Did anyone see SCD's editorial on PSA's set registry?

qualitycards · November 15, 2002 7:35AM

Assuming the risk of recieving a Nippergram, let me quote SCD's Bob Lemke as he explains the PSA set registry to his readers. He writes that it was a last ditch effort to save PSA...."PSA, in the face of increased competition, decreasing volume of grading submissions and pressure to help keep parent-company Collector's Universe stock from falling off the NASDAQ boards, came up with an ingenious plan to convince collectors to have their commons graded. With no more than a promise to put up leading collectors' names in lights on their Web site and in their magazine, and maybe offering some plaques or other trinkets on an annual basis, PSA has convinced hundreds of collectors to pay five or six bucks apiece to have their 50-cent commons graded. By some sort of algebraic legerdemain, the grade assigned to a card and its "book" value assigned. The person whose set has the highest total point value "wins"..." He also wrote..."More's the pity that these programs hand out the accolades not on the basis of what a person knows about the cards he collects or the players thereon, but soley on the amount of money he is willing to spend for ego gratification"

You gotta be kidding me? As they still use Larry & Jeff Fritsch full page color ads depicting these large dealers as pitchmen for their own grading service, SCD Authenticated. My guess is that SCD Auth. will not grade common cards from the '60's & '70's since they run the risk of being a "sell-out" like PSA & SGC. Why don't they go 1 step further and prohibit and ads of dealers selling said commons. "Voice For The Hobby" my ass!

...jay

Cyphilissb · November 15, 2002 7:43AM

thats sound true to me, the article I mean. Just because it's not what we like to hear doesnt mean there is no factual content. If it wasn't for the registry why couldn't you just make a set raw? Because you want it authenticated right? Or because you want a conformation about the condition? Well many times that is a $1000++ propostition, which is not worth it too a lot of people that do it anyway because of the registry.
Dont get me wrong I love the registry and i participate as well, but that doesn't mean that i disagree with this article/quote.

alohaet · November 15, 2002 7:46AM

Nice post. I always get a kick out of people who think the speak for the entire hobby world. I for one am glad PSA came up with The PSA Registry. It gives all of us a better idea what is out there and what is being collected. Not to mention the great cards that are in peoples collections that most of us would never see or come across. Also the great collectors to exchange ideas and information with. The association I have had with the people here on the boards has (and still is) a great enjoyment for a small collector like me.

Ed

qualitycards · November 15, 2002 7:56AM

I think the article has no concept of what the registry is about. I am on the registry as many of you know for the 1965 set. There is no way in hell, I will EVER be able to claim the #1 spot. So why should I be on it? I can't win the "trinket"
I am on the set registry to see how complete my set is, and to see how many other collectors share the same interests, I will slowly climb the ladder towards completion, but could care less if I remain in the #5 spot (where I reside now) the #2 or #22. I am not in competition with anyone but myself. The article has no vision that collectors make up the set registry not just speculators clamoring for position...jay

RedHeart54 · November 15, 2002 7:56AM

That's a load of crap. While I think the set registry's rules for admission are a little lax (it seems all you need is one card to get registered), Lemke doesn't consider that a card from a vintage set is no less difficult to find in mint condition than the Mantle or whomever. In fact, it's probably MORE difficult. I mean, who would have cared about their 1962 Gene Green? I think it was a good move on PSA's part to offer a common service so collectors could assemble the best sets possible- and the collectors have definitely responded. Has it moved PSA out of the red? You tell me. As far as "increased" competition, who is their biggest competitor? SGC? There doesn't apper to be a large base of SGC set collectors to warrant PSA feeling any heat. And SCD? Why wouldn't they want to grade commons? It's all about revenue, right? What, do they think they think they'll give PSA major competition by grading Star basketball cards??

zardoz51 · November 15, 2002 8:01AM

Jay

Your turn for the Nippergram.

Our pal Nipper refers to himself as a "hobby dinosaur". We all know what happened to the dinosaurs when the climate changed. Well the climate of the hobby has changed. PSA, SGC, and soon GAI have all responded to the climatic changes with their respective registries.

