Basic set vs. Master set
ChrisKK
Posts: 148
Are we taking the MASTER / BASIC set too far? I can see having both for a set that has a large number of variations, like the 1969 Topps baseball set or even the 1933 Goudy set (for the Nap card) But why would you create a MASTER set for 1970 Topps baseball ???? Just for the six checklists ??? there is no difference in weighting either.
if I hurry I could have the 8th spot in the basic set and 1st in the master……
Now the registry will have an even more inflated set number total. Is this REALLY necessary? Where is the benifit?
chris (the other chris
)
if I hurry I could have the 8th spot in the basic set and 1st in the master……
Now the registry will have an even more inflated set number total. Is this REALLY necessary? Where is the benifit?
chris (the other chris
) 0
Comments
With vintage basketball.... With some of the players a basic set might have 8 cards and a master might have 10 or 12...
Click here to view my Knickstars collection and wantlist
I agree. I emailed PSA about the set last night. Did you look through the set composition? They changed a lot of the weighting from the basic set. The first noticeable change is card #1. The basic set has it listed as a weight of 5 and the new master has a weight of 3? I don't understand why this card would be weighted the same as the 6 common checklists.
For your set, do you plan on collecting all 6 variations? Is your set complete without them? I wouldn't mind seeing just one 1970 set on the registry with all 726 cards required, but I don't think a lot of collectors really care about these variations or the need for a separate master set. Personally, I'll try to get them all, but it's not really a bid deal to me.
As far as being #1 on the master set, you'll have to settle for #2 - I already registered mine.
JEB.
That's a great point and I've even thought about that before for some of the basic baseball player sets that I'm working on. PSA includes Fleer, Donruss, and Upper Deck cards in the basic sets, so why not OPC? I think I know what the answer would be - It's the same card as the Topps version. That's true, but for hockey, I think you're right - OPC should be in the basic set, even if it means removing the Topps version (which will never happen).
JEB.
But, some sets - like the 70 or 72 sets JUST DO NOT MAKE SENSE to create Master Sets for them when the variations don't even account for an additional 1%.
Sets - 1970, 1971 and 1972
Always looking for 1972 O-PEE-CHEE Baseball in PSA 9 or 10!
lynnfrank@earthlink.net
outerbankyank on eBay!
As a 69' collector I was initially against two sets. The original set was close to a complete master set and suited me just fine. I believed all along that you had to have all the cards including the variations to have a complete set.
PSA implemented the change, however, and I went with the flow. Today it doesnt seem like much of a big deal although entering a card in two sets is a bit of a hassle.
In reference to your question and inline with Franks thoughts, I would also believe PSA would dilute the efforts and expand their database needlessly by adding a master set to some other issues which vary just a few cards.
Having said that, I also believe the set collectors of a particular issue, those most effected by such a decision should be included with a vote... yikes...isnt democracy great. Hopefully this would please the majority of the set registrants.
It is more likely, however, that PSA will follow protocol on this and continue to enter master sets now when requested, now that the flood gates are partially open.
Best of luck with your future collecting Chris and just collect it the way it makes you happy.
RayB69Topps
I just do not understand and view it as yet another attempt by psa to increase the number of graded sets through unnecessary duplication.
Davalillo
The registry is getting bloated with all the master and basic sets- any set that has a variation is now going to have 2 listings, usually with the participants the same in both. If this is going to continue perhaps PSA should limit participation to either the basic OR master set, and not both.
Do a majority of collectors consider a set complete with the basic set, or with variations?
Always looking for Topps Salesman Samples, pre '51 unopened packs, E90-2, E91a, N690 Kalamazoo Bats, and T204 Square Frame Ramly's
I truly think PSA could have created the checklists differently to avoid the debate and give a more accurate account of registered sets. If all the checklists were created as masters and the variations were given a 'V' designation after the card number (66V) and in the heading have it read: total complete % , total completion with variations %. This way you can have 100% complete with or without the variations all in one set. The definition of a complete set would be one of every numbered card and the variations would be just icing.
chris
I agree. It is sort of ridiculous to have a master set for 1970 Topps Baseball. What makes it even more ridiculous is that when I registered my set, 3 of the 6 checklists that I entered are not labeled or labeled incorrectly by PSA. #128 is labeled R Perranoski but actually has R. Perranoski on the card, #244 is labeled "red bat" but has a brown bat, and #432 is not labeled as a variation (it is the BASEBALL in white variation).
