set weighting question ...

wolfbear

Know this has been covered before, but can't find any of the threads.

When submitting a suggested set weighting, should the numbers be based solely on SMR ?
I know the population reports should be used sparingly to affect the weighting because the pops can change.

But what about stars and semi-stars that have been either over or under valued in the SMR and Beckett for years ?
The people building the sets, after a few years, have a more accurate handle on just what the cards go for.

Also, what about commons of players from popular and unpopular teams.
There is often quite a difference in what these go for. Should this be taken into account ?

mikeschmidt

Give minor stars a bump in the proposed weighting. Don't change weighting too much for low population cards (unless the set is a mainstream set over 40 years old) or for Yankees/Dodgers cards. Do what you think is correct -- and do not necessarily use SMR in every case. Joe usually looks at them before they are finalized, so a first stab is often better than nothing at all.

MS

PlayBall

I sent in a proposed weighting for a modern set last week, and my experience was that they go by straight SMR. Depending on the set your proposing, it may be Evan Thompson, not Joe Orlando, that has initially weighted the set. The response I got was, that based on SMR, Pete Rose, Tom Seaver, and Joe Morgan are commons.

pc

actually i have been told
determination of the weighting is
based upon the population in nm-mt(psa 8).

rbeaton

I have weighted 2 sets (1970 Topps baseball, and the Jim Palmer player set). I did not go by either pop reports or SMR (although I did give every card listed in the SMR a value > 1). I don't think there is any set standard for the weights. While the weights were reviewed by Joe, there were no changes made to my recommendations.

Robert