As part of the climatic change within the hobby, somehow the printed page replete with advertising is no longer the method by which collectors find themselves searching for dealers of their interests.

Are you planning on renewing your subscription Jay?

waitilltheytrytosell · November 15, 2002 8:05AM

SCD forgets that they own a grading company. They should very much want people to send their 50 cent cards in for grading. The only problem is that the people aren't sending them to SCD. Why? Because people don't collect SCD. People are sending their 50 cent commons in for grading because the are COLLECTING baseball cards. Collecting baseball cards in any form is a good thing. If I ran a magazine called SPORTS COLLECTORS DIGEST, I would encourage people to collect whatever they want. I wouldn't make fun of people who have decided to collect commons in graded holders by implying that somehow they were tricked into by some registry. People are sending commons into PSA because people want to collect them. They aren't sending them into SCD for obvious reasons.

LloydsBaseballCards · November 15, 2002 8:15AM

........give me a break SCD

Buckwheat · November 15, 2002 8:30AM

What a crock. Lemke couldn't be more wrong about the registry being the instigator to graded set collecting. I know for a fact that 5 of the top 6 collectors in the 1961 Topps set were well on their way to completion well before the set registry came along. the only one I am not sure about is Marshall Fogel, and somewhow, I don't think that he did it to get a trinket from PSA.

It is true that the registry had increased the enthusiasm for set collecting, but it was born out of a realization that collectors were starting to collect sets of graded cards. It certainly has led to people focusing on PSA cards rather than others, I suppose, but I call that a great read of the market by PSA, and not a creatin of the market.

the whole article(at least the part quoted here) sound a whole lot like sour grapes. The set registry has been great for the hobby. I guess that Lemke prefers the situation where only those who are expert enough to keep from getting taken by unscrupulous dealers selling altered and overgraded cards should be collecting. I much prefer for the hobby to grow and accept the interest of all levels of collectors. If grading of commons helps this, then it is a good thing.

BTW, if Mr. Lemke has any nm/mt vintage commons that would grade PSA 8 that he wants to sell to me for 0.50, I'm buying all he's got.

Basilone · November 15, 2002 8:53AM

Jay-

Funny...I just logged on to start a thread (as Im just reading it now)...and I see that you have beaten me to the punch.

Here is what he says about us (and the registry):

"Much of the public already views adult card collectors as being developmentally arrested at the adolescent level. Now they can reinforce that sterotype by equating the newly emergent phenomenon of the set registry as the hobby's equivalent of junior high school lockerroom "Mine is Bigger!" posturing."

Nipper (Mr. Lemke)....are you serious?

Do you really the think the "public" has any freakin idea that the registry even exists...let alone 80% of the collectors (modern and vintage)? In my opinion, you have absolutely no idea or concept of the registry community. Guess what.... set registry collectors (like myself)..actually help out others collectors and support each other as we work towards our individual collecting goals.

Not only are the guys on the registry top-shelf collectors with top-shelf collections...but they are top-shelf people as well.

Mr. Lemke...I challenge you to come on this board and defend your statements.

Regards,

John

thegemmintman · November 15, 2002 8:53AM

<< Nippergram >>

LMAO! That sounds like a box of candy without the candy.

I thinks that SCD is jealous - BIG TIME.

The PSA Registry has brought a whole new level of fun to the hobby. Stodgy 'Ol Nipper will never understand that.

thegemmintman · November 15, 2002 8:56AM

<< "Much of the public already views adult card collectors as being developmentally arrested at the adolescent level. Now they can reinforce that sterotype by equating the newly emergent phenomenon of the set registry as the hobby's equivalent of junior high school lockerroom "Mine is Bigger!" posturing. >>

Thanks for the piece Basilone. Wow, I didn't know that Nipper hated this hobby so much.

aro13 · November 15, 2002 9:00AM

I am with you Jay. I have no chance of moving up the ladder on my 57-58 Topps or 61-62 Fleer basketball sets but I am very anxious to complete them in PSA 7 form even if all of the leaders are completing them in PSA 8 or better.

jaxxr · November 15, 2002 9:10AM

SCD is not what it used to be , very true , the economy, newer product glut, and most importantly the internet, have changed the "need" for a weekly journal voice who no longer is fully independent now with it's own grading company. Very much like Beckett mags. used to be nearly a must have for collectors, now the net and lack of independence have changed them also.