As I also have some experience with the'69 Topps & '71 Kellogg's sets, this does not seem to be a rare occurrence. Both the '69 Topps & '71 Kellogg's POP reports are useless as far as variations go. How can PSA offer 2 different sets, when they themselves can't differentiate between the variations?
As far as player sets go, I like the master/basic split. Some people are not interested in collecting all of the oddball cards and only want the mainstream issues. No problem there.
JEB.
I think PSA should do-away with all basic sets.........Now hear me out...Please.
The whole idea of a Registry is to see how far up the ladder your efforts have gone.
If somebody found a variation in one of their 100 card sets, and PSA grades it as a sports card, the new Registry should be 101 for that set. It becomes just that... a MASTER set.
To have a set that only represents the players years and not the cards that were produced "as a tribute" for that player is really weak.
For the collectors that collect "Player Sets"....Wouldn't you rather collect 1 set with all the cards you could gather. Variations, errors, inserts, chase, metal, ceramic, etc.....??? I don't know any type collector that wants to stop at a "bare bone" minimum set.
As an example of collecting spirit, I have a single bat with a bunch of HOF sigs on it. I try to get as many new sigs as I can. But... Every year, those rascals at the HOF, go and elect a couple of new guys. Ooops...There goes my dream of having a "complete" signed bat. On the other side, every so often, one of those HOF's heads to the promised land, and low and behold I should get a piece of sandpaper and try to remove that players name, as he "officially" now is not part of that hallowed faternity any more. The fact is...My bat is perpetual. The more players that go into the Hall, the bigger Challange it is to go find them. As for the deceased players, well I guess I'll just keep them on.
Bottom line is that this hobby is perpetual. Changes every day. The Master Sets should be the same way.
Again.....My $.02
Larry
email....emards4457@msn.com
CHEERS!!
People define sets different ways. You have basic sets, master set of front variations, and master set including back variations. An individual collector should be able to collect until a set is finished, by some common definition. The registry should not try to force people to collect master sets in order to "complete" their set.
If you collect '56 Topps, you should be finished when you have cards 1-340 and the two checklists, if that is what you want to do. Once you get all 342 cards, it should be possible to see "100% complete" on some page someplace, because you are done, if you want to be done.
It's not what I want to do. I have the team variations in my set. I think that's a fine way to collect, too, since the cards are a little different on the fronts, and PSA grades each kind with its own flip. Essentially I made a PSA master set. This should also be fine, and the set registry should support it.
Some people collect the back variations in this set, too. That's too weird for me, and PSA doesn't distinguish backs, so it's a little tough to try to force the set registry to adjust to this. But if PSA distinguished, that would be another fine master set, for those who care. And I know that some do, because I get emails from people whenever I don't say "gray back" or "white back" when I list a card.
I admit that it's not very elegant to have a whole extra registry set just so these few extra cards can be reflected. It would be better if the basic and master sets were grouped together on the same page, so rather than selecting "1956 Topps - Basic" from the list, you'd select "1956 Topps" and you'd see a list for both the basic and master sets.
So when you are entering sets, you'd enter into a master list, and all the "finest" lists are is just different views on the same information. If I enter in all my team variations, the registry should be smart enough to include in in the "Basic" list, taking the cards from my Master set that give me the highest set rating. And if I don't enter my team variations, the registry could be smart enough to calculate my numbers for the master set, and show them, too. If I decide that I don't want to be in either the Basic or Master list, there should be UI that lets me take myself off of either list.
The player sets can be handled the same way. If there is a basic contemporary Mickey Mantle set, a Mickey Mantle set that includes obscure food issues, and a Mickey Mantle set that includes modern cards, these can all be under the same page, under "Mickey Mantle". The collectors can enter their stuff into a huge list that includes all modern cards, and the obscure food issues, but there would be some common subsets that would be listed, giving people who collect the basic contemporary Mantle cards the ability to see "100% complete" even though they don't have some card Upper Deck made.
