 points
Psa 3 = 3 points
Psa 4 = 4 points
Psa 5 = 5 points
Psa 6 = 6 points
Psa 7 = 7 points
Psa 8 = 9 points
Psa 9 = 12 points
Psa 10 = 15 points

While the current system of 1 through 10 is very simple and easy to use it is very unfair to the higher graded cards. Right now a 1969 topps collection of 10 psa 5's would be worth more in the set registry than a collection consisting of 4 psa 10's. What would the cost difference be to purchase the 10 psa 5's vs. the 4 psa 10's assuming they are all commons. Let's look at 2 collections assuming that all cards are of equal weight.

500 cards all psa 8 which equates to 4000 points
400 cards all psa 9 which equates to 3600 points

If you're starting a 1969 set and are buying 400 - 500 commons, which set would you rather buy? The 500 card set would be better according to the registry but the 400 card psa 9 set would obviously be much more desirable and cost a whole lot more. If the average psa 9 costs lets assume 2x - 4x the cost of an average 8 then right now the bump in set rating is only 11% for spending 200 - 400% more for the card. I'm not suggesting that the points be raised 200 - 400% but just a modest 33% for an ugraded from 8 to 9 and another 25% for an upgrade from a 9 to a 10. I know this system wouldn't be perfect but I think it would be much more equitable than the system being used right now. What do you think PSA? Is this possible.

In order to get the kool aid crowd behind this we could even make 70 kellogs 10's worth 20 points.

Wayne

thegemmintman

<< <i>In order to get the kool aid crowd behind this we could even make 70 kellogs 10's worth 20 points >>



At least you know which group of collectors is in charge around here .

zardoz51

Count me in!

zardoz51

Jesting aside

Wayne's proposal makes a great deal of sense. The current system does great disservice to the PSA 8's-10's and more oomph should be bestowed on the higher grades.

LuxuryWines

Wayne,

I think this is a very good idea and I like the concept. The only change I would recommend is that greater weight be given to 7,8,9 & 10's

Psa 1 = 1 point
Psa 2 = 2 points
Psa 3 = 3 points
Psa 4 = 4 points
Psa 5 = 5 points
Psa 6 = 6 points
Psa 7 = 8 points
Psa 8 = 12 points
Psa 9 = 18 points
Psa 10 = 25 points

Jeff

Wayne8348

Jeff,

I honestly like your proposal even better. I was keeping the points lower to possible create less arguements against the change.

Wayne

BTW - did you notice that my first 3 responses to this were from the kool-aid crowd. They just want to feel special.

FB

On the surface it sounds simple enough...

Believe me - as a guy who has a few 9's and 10's in his 72 set, I like the thought of having the cards recognized. But, how would it work when you brought in the weighting factor?

Wayne8348

Frank,

The exact same way. You just multipy the weight times the new value. Right now if a card has a weight of 5 and it grades a psa 9 you would receive 45 points. The new system would give you 5 times the new value.

wayne

SKINSFAN

wayne what about tabacco cards a psa 5 set of gold boards as just as hard if not harder then a 72 set of mostly nines ?

zardoz51

Apples and Oranges

the new scale would essentially only affect the cards within the respective sets for comparison purposes.

crazysc

But isn't the idea to have a "perfect 10" rated set?

If you still use 10.0 as the highest possible grade, you'd have to reduce 25 point PSA 10 down by a factor of 2.5, and the others the same. Now, your "straight 9" set would only come out to around a 7.8 on that basis.

I'd think most people realize the difference between having a set with an overall 5.0 grade and avg 5.0 card 100% complete, vs. 5.0 grade and avg 9.0 card 55% complete.

It's not a bad idea, but only if you're going to scrap a base 10 system...

zardoz51

Sol

your actuarial background is showing

murcerfan

I don't think it accomplishes anything other than adding confusion.
My straight 7 psa complete set will now have a rating of 8.0 ?!?
Nope, don't care for it. it only will change the spread between the high grade complete sets.
personally it would propell my '71 Topps Greatest Moments set to #1 from being #2 at .01 points behind (as I have more 9's), but I still don't like it cause it just makes the numbers bigger.
besides how thin is the line between 8's and 9's?? and more importantly 9's and 10's??
I'll bet dollars to cheese slices that if you re-submit all those gem mint 10 kellogg jobbies on one invoice, they will come back at least 50% 9's. just another thing to consider before this turns into a hobby of holder collectors.

JusttheFacts

Even more accurate, but more complex, would be use the SMR value for each card to determine the score. Low pop cards and stars would then count for more than high pop commons.