But hey,....... in the same issue of SCD there is another article about the PSA set registry ( and one about SGC's registry too ) which is not so much of an editorial, and has some quotes from Mr. Joe Orlando. Any good paper, journal, or digest will offer some different points of view. Just because one member of SCD doesn't agree or is not flattering to our own views does not make SCD a poor read or a bad paper. Different opinions and frames of reference are part of what makes this hobby so much fun.

murcerfan · November 15, 2002 9:11AM

I for one, was collecting graded sets before the registry came along.
Lemke, Rosen, Fritsch........what a team!
I am surprised SCD has chosen to alienate such a large portion of the hobby.
Perhaps they are moving away from sportscards and into a more "mature" collectible arena, whatever that might be.

Basilone · November 15, 2002 9:28AM

Im sure the advertisers of SCD are thrilled that Lemke took it upon himself to alienate and insult a sector of the hobby that has the buying power to actually purchase the high-end examples they (the dealers) offer in their ads.

Well Done!

John

skylaneflyer · November 15, 2002 9:37AM

Over the past few years I have stood quietly on the sidelines watching the rise and fall of the various grading companies. The editorial comment's made by Bob Lemke in Jay's post have to be the single most destructive comments I have seen to the hobby. It is clear to me that SCD grading service has virtually no presence in the marketplace, and Lemke's position is sour grapes. Lemke only wishes that they came up with the idea of a Registry. Lemke commited editorial suicide as far as I am concerned.

And for you Mr. Lemke, remember, every knock is a boost.

Sky

mcastaldi · November 15, 2002 9:38AM

Of what Jay quoted, the part I found most interesting was - "More's the pity that these programs hand out the accolades not on the basis of what a person knows about the cards he collects or the players thereon. . ."

Now. . .I would put money on the fact that this guy would not be able to even sit at the same table as Bob Cacamese in a discussion of 69T. . .his knowledge of 71s would pale in comparrison to Steve Pekovich or Scott Tipton. Frank Bakka could school him on the nuances of 72s. And this list could go on forever.

My point is, nearly everyone who has a substantial listing on the registry is not just financially invested in the set(s) they are pursuing, they are personally invested and nearly all have taken the time to honestly learn all they can about the issue.

The whole article is steeped in bias and an anti-grading point of view. Any journalist worth ANYTHING would have gotten comments from PSA and actual participants in the registry before making such assertions - even in an op-ed piece. The fact that Mr Lemke chose not to do so indicates that he allowed his laziness to promote his biases - or he allowed his bias to reinforce his shoddy journalism skills.

There are reasons SCD's circulation is down.

Mike

brucemo · November 15, 2002 9:56AM

I think it was a good plan to get people to submit commons to PSA, but I think that his characterization of the people who send the commons in is off the mark. There were people building graded sets long before the set registry came into existence, and not everyone who is doing it is doing it to "win". There are a bunch of reasons that drive people to register sets, and several of them are at the whole root of the collector mentality. He's like a fish telling an octopus that water is bad, ignoring that he swims in it and breathes it as well.

Another interesting point here is that he talks about "book" value. This is about as far from the mark as you can get, since when people do modern sets, there is *no* book value for any of this stuff -- the value of these cards is determined by the market, with few outside influences such as Beckett and SMR. This is unlike almost any other aspect of card collecting -- in other cases, there is definitely a book value assigned somewhere, however ficticious. There is no book value anywhere for a PSA-8 1978 Topps common, it's not like someone is telling someone else how much they should pay. People are paying what they want to pay, sellers are charging what they want to charge, and prices are emerging from that.