If the objection is raised, "Won't that make the page look cluttered, if we have all of these 'current' and 'all-time' finest sets?", my response to that would be to get rid of the all-time finest lists, which are usually redundant and rarely interesting. If a set has been decommissioned, simply remove it from the list. If someone thinks that a set is so historic that it needs to be remembered, they can write an article about it or something.
bruce
Website: http://www.brucemo.com
Email: brucemo@seanet.com
Larry – I think I want to disagree with you about the purpose of the registry. My feeling about the registry is that this is a place where like collectors can ‘display’ their collections. Regardless of how high up the ladder they are or want to go. For me, my concentration is on 1970 in PSA9 and 1952 Bowman in PSA7. The odd thing is that I look at the 52’s more that the 70’s.
If I collected the 69 set, I would be satisfied with out the variations. I would be disappointed if I thought I had to collect the variations to become 100 percent complete. Same with the player sets. If I thought I needed to find ALL of the Mike Schmidt cards and their variations to be at 100 percent, I would not even attempt it. There should be a way to collect a ‘main stream’ set and call it complete without having to acquire EVERYTHING out there. In the same breath, we should also have a way to acknowledge the efforts of someone who does find everything. I guess my beef is the fact that there are two listings for sets that should (IMHO) only have one.
I would also be in favor of removing the ‘finest’ sets and move them to a ‘finest’ page that lists only one entry per set all sets on one page.
chris
<< <i>JEB - I know what you are saying about the labeling of variations. Remember, if a card was graded early it may not have been thought of as a variation at the time. Also if the graders are not aware of the MANY variations then they to may ‘over look’ the fact that a particular card has a variation. >>
I'll admit that the unlabeled "BASEBALL in white" variation is probable due to this, but the other two are labeled as variations, but incorrectly. How hard is it to tell a brown bat from a red bat or see the "." after the "R" and label it accordingly?
<< <i>I would also be in favor of removing the ‘finest’ sets and move them to a ‘finest’ page that lists only one entry per set all sets on one page. >>
Good idea.
JEB.
2)I do not understand why someone has to see their set 100% complete--if a set is complete at 98.7% without the variations and one does not wish to collect the variations it seems to me it is equally satisfying to see 98.7%. Same logic with player sets. If you have all the basic Mantles and that gets you to 60% then terrific --you are done. You should not have to see100% in the % complete column to know you have finished what you want to finish.
3)King Kellogg is right--get rid of all the basic sets--and while they are at it the team sets too.
Davalillo
<< <i>...get rid of all the basic sets--and while they are at it the team sets too.
Davalillo >>
Davalillo,
If this was up to me, I'd agree with you somewhat, but that's a really narrow-minded view. There are varying levels of collectors here. You are obviously at the top, I would consider myself somewhere in the middle, and there are a lot more collectors who can't afford to or have no desire to complete a full issue in graded form. If they decide to collect a certain team or player set, why shouldn't they have the ability to see their collection progress as a full set collector does? I don't care for the team sets myself, but I respect the fact that for some collectors, this may be the only PSA graded set that they are working on. There is no need to belittle their efforts because you happen to collect every card ever made.
I do see it getting a little out of hand, but if there is a demand for it, how can it hurt our hobby?
You have an awesome collection, and I in no way mean to offend you, but try to think about all of the different types of collectors there are out there.
JEB.
What Davilillo said about getting rid of team sets is demeaning to us team collectors. I believe much credit is due to PSA for making big strides in recent months in posting team, player and specialty sets. Many collectors lack the interest and/or funds to built big sets. This is a win-win situation for both PSA and the collectors. I also applaud the listing of basic and master sets; it's the collector's choice. PSA is going in the right direction, and Joe and crew are to be highly commended for this.
Skycap
I agree with you completely. In a couple of my player sets, my initial goal was all the topps regular issue cards and my goal was to get them all (this was before the registry existed). Well, now this roughly corresponds to the basic sets (aaron, banks, clemente -- the abc's of my collection!), and I need to add 'a couple of 63 Fleers to complete the basic sets, so I will.
