Idea on Team Set Registries

theBobs · February 5, 2003 1:33PM

Couldn't PSA use a filter on the existing set registries to create a team registry. For example, 1965 Topps baseball -- could PSA not offer an option when editing the set to "Only update Dodgers" or "Only update Cardinals"? Then filter in only those cards associated with a team. Seems like a technical solution could be there.

The real issue then would be where to show the team sets. An idea would be that any "full set" filtered to a "team set" would then show up on a "Team page". So, all Dodger Team registries, regardless of year, would be linked off of a single page.

I don't know if the software or architecture would allow this idea to work, but if so, a huge majority of the data entry could be leveraged from existing sets. Just need to add a "team" column to sort off of.

rbeaton · February 5, 2003 7:43PM

That's a good idea theBobs. However, I think it will be difficult for PSA to determine which cards of a given set belong to a given team. I don't know of any reference checklist which tells the team of the player pictured on the card. Someone who actually has the set (i.e., a collector, not PSA) would have to go through and identify which cards go into which team sets. Also, cards like leader cards, world series cards, etc., may picture players from more than 1 team.

Robert

theBobs · February 5, 2003 11:58PM

<< <i>Also, cards like leader cards, world series cards, etc., may picture players from more than 1 team. >>

This will be a challenge regardless of the technical solution.

<< <i>Someone who actually has the set (i.e., a collector, not PSA) would have to go through and identify which cards go into which team sets >>

One thing CU doesn't lack is commited collectors. If memory serves, didn't most early sets actually get data entry from collectors? I'd think if the technical solution is viable, that team collectors would gladly offer the breakdowns to PSA...

purelyPSA · February 6, 2003 8:45AM

Sport Americana used to come out with a book every year that was broken down by team. I have an old one from '90 that does just that. However with all the waves of new stuff in the last 12 years, I don't know that they kept up with this book.

Skycap · February 8, 2003 1:46AM

Personally I am not in favor of having separate registries for team sets or any other subsets of a bigger set that is already registered. If, for example, one wants to collect the 1956 Yankees, they can merely use the existing full 1956 Topps set registry and enter the Yankee cards as they recieve them. They can call such a set "Joe's 1956 Yankees" or whatever. I notice that some already do it this way.

Also, there may be disagreements over what constitutes the team set if listed separately. How about team cards, World Series cards, checklists with player pictures, leader cards, All-Star cards, combo cards with players from other teams, etc. I have noticed some inconsistencies among the team sets already registered. However, registering it within the context of a full set (as mentioned above) would give the collector the opportunity to select the cards they want to make up a team set or any other subset.

On the other hand, I am in favor of player sets since generally there are only one or two cards of a player in a big set.

Any other thoughts?

Skycap

JeffVN · February 8, 2003 2:06AM

The problem with the - no Team Sets theory - is that the Set Registry Rules state that if you do not have more than 10% of the overall set and your set has been inactive for over 12 months they will delete your set from the Regisrty. (meaning I complete my 74 Reds Team Set - which only comprises about 5% of the total year set - in the regular 74 set registry and have it sitting there for over a year they will delete my set for me.)

On the other hand, if they specifically allow my 74 Reds Team set to be an independent set on the registry, my Reds Team set will be 100% complete and looking nice in its own category. I believe there is considerable interest in the Team set idea, if you look at the Requested Sets page you'll see that most of the requested sets of late are team sets.

Galveston · February 8, 2003 2:20AM

Maybe a compromise, and a start in the right direction, would be to list a team set from each World Series participant each season since 1951. That's probably going to included many of the teams that people want to collect anyway, and they could test the interest. Doing every team from every year sounds like a lot of work to me without knowing how many people would be interested. That said, I think PSA would be wise to come up with smaller Registry subsets. Long term, the number of people that have the interest and means to complete a standard Topps set will be few.

Skycap · February 8, 2003 3:16AM

JeffVN and Galveston,

You both make good points.

Jeff, I didn't realize they delete sets that are less than 10% complete and inactive for 12 months.

Actually the most requested sets pending are player sets. By my quick count there are 43 player set requests pending and 24 team or other set requests pending.

Skycap

JeffVN · February 8, 2003 3:41AM

Interesting thing about the Team Sets and Player Sets, is that you can double up the cards from a regular year set into a team set and into an individual player set (I have my 1968 Bench Rookie PSA 9 listed in both the 1968 Regular year set, and the Johnny Bench Set). I also had my 76 Reds cards listed in both the 76 year set and the 76 Reds set, but recently deleted my 76 year set, believing that a Team set is more appropriate for my Team sets - huhh. I'm not sure if you can do a 3-fer, meaning the regular set, player set, and team set with one card (but I could try it with one of my Koufax cards).