In any case, the set registry may not have been the whole reason that people submitted this stuff. It used to cost $15 to send in cards. Right before the set registry existed, it cost $8-10 to send in cards. Now it costs $5 to send in this modern stuff in bulk. That's a big difference, and I think that this difference is a significant reason that people are sending in all sorts of cheap stuff.

Finally, who cares what a collector *knows* about cards or players anyway? The collector knows that the cards are cool and that he wants them, and hasn't that always been enough? The author of this article sounds a lot like Dana Carvey's "angry old man" on Saturday Night Live. I'm sorry, but just because you collected cards as an adult back in 1975, does not mean you *own* the hobby now.

bruce

qualitycards · November 15, 2002 9:57AM

<< Are you planning on renewing your subscription Jay? >>

ZARDOZ - Of Course!!! A great man once said that SCD has many uses, as he was using it to place on the bottom of his birdcage!

- Wasn't that the start of the 1st Nippergram? ...jay

Another thought just occurred to me. I used to advertise in the SCD during the mid to late '80's, and on 2 or 3 occasions won their dealer achievement award. Nothing fancy, just a piece of paper stating I met the criteria by being above board, with no problems registered against my business and oh yeah! you had to advertise in so many issues for that year. In other words to gain this noteworthy award you had to spend enough advertising dollars. I guess this wasn't a form of competition like getting an award for a set. Hmnnn! Spend a lot of money, get a piece of paper recognizing your efforts. Hmnn!

SayitaintsoJoe63 · November 15, 2002 10:01AM

SCD is an aging dinosaur of the card collecting feeding frenzy of the late 80's. A relic of a time when "bigtime" dealers such as the Fritsch boys and Rosen were the power brokers and movers in the hobby. Times have changed.......the internet has been the main force of this change, along with the fact that by 1990 card companies never stopped the presses all year long, and flooded the market to the point of sickness.
These dealers along with SCD have failed to recognize these changes, and don't understand why their T-Model concept doesn't keep up on the collecting highway any longer.......They are bitter, that their ride ended and are grasping at straws to try to find the way back to the "good 'ol days".
The ride's over now boys.......A new breed of collector is here.
The PSA Set Registry is a fraternity of collectors with goals of assembling sets of the beloved cards lots of them grew up with. The "trinkets" are a nice way of recogizing a well done job of putting together a top quality set......but, it was really an afterthought.....and not the main reason these collectors started putting PSA Sets together.
The collectors on the Registry are some of the most imformed collectors in the hobby, and I for one am proud to be a small part of it.

SCD........Keep up...........or shut up

KING KELLOGG · November 15, 2002 10:11AM

Jay, thanks for the post...

I think mercerfan hit it on the head when the name "Rosen" came up....Is it no wonder that Mr. Lemke views the hobby through rose collored glasses (Rosen's of course)? ..

What happens to Mr. Lemke when the collector base stops buying his trade rag?....(like now!).

What happens to Mr. Lemke when nobody sends him submissions?....(like now!).

What happens when Mr. Lemke when he offends set collectors?.......(like now).

I'll tell you what...Mr. Lemke goes out of business!!!...How about now!

SCD started digging themselves into a hole 5 years ago. And it's no suprise that you would get such insensitive and stupid statements fron a guy that likes to "pal" with the likes of Rosen and Fritsch.

Mr. Lemke and SCD are now an official embarassment to this hobby. (Rosen has always been an embarrasment, period).

Like Basilone, I too would like Mr. Lemke to post on this board and explain to me how silly I am for submitting $ .05 Kellogg's cards!!! (X 1000's)(Gee I guess Mr. Lemke won't be getting any Kellogg business either......).

After statements like his, I can guarentee, that if SDC were the last grading company on this earth, I would change my focus to raw!

Larry.

zardoz51 · November 15, 2002 10:18AM

Indeed it was Jay!

I was the first recipient of a Nippergram, and with any luck, you'll be joining me!

Perhaps this is a cunning ploy to boost the sales of SCD by causing a frenzy of registry participants rushing out to buy the latest copy in order to read these inflammatory comments.