I don't understand why this is contraversial -- if one wants to measure oneself against different criteria...and all of these criteria exist (eg. basic, master, team, player, etc), then what's the big deal?
Scott
Davalillo
<< <i>...Rather than enhancing participation, I think more and more collectors will increasingly see the whole basic vs. master thing, team sets and player sets of everyday players as ridiculous and it will diminish participation.
Davalillo >>
I know you don't mean to belittle anyone's collecting efforts. I just wanted to make a point.
If participation is eventually diminished in these player, team, and specialty sets, so be it. The interest in regular issue sets will remain strong and your sets, as well as mine, will survive. In the meantime, let's allow everyone else to collect whatever they want to and proudly display it on the set registry.
Try a player set, they're actually pretty fun to collect.
JEB.
I agree with you on the all-time finest list. Its nice to be able to see a list of the finest sets ever built, and it will be interesting to see how long retired sets stay near the top of this list.
When it come to the many different sets, the think the registry should do its best to represent the different goals of collectors. Making team collectors register their sets in the main set, and player collectors who only collect mainstream cards register in the master sets, is making them register their cards in sets that don't represent thier goals. I really don't thing the huge number of sets diminishes the registry at all. I think the different specialty sets really add to the registry by showcasing the different ways people collect.
I think that's a good point. Prior to all of the player, team, hof, etc. sets, every collector of just these cards from each set would enter their cards into the annual set with no intention of ever completing or even collecting any more cards from that set. It now eliminates some of the sets from the lower ranks of these more general sets that really don't belong there anyway.
JEB.
chris
wayne
That is about to change. PSA has just not gotten to the '74 set yet. In the next few weeks, expect to see a master and basic set listed. They have been systematically going through every set making these changes across the board. Sorry to have to break that news to you, but you had better get used to it.
JEB.
You have got to be kidding.
Wayne
I actually have quite a few player sets registered. I could tolerate a few hall of famer master sets but not much beyond that.
I respect the fact that you guys have different points of view and it certainly does not mean that I am right but I really wish the PSA Set Registry was for sets only and not players, teams etc. and that each year had just one master set.
But there is not one in a million chance that PSA would agree with me.
Davalillo
Keep the team sets!!....but only add additional ones if a person emails explaining their request and presents serial numbers for at least 10% of the set. After 30 days...if no one adds a set...cancel it.
In fact PSA should go through all of the sets and clean out all of the issues without any registered sets. They (PSA) really left the door opened by grading any card for the set registry specials as long as you ask them to add it the registry (at the time of submission).
John
<< <i>JEB,
You have got to be kidding.
Wayne >>
Wayne, yes.
I would guess that the Basic set will be composed of 660 cards where either variation can be used. The Master set will remain the same as the current set - both Washington and San Diego versions - all 674 cards.
Look for changes in weighting as well. They totally revised the individual card weights for the 1970 set.
JEB.
Davalillo"
I believe you've got it wrong, Davilillo. Quite the contrary is true: The more sets listed (master, basic, player, team, etc), the more collectors will have opportunities to participate. Perhaps you're just concerned that the added interest and participation is seen as competition for many of the cards you need, and so that will make it harder and more expensive for you to complete all 126 sets you've registered.
I'm one of those proud team and player collectors. Why should I have to register, for example, my 25 different team player cards within a 600-card set, 95% of which I have no intention of collecting? That's what I have to do now. Fortunately, PSA is gradually listing every team (and player) set requested, so one day I won't have to register my 4% or 5% of a set within a huge set. PSA is to be applauded for this.
Any comments from the other team and player set collectors out there?
Skycap
I will try and speak from both sides of the fence here. I think the primary goal that we need to see in changes to the PSA Set Registy is that of an organizational change of the structure of the Registry. I do not take away from team set collectors, player collectors or any other collecting niche. Nonethless, the growth of the Registry has often been in player sets and year-specific team sets. As the Registry now stands, there is a lot of scrolling and hundreds of sets listed on the main page. As someone who sometimes likes to just look at random sets -- it is very cumbersome to navigate. If there are separate pages created for team sets, player sets, etc., perhaps that will allow individuals (like myself) to have their cake and eat it too. There can be a seperate page for player sets to allow the Pepe Frias collectors of the world to link their sets.
