1971 Kellogg's Baseball Registry Problem?

Virtualizard

About 3 weeks ago, Mick (Galveston here on the message board) emailed me with a request to add a 1971 Kellogg's Baseball set (along with a few other Kellogg's sets) to my Set Registry Spreadsheets website. After receiving Mick's email, I spent the next hour trying to figure out what I was doing wrong with this particular set. Most sets take me 1 to 5 minutes to create the spreadsheet (depending on the formatting of PSA's database). After much frustration, I came to the conclusion that my calculations are correct and PSA's are wrong. Then there are the variations ..... and the POP report ..... what a mess!

I believe my email to Mick stated my points, so here's a copy:




Mick,

I've added the Kellogg's sets to my site. The '71 Kellogg's Baseball was the toughest set I've done yet. Congratulations on giving me a challenge like that.

I want to discuss that set with you (and others if you want to take it to the message board). I believe PSA's calculation for the set rating is wrong. I've done enough of these and I'm pretty sure my calculations are correct. I spent a lot of time checking and re-checking everything (using your set by the way). Most registry sets list the set divisor on the website. This one doesn't. I usually check myself against this, but I'm unable to do so on this set. I still think I'm correct though. I was going to email PSA about it, but I thought I'd check with you first to make sure I'm not missing something.

I can't believe they haven't created master and basic registry sets for the '71 Kellogg's yet. This would make more sense, especially considering you can't have both variations in your set the way it's currently set up. This set has over 25% of the cards with variations (currently listed). There are even more variations that aren't accounted for. I'd say whether or not my calculation of set rating is correct, this set needs some work. So does the Pop Report. It seems they have a lot of the pops reversed for the variations.

Let me know what you think and if you want to discuss it anymore (start a thread if you'd like on the message board - I'd be glad to give my input). I'd also like to email PSA with my findings if you agree that my calculation is correct.

JEB.





Mick asked me to pursue this and I've put it off until now (sorry for the delay). I haven't contacted PSA yet because I wanted some input first.

So, I'd like to hear from some of you - Mick, Steve, King Kellogg, Stump - please let me know if you agree with my assessment here.

JEB.

sjeanblanc

Hi VirtualLizard,

They do make mistakes from time to time with the set totals. I had a problem with the Total set points on the Nolan Ryan Master set, all be it the 71 Kelloggs is a heck of alot more complicated. I just emailed BJ and they corrected the point totals "kind of". Rather than setting the point total to match what was coming out of the set composition, they fudged a couple of the existing cards point values to match the set total that they were displaying, which was 10 points higher than it should have been. Now there are a few cards that shall we say, are very generously pointed. :=)

sjeanblanc

Virtualizard

sjeanblanc,

I'm not sure about any problems with the Ryan master set. Since I've been watching it, I haven't seen any errors. I will agree with you, however, on some gross overweighting in the set. The most blatant example is the 1988 Topps #661 Turn Back The Clock with a grade weight of "5". The 1971 Topps Ryan has the same grade weight. Is this what you are referring to?

If anyone wants to trade straight up, I'll offer 2 PSA 10 1988 Topps #661's for 1 PSA 8 1971 Topps Ryan. According to the registry, this would be a losing proposition on my end.

JEB.

BJ

The 1971 Kellogg's problem will be resolved as soon as I add the master set next week and update the basic set. I apologize for the delay in adding master sets, but we have been quite busy with other priorities. I'm sure you can understand that considering the growth of the Registry.

If there are any other problems with divisors of any other sets, please let me know. (bj@collectors.com)

As far as weighting assignments, contact Joe Orlando if you feel a card has been over or underweighted. If he agrees, he will let me know and we'll update the set. (joe@collectors.com)

Thanks.

RobE

BJ who can I ask a couple questions regarding the pop report?

I'll email my question to you about a couple cards.

Thanks!

Rob

murcerfan

The wieghting of that set is also based almost entirely on population.
while i agree that this is a factor, Gaylord Perry is at 8.5 while Ernie Banks is a 4 ?

sjeanblanc

VirtualLizard,

The cards that got fudged in the 10 point increase were the following:

1988 Sportsflics #39 went from a 0.5 to 5.0
1988 Topps #661 TBC went from a 0.5 to 5.0
1990 Bowman Inserts went from a 0.5 to 1.0
1992 Leaf #41 went from a 0.5 to 1.0

The set comp I have that has the old values is dated "2/22/03", I'm not really sure when the
new point values went into effect, but I think it was sometime in March.

Scott J.

BJ

Scott - The weighting changes may have taken place when we changed the set to basic and master. The set was reweighted at that time. I really don't "fudge" any weights to make them match my divisor. I just double-checked the math and the divisor of 580.50 is correct. As I mentioned above, if you disagree with any of the weightings, please feel free to contact Joe Orlando.

Ron - As you know by now, and for everyone else, Peter Ma (Customer Service Manager - map@collectors.com) can address some of the problems you may find in the Population Report.

Thank you!