I wish they would! That way they can see the dealers that are advertising and notify these dealers of their displeasure, especially if they are regular customers. Remember, the dollar is mightier than the pen.

qualitycards · November 15, 2002 10:20AM

Larry - Relax! Sip some grape flavored Kool-aid and munch on some Froot Loops and get it out of your system. I'm there for you buddy

...jay

qualitycards · November 15, 2002 10:23AM

Zardoz - I have a feeling all my future copies of SCD will be re-routed to the Island of Bora Bora, where the natives can ponder the Fritsch boys and the like. As I'm probably on their hit list...jay

Mantlefan · November 15, 2002 10:42AM

I have felt that SCD is out of touch with the hobby recently, and this article confirms that. Also, their new column "Around the Horn" was supposed to be a place for opinions from readers on new developments in the hobby. Instead, it's just a bunch of dealers blowing off steam! For example, last week one dealer proudly proclaimed that he refuses to sell graded cards in his store. Hmm, I seem to remember Mr. Mint saying that same thing for awhile...until he made a deal with SGC.

Alfiewt · November 15, 2002 10:43AM

Mr. Lemke really has now clue what the registry is about. I'm glad that PSA has given collectors with similiar interests an opportunity share their collections with each other. Can Mr. Lemke honestly think that the community that has developed here is bad for the hobby?

crazysc · November 15, 2002 10:55AM

<< After statements like his, I can guarentee, that if SDC were the last grading company on this earth, I would change my focus to raw! >>

SCD, NOT SDC. Those are MY initials!

aconte · November 15, 2002 11:03AM

I guess some contests are ok. And having your name in lights is not as good as a photo credit.

It all depends on who's running the contest I guess. Right Mr. Lemke?!?

I read the SCD now (usually in 10 minutes) and yawn a lot. I wonder when he wrote the
Bazooka article if he was more happy that he was informing collectors of potential fakes
or that the great SCD had come to the rescue while GAI had graded some fakes.

Contest With A Big Prize - Enter Now!!!

aconte

koby · November 15, 2002 12:20PM

<< What happens to Mr. Lemke when the collector base stops buying his trade rag?....(like now!).

What happens to Mr. Lemke when nobody sends him submissions?....(like now!).

What happens when Mr. Lemke when he offends set collectors?.......(like now).

I'll tell you what...Mr. Lemke goes out of business!!!...How about now! >>

I haven't bought an issue of SCD for years and I do not use SCD's grading service, but I think Lemke is still doing brisk business with the annual Standard Catalog.

pc · November 15, 2002 12:46PM

i use the SCD exclusively to wipe my glasses.
seriously,the routine is as follows...two issues
simultaneously arrive,one a week late and the other
on time.i take them downstairs to my office and
open the late one first.within 3 minutes i take the
scissors out of my right side drawer,open to a group
of pages near the back-less heavy black ink ads there
and snip a square of about 10-15 pages.i replace the
scissors and open another draw where the new eyeglass
wipes call home.the second issue remains on the floor
a few days until i can't stand looking at it down there
and toss it in the waste basket.i find SCD to be very
useful for this reason only and pray my subscription ended.
but..every two weeks they return

brucemo · November 15, 2002 1:10PM

<< For example, last week one dealer proudly proclaimed that he refuses to sell graded cards in his store. >>

Does any dealer sell graded in their store? I don't think it moves in stores very well.

bruce

Guffy · November 15, 2002 1:14PM

I think someone should send SCD a plaque for: "Most Idiotic Opinion Column in Sports Card Collecting History"

KING KELLOGG · November 15, 2002 1:27PM

Sorry crazysc...By the time I was about ready to finish that post, I was banging the keys so hard that I put a dent in the CAPS/LOCK...

I'll set the record straight...NO WAY IN HELL WILL I PARTICIPATE WITH S C D !!!