The biggest problem I have with the Registry as it now stands are the people that seem to litter their sets into every possible and feasible PSA Set Registry set. I personally think that if you are not attempting a Robin Yount Player Set (as an example), then you should not list your 1975 Topps Yount PSA 8 card in that set if you happen to be a PSA-graded 1975 Topps set collector. I think that there should be some enforcement, particularly in modern sets, for individuals who list sets with less than two or three cards who seem to be solely interested in maximizing their exposure on the Registry by having their 1975 Topps PSA-graded set somehow hitting fifty-five different player sets. To me, that just seems wrong.
My $.02 only.
Great Points. I hope that PSA will redesign the initial Set Registry page with 5 or 6 hyperlinks (at the top) that will take you to a different page or send you down to those particular sets. Also, you are right...collectors should keep in mind the "spirit of the registry" when listing their cards.
Skycap-
I agree with as well. I want to collect Pirate Team Sets in PSA 9...but with the huge set sizes of the 70's sets I have no plans on collecting the other 95% of the cards in the sets.
The simple answer would be to havehyperlinks on the initial page to send you to sepearate pages and fill those pages up with all of the team and player sets.
John
You may be right.
But I am certainly not concerned about increased competition for cards. This is a major investment for me and increased competion for cards implies more demand and thus higher prices(assuming psa actually picked up on this).
So if I chose to do so you would have no issue with me registering team sets for every year or for every set.
How about if I registered player sets for several hundred players.
Or how about if we create them by alphabet? Or for every card number that ends in zero--the possibilities are endless.
We could certainly create tens of thousands of new sets. Which I think is ridiculous.
Davalillo
I think a lot of this can be avoided by only letting each card be registered once. Then, you couldn't fill up all the various sets with the same cards (player, team, basic, master, etc.). For 1969, you would have to choose whether you were going for the basic or the master, and register there. They also need to work on the main page as there are just too many things there now.
Don't get rid of the small subsets (team, player, etc), because that's what the majority of collectors concentrate on.
Robert
Any high grade OPC Jim Palmer
High grade Redskins (pre 1980)
Man....I would hate to be the guy who needs to buy a 1952 Mantle to complete his Mantle set (as his other one is in his 1952 set).
John
Have one set, the master set.
Let the collectors enter their cards into the master set.
The screen that shows you the "current finest" should be modified to show several lists:
1) Basic set.
2) Master set.
3) Team sets.
4) Whatever else.
All of these are derived from everyone's master set entry. If you enter a full master set, you'll be 100% complete everywhere. If you enter just the basic set and leave some of the variations blank, you'll have a 100% complete basic set, a 90+% (probably) master set, and some team sets. If you enter just a bunch of team cards, you'll have a 100% complete team set, and a low% basic and master set, which probably shouldn't get displayed in those categories, since the percentage complete is so low.
You enter your set ONCE, and the system figures out what sub-sets you qualify for, and just DOES it for you. If any of the sub-sets change, no problem, it's just a way of looking at the master set data, so it's just a matter of changing what gets counted up and displayed. If new sub-sets are added, those are derived from the master set info, so everyone gets their numbers for those new sets totalled up automatically.
Once this is done, rather than arguing about what cards should be in what set, all you have to argue about is what gets displayed. If PSA implements this properly, it would be easy for them to make any changes that would be required, and nobody would have to make any changes to their registered sets.
Ideally, we could do away with all of this. Rather than entering data for sets, you just give PSA a list of certs, regardless of what set they are in, and their system would figure *everything* out for you, including HOF sets and other special stuff.
bruce
Website: http://www.brucemo.com
Email: brucemo@seanet.com
This is a classic case where redesigning the look will enhance the end product. The registry has just out grown the single list methodology.
chris
Saying this, of course PSA would not do this.
The main reason I have my sets on the registry is that is effective advertising for what cards I need. Dealers and collectors regularly contact me with cards I need after checking the registry. The second reason I do it is that if anyone wants to make a well above market offer for one(any one) of my cards I would listen.