Buckwheat

The proposals make a lot of sense from a fairness and value perspective. I have thought of this before, and there is a lot of appeal to it. But they make much less sense from a practical perspective. While it is true that 5 PSa 10's are counted the same as 10 PSA 5's, that only matters when the sets are incomplete. Once a set is complete, the other 5 cards, whatever they grade, will make the PSA 10 set higher ranking. And in the meantime, we will get sets that grade all kind of wierd numbers. I like to know that a set that grades 8.5 will be about half 8's and 9's. I wouldn't know what a set that grades at 17 would mean. Everyone knows that a set that grades 8.5 is several times more valuable than one that grades 8.0, adn a set over 9.0 is out of this world.

I think that if you were to go to the effort to change all of this, that there wouldn't be any significant change, if any at all, in the rankings of completed sets. Can anyone find an example of where there would be a change? IF there is one, they must be incredibly close already. People generally don't put a lot of PSa 5's and 9's in the same set, so there wouldn't be a lot of examples of an all 7 set being equal to a half 5 and half 9 set.

CDC4

It would be hard to price cards based on population because they are so volatile and could change with just one submission.....I think that they should possibly weight 9's a little more but that is just my oppinion....

boggs301012

Then you have to factor in the importance of the card. Just another problem

brucemo

The way it is now is fine, because it rewards completion rather than SMR value or a few high-graded cards. It's a set registry, not the "I have a PSA-10 Mantle" registry", and if people are going to try to put numbers on their collections, at least the numbers should try to encourage them to complete the sets.

Trying to account for population in the set rating is just an indirect way of trying to make a better SMR. I'd rather PSA focused on direct means of making SMR better, and leave the set rating stuff kind of sketchy.

This has the positive side-effect of causing people to take the set registry rating less seriously.

bruce

Wayne8348

Murcerfan, I understand your apprehension to it - it's designed to downgrade the straight sevens sets to reflect the overall card quality in the set. Building a higher grade set is much more expensive and finding the low pop high grade cards takes a lot of work and effort and I believe set builders should be rewarded for it.

Buckwheat, That's a good point about a set at 8.5 would no longer consist of half 8's and half 9's (roughly). The entire system would be based upon something higher than 10.0.

Just the facts, Good idea but I think using the smr would be very difficult and already proven unreliable.

Buckwheat, most of the examples would be in sets that aren't yet complete. Very few ever complete the sets that they start so it would be more valuable to them than the complete sets.

Brucemo, I don't believe it should be based upon smr in any way. That would be very confusing and almost impossible.

I don't mean any disrespect by this to anyone, but many times you see collectors putting together difficult sets with low pop high grade cards and there sets are rated behind collectors who fill in their sets with the low grade cards but have a slightly higher completion. We could make show many examples of sets that are higher rated than others but wouldn't sell for 25% of what the lower rated set would. It just doesn't make sense to me for everyone to have to wait until they are 100% complete for the ranking to mean anything. It's just a thought but I'm from Indiana and not all of our thoughts make a lot of sense.

Wayne

mikeschmidt

I don't really know what to think about this proposal. Though it makes sense to me in some ways -- in others, it does not. Too many 8s, 9s and even 10s are borderline grades -- very close in appearance to one another, and having almost multiples in points of one over the other seems really to be a tough sell to me. There are much more minute differences between many PSA 8s and many PSA 10s than there are between any other two-grade differential.

Though I do try and collect PSA 9s and 10s for my sets -- and the proposed system would directly benefit my style of collecting, I do not think I would give it my 100% endorsement. I do like the idea, though, of having a two-point gap between PSA 7 and PSA 8. I think if the line has to be drawn somewhere, it should be there.

gemint

On the surface this proposal makes sense. But then where does it end? For example, a 1969 PSA 9 Al Dark sells for less than $20. I recently sold a 1969 PSA 7 Steve Hamilton for $36. If you're trying to create a new system that bases value on the set rating, it only loosly holds. And what about a 1969 PSA 9 Nolan Ryan vs a PSA 9 Hank Aaron? The Ryan is weighted more than the Aaron but the Aaron 9 sells for more than the Ryan 9 due to populations. People could then start playing games by loading their sets up with high pop 9's and 10's. It gets very messy.

Also, if someone chooses to offset 5's or 6's with 9's or 10's, they will likely end up spending more money, overall, than if they had just consistantly purchased 8's.

In the end, I don't really think it matters. Even though my 1969 set is currently ranked at #1, most people would agree that the partially completed sets ranked under mine are more impressive due to the higher GPAs and % of 9s and 10s. If they complete their sets, they will leap past mine and take their rightful place as the number one set.

NickM

If you change the point value for higher grades, what do you then do for qualifiers?
I think the different number of ways that different people would rewrite the registry values is evidence enough that they should be left alone.
I do think that certain qualifiers (MC and MK) should receive much more than a 2-point deduction, but that's just me.

Nick