Larry.

crazysc · November 15, 2002 2:14PM

I'm curious - what exactly is SCD's game plan in this market? It seems:

PSA wants to (continue) to be the leader, certainly in vintage and continuing to reestablish in modern

SGC seems most interested in cultivating a niche market in vintage, not really focusing on modern that much

Beckett is the leader in modern w/PSA (not interested in getting into an argument here who is ahead) and works the most with retailers and more non-traditional distribution of the product

SCD is....grading Fritch's inventory? Seriously, where do you ever hear of their product outside of their own magazine? I really thought they would be a force in the market, but someone needed to tell them that 2 pages/week in a magazine no one reads anymore isn't going to cut it. The "collections" they've graded have just been overhyped - that T206 lot was no big deal, and they have no dealer support.

Really, can anyone name a thing about SCD, besides the fact that they have a deal w/Fritsch and grade Star Basketball?

toppsgun · November 15, 2002 10:41PM

Gee, I loved SCD...about 10 years ago. I used to buy vintage commons from a guy who refused to use Beckett to price his cards. SCD's common prices were 50-70% below Beckett. I made a killing.

SCD was out of touch then. SCD is out of touch now.

You are the weakest link. Goodbye.

1420sports · November 15, 2002 11:16PM

SCD is good for several things - ads, articles, and the show calendar. As a magazine they suffice but that article did not make sense. You own a grading company, you want to have people grade as many cards as possible correct?

As far as ripping a registry, why not get your own first. Or for that matter more than 3 or 4 customers. Maybe Larry's son, when deciding to get his 52 Topps Mantle graded, chose SCD over PSA and the others because it was trimmed?

If PSA "brainwashed" us into getting commons graded - good job! That is what successful businesses with an excellent product do.

Correct?

SayitaintsoJoe63 · November 15, 2002 11:24PM

Correct 1420........That may be something SCD is lacking in...........marketing your product.

Vargha · November 15, 2002 11:25PM

Talking about going through life with blinders on! It's like reading editorials from the carriage makers on the passing fad and upcoming demise of the horseless carriage.

dude · November 16, 2002 12:09AM

Wow!? I'm actually more surprised, than turned off by Nipper's comments. He's written some great stuff in the past. I'm really surprised he wrote that.

I think a lot of great comments have been made so far by the Forum Members refuting Mr. Lemke's remarks towards the registry collectors. I could add several more and maybe I will when I have more time. But what really stands out to me is his indirect assault on the dealers of this hobby. When I attended the 2002 National, I talked to dozens of dealers who were on Cloud Nine because the Registry. For the first time in a long while, it's actually profitable, if not very lucrative for them to sell commons at shows. To them, the PSA Registry was a Godsend and they verbalized that. When the dealers are happy, so are the promoters. Who else has he alienated with this article?

He really missed it on this one.

thegemmintman · November 16, 2002 12:53AM

I am now totally convinced that the Hobby Gods hurled the PSA Registry to Earth from outer space like a massive meteor in a glorious attempt to resurrect this great hobby from the destruction it endured under the villainous reign of the hobby dinosaurs.

The species once known as "Nippersaurus" is now extinct.

crazysc · November 16, 2002 11:01AM

I got to read the SCD/article today - what suprised me was the page right after Lemke's article was basically a full page talking about how good the PSA set registry has been for collectors & PSA, and the next page was a full page article talking about SGC's new registry and all the things they were doing (mostly talking about weights of cards).

I don't know, just in a soft market/economy, I don't see the need for any negative press on a new concept, just because it's working. Heck, I mentioned before I thought it was crazy a 69T Shannon PSA 8 sold for $499, but I'm just happy there are people that interested in building sets to be so aggressive. How can it hurt the hobby?

qualitycards · November 16, 2002 12:08PM

SOL - That was quite the irony. You had positive articles about collecting and the set registry, then you had a negative commentary in the editorial section. It really shouldn't be that complicated. The registry offers another outlet to collect, which makes the collectors happy, and when they purchase raw cards for submissions or already graded cards, it makes the dealers happy. A concept that works, very simple...jay

wolfbear · November 16, 2002 4:12PM

My sentiments were much the same as Lemke's about 6 months ago.

I, too, was bitter and frightened. Just standing on the dock, afraid to go in the water,
even though the folks in the lake were splashing around and having the times of their lives.
"I'll stand back and just criticize that which I don't understand, and maybe they'll all come to their senses and go back to the good (?) old days."