Wabittwax · February 8, 2003 12:11PM

I think listing all the team sets form all the years would be great for the hobby. The more people you have chasing PSA cards, the better. It will drive up prices in the long term and make all of our collections more valuable. Plus you may have an INCREDIBLE 1957 Yankees team set but it would rank near the bottom of the list under 1957 Topps if that is all you have from the set. There's no recignition there for such a great little set of cards.

BillBob · February 8, 2003 3:14PM

In my opinion, creating team sets automatically, even if it is just world series participants, could produce a number of registries that no one has interest in. I believe this would only work if indeed PSA could generate the entries automatically from existing set entries. All that is needed is a cross reference list by card number (for sets that have numbers) to the appropriate team. Once the reference lists are compiled, I'm sure one of PSA's programmers could write the program in a day to populate the team sets.

The one item of concern for me (being a team & player collector only) is the lack of standards for determining a team set. PSA has left the set composition to we collectors. Not a bad idea initially, but as more people get involved, there are bound to be more diverse opinions and emotions.

Just my thoughts. I'm not complaing, because card collecting is my recreational life (pretty sad huh) and if I can't find anything I can afford, then I have to have my fun posting.

JeffVN · February 8, 2003 8:45PM

So far, all of the team sets have included the same cards. If a card in the regular set has a player from that team showing on it (be it League Leader, All-Star, MVP, Checklist, whatever) the card is included in the Team set. Problems have only been found in trying to determine the cards to include in the Player Basic set. The master is also easy, if his picture is on the card, its in the set. BJ seems to resolved nearly all of the Basic Set problems now.

BillBob · February 9, 2003 4:14AM

So far, all of the team sets have included the same cards.

What does this mean. How are the "same cards" defined.

I know for a fact that the criteria for the 59, 63, and 65 Dodgers are different because I submitted them. The mistake was mine because in trying to fix all three, I was emailing BJ so many times I was afraid I would tick her off. I let a couple items slide.

This is why I think a standard for team sets should be in place.

Wabittwax · February 9, 2003 9:39AM

Yeah, I ticked off BJ before by emailing to much.

JeffVN · February 9, 2003 9:48AM

I got 3 emails today from BJ - Must work a 7 day week. I've been sending updates for the Johnny Bench Master set that will be added to the Registry to accompany the Bench Basic Set.

The "standard" of which cards to include in the Team Sets is straight from BJ's emails to me.

<< <i>If a card in the regular set has a player from that team showing on it (be it League Leader, All-Star, MVP, Checklist, whatever) the card is included in the Team set. >>

BillBob · February 9, 2003 9:56AM

If a card in the regular set has a player from that team showing on it (be it League Leader, All-Star, MVP, Checklist, whatever) the card is included in the Team set.

That's great. I guess because my entries were early ones, they got in under the radar. I'm satisfied with BJ's ruling. Thanks JeffVN.

JeffVN · February 9, 2003 11:04PM

No problem. The question will arise when or if someone new jumps on one of your earlier configured sets and wants to add or subtract cards to make the Team sets consistent with each other - as far as what cards are or are not included.

Skycap · February 10, 2003 4:29AM

This is a good discussion on team sets.

To me, the team and player sets are a great alterative – both time wise and budget wise – to collecting full sets that can consist of up to 600 or 700 cards. Besides, the cards of players on teams other than my favorite really do not interest me. Also, I don’t want to own a large collection.

I collect a certain team in four years and one player I’ve just started, plus I have a few other-year cards – all of this across the 1950’s and 1960’s. I chose the years of the team I collect based not on the seasons they won (or played in) the World Series but, instead, based on the four card designs that most appealed to me. Neither the teams nor the player have separate registries. For the teams, I just register them with the regular full set. I will likely request that a set for the player be added when I get a few more of his cards.

There are some inconsistencies with both team and player set registries. Bill, I think the 1959 Topps Dodgers set should include every Dodger pictured in the set and not just those who played on the team that season. To me, the set is incomplete without #43 Steve Bilko, #71 Don Bessent, #321 Bob Giallombardo, and #550 Roy Campanella, even though they didn’t play with the team that year. Oh well!

Skycap

BillBob · February 10, 2003 11:29AM

Skycap, you echo my sentiments exactly on collecting team & player sets. Being of limited funds, I would much rather collect my favorites then try to put together an entire year set.

I also have no problem with BJ changing the composition of the 59 Dodgers if you want to approach her. Just give me some time to get re-employed before all the 59 Dodgers disappear. lol

Idea on Team Set Registries

Comments