After a while, I figured that everyone on this board couldn't be crazy.
As it turns out, most of them are, but that's a different thread.

Anyway, Bob, come on in, the water's fine !
It's a big lake with enough enjoyment and enrichment for everyone.

Buckwheat · November 17, 2002 12:58AM

Great Post Wolfbear,

Glad to see that you have seen the light, and repented.

BTW, I tried to find the SCD WEB site. I couldn't find one. Is that because there isn't one?? I guess that they think that the WEB is also just a passing fad for ignorant common folk like us.

thegemmintman · November 17, 2002 1:03AM

TELL IT ON THE MOUNTAIN WOLFBEAR, TELL IT ON THE MOUNTAIN!

I remember your resistance early on. You wisely converted over rather quickly as I recall

.

mcastaldi · November 17, 2002 2:53AM

Wolfbear> You know. . .had Mr. Lemke even bothered to contact any of the active participants of the PSA Set Registry for his story, I'm 100% confident he would have gotten the same opinions you just posted. As I mentioned in my earlier post. . .

"The fact that Mr Lemke chose not to do so indicates that he allowed his laziness to promote his biases - or he allowed his bias to reinforce his shoddy journalism skills."

Mike

Nuyauwka · November 17, 2002 1:59PM

SCD has been part of the card collecting past for quite some time as far as I am concerned. Someone on this thread made the point that Mr. Lemke is crying sour grapes because SCD did not think of the registry idea first. I do not think that would have mattered at all. I can't see why collectors who have been building cards with PSA cards for years would cross over to a company with little experience in authentification when PSA has been the cornerstone in the hobby for years.
I gave up on SCD and the majority of high priced raw cards in this hobby about 10 years now after I purchased thousands of dollars of cards from a man named Steve Timmons ,who through full back page and centerfold ads in the SCD sold a fine collection of altered material. Later I found out that this gentleman was better aptly named Steve Trimmons because that 's what he has done to his cards. When trying to get SCD to help me reach this heavy advertiser of theirs they were of no help. The blatant tactics of altering raw vintage cards has made people that advocate none-graded cards, and dealers that refuse to see the merit in grading to be very misguided. The notion that collectors are buying commons to win a piece of paper is infintile. I collect the cards because (as someone stated before),because I think they are cool, to me , there is nothing like the colorful backgrounds of then 69/70 and 70/71 tallboy basketball and the 69 Football sets. I try to complete these in nmt/mt-mt graded as opposed to raw so I know that this treasure from the past is a real piece of pristine Americana, not a remake from someones workshop!.
I am 40 years old and started going to card shows avidly when I was around 13 , seen alot of stuff change around in this hobby over the years. The most unfortunate problem , which I feel always was the achilles heel of this hobby was the vast majority of criminals that altered cards by either , trimming , coloring , reglossing etc..etc ..etc. I was introduced to a handful of those villians through the pages of SCD. And for that reason whenever I hear people advocate raw cards and take shots at graded ones , especially PSA, I feel they are just crying sour grapes because they refused to change with the times.
I really enjoy looking at my 69 Topps PSA 8 Roman Gabriel, knowing that it's not only an authentic copy but it's the only one with none higher... COOL CARD!!

BugOnTheRug · November 17, 2002 2:45PM

Nice post Nuyauwka.

Your points are well taken. I enjoy my graded cards, and I enjoy my raw ones as well. However, with my raws, practically everyone I have I know the origins of the card or that the demand and cost don't warrant tampering with. Being a small-time collector, most of my cards I either bought new or from friends many years ago.........................

BOTR

aro13 · November 17, 2002 9:11PM

Nuyauwka-I remember Steve Timmons-most of his ads were for mint or nmmint cards. He did not last long. Obviously, some collectors found out about his methods the hard way. There was an article mentioning his handiwork in the VCBC about 5 years ago, and I did not see his ads again.

BugOnTheRug-From what I understand many unscrupulous dealers try out there methods on the cheaper cards first in order to perfect their techniques. Makes life difficult when you buy a common figuring who would mess with that and low and behold it has been re-coloured or trimmed.

mikeschmidt · November 17, 2002 11:50PM

Nipper has truly shown his true colors here. He is a hobby dinosaur who has totally missed the major points of the PSA Set Registry.

If it was simply a way to fool collectors into buying into a silly idea -- it sure must have been successful. In the past few months, the PSA Set Registry has been so popular that SGC has created their own Registry, and GAI has started thinking about building a similar one that migrates various company graded cards. Clearly, the most fundamental change in collecting in the past year and a half has been about the Registry.

People are not collecting for awards or money. Frankly, most of the collectors who participate in the Registry understand that there is no way that the time, money and love they put into their sets will ever be fully compensated when and if they decide to sell their sets. There exists a great love for collecting -- and, if nothing else, the PSA Set Registry has brought together collectors who otherwise may have never known or met one another. I value greatly speaking with people like Neal Kane, James Kendall and others who have actively been buying and selling Mike Schmidt PSA-graded cards. Most of Mike Schmidt's cards have raw card values significantly under one dollar -- but it has been fun for each of us to grow our collections, trade with one another, and share Schmidt stories. The Registry has built a comeraderie that otherwise would have never existed.

And, most importantly, I find the statements by Lemke disingenuous. Lemke knows so much about the hobby and has contributed greatly to the amount of information that is available to the public. How is the PSA Set Registry any different than that? The Registry has brought forward a wealth of information that has allowed collectors, en masse, to understand the very pointed nuances of each set that is available on the Registry. We have learned information that would not be available simply by studying uncut sheets and distribution processes. It has allowed there to be greater information available than ever before! Consider, for example, the 1957 Topps baseball set. Were people aware that Jim Pyburn and Bob Thurman (#277 and #279) were two of the toughest cards in the set? What about Mike Garcia, #300 and Hal Naragon #347? The PSA Set Registry has raised the bar -- by making more information available to collectors. Whereas in the past, collectors could only get "ego gratification" by having the better Mantle, Mays and Aaron cards, now we truly know which cards are tough. Know it is readily apparently which cards were misplaced on a sheet or had a common, repeating technical flaw associated with them. Frankly anyone could find a Rocky Colavito 1957 Topps PSA 9 rookie card if they had enough money -- but money often isn't enough for the person looking for a Hal Naragon card in PSA 8 condition. Know we know which cards are most often the "dogs" of the set when sold in raw top condition.

It is hard to believe that a publication (like the Standard book) that always strives to add information and research relevant topics can be so oblivious to the values created by the PSA Set Registry. It opens so many doors of information that did not exist five or ten years ago when people simply wanted the star cards in top condition. The Registry exposes the Garcias, Horlens, Tebbets and Shannons of the collecting world. Why should we not value knowing which cards were printed irregularly, thus making a top-grade set completion nearly impossible?

The hobby dinosaur should truly re-evaluate his thoughts and premises. SCD has been a declining publication for many years -- and has had many difficulties in maintaining market presence. The nearly laughable existence of SCD grading has done little, if anything, to help the company. Innovative ideas like "Untouched" and the "11" grade have not been accepted by the collecting public. Either has the Larry Fritsch collection -- whose biggest failure of the past year is perhaps the crossover of one of his Freddy Lindstrom cards to an SCD holder that failed to meet reserve in auction. The SCD 11 Giambi card that was auctioned by Mr. Mint was largely unnoticed by 99% of the collecting public.

We don't want our certificates or awards. Frankly, it is a nice service for PSA to provide -- but I don't measure my condom size by the number of awards I have or failed to get. I value the Registry for the people I have met, the information it has made available to the public, and for the speciality "niche" markets that it continues to encourage. I wish Mr. Lemke the best of luck with his endeavours -- but perhaps it is an open-mind that is necessary for him to truly obtain a more accurate pulse of where the hobby is headed in the future.

Kindest Regards,
Marc S. (aka mikeschmidt)

Did anyone see SCD's editorial on PSA's set registry?

Comments