<< <i>I would be curious to know which card can be registered in the most sets legitamately. >>
A 52 Mantle could be in the following:
1) 1952 Topps Basic
2) 1952 Topps Master (they don't have it split out into basic/master yet, but it could be)
3) Mantle Player set Basic
4) Mantle Player set Master
5) HOF Players
6) HOF Complete Set
7) HOF Yankees
8) 52 Yankees Team Set (not there now, but it could be there)
9) 51-present MVP's
Did I miss any??
Robert
Any high grade OPC Jim Palmer
High grade Redskins (pre 1980)
11) Top 200 Sportscards in the hobby
This was discussed several months ago, and I think at the time the Bird/Magic RC was in the most possible sets. I'll look those up nowish.
Joe
1) Top 200 sportscards in the hobby
2) 1980-81 Topps
3) Hall of Fame Players
4) Hall of Fame Rookies
5) Larry Bird Basic set
6) Larry Bird Master set
7) Julius Erving Basic set
8) Julius Erving Master set
9) Magic Johnson Basic set
10) Magic Johnson Master set
11) NBA Top 50 Rookies
12) All-Time Boston Celtics
13) All-Time Lakers Team
Joe
Springboarding from your list -- the issue is not with those individuals who are making serious, concerted efforts to complete/build all 13 sets that the Magic/Bird rookie falls under. The issue (in my mind) is more with those individuals who are only planning to complete/build one of those 13 sets -- yet still insist on populating all 13 sets in the interim period, simply because they can. Perhaps a lot of this goes back to the so-called "10% rule". You certainly don't want to discourage those building and adding to sets -- but you don't want to set 12 sets populated with one card simply because someone can....
<< <i>Bruce – I am with you in theory but I would also add that it should be up to the collector if they want to automatically populate the team, player or even master sets. Someone like Davalillo would not want to see team, player or basic sets but someone else would ONLY like to see the teams displayed.
This is a classic case where redesigning the look will enhance the end product. The registry has just out grown the single list methodology.
chris >>
This was part of my first post, but I didn't mention it this time. I agree with you.
<< <i>Springboarding from your list -- the issue is not with those individuals who are making serious, concerted efforts to complete/build all 13 sets that the Magic/Bird rookie falls under. The issue (in my mind) is more with those individuals who are only planning to complete/build one of those 13 sets -- yet still insist on populating all 13 sets in the interim period, simply because they can. Perhaps a lot of this goes back to the so-called "10% rule". You certainly don't want to discourage those building and adding to sets -- but you don't want to set 12 sets populated with one card simply because someone can.... >>
Simply set the thing up to not display sets that are less than 20% (pick your own number arbitrarily here) complete. This will remove the "ah, I'm on the list" reason to do it, and I assume that other reasons such as database space issues are not that serious.
The registry has grown in hodge-podge fashion. Maybe someone is thinking seriously about this, but if this is like most other software projects that start very small and then get popular, it's turned into a mess since the design has all been situational.
bruce
Website: http://www.brucemo.com
Email: brucemo@seanet.com
I don't mind much one way or the other, I was just posting that list because I thought it was interesting
The bottom line for me is, the registry should be available to any collecting vein, no matter how weird, but the sets should be organized better to reduce clutter.
Joe
In 1968, there were the Game Cards, and if memory serves me correct, these cards are listed on one of the Checklists (#278?).
In 1969, there were the Deckle Edge cards and the Rub-Ons.
In 1970, there were the story books.
In 1971 there were the metal coins. In fact there is a Checklist in the Baseball card set for the coins.
If these items came in the packs with the cards, and in some cases are mentioned on the Checklists, then shouldn't these be a part of the Master Set?
I've always gone the Basic route, but I may consider trying to expand to the Master set in a few cases. In some issues like T-206, there are some variations that are so rare, that there will be few collectors that will ever be able to complete them. I have no problem with PSA offering both Basic and Master for the same issue of cards. My only point to this message is what really is a true Master Set?
<< <i> think a lot of this can be avoided by only letting each card be registered once. Then, you couldn't fill up all the various sets with the same cards (player, team, basic, master, etc.).
Man....I would hate to be the guy who needs to buy a 1952 Mantle to complete his Mantle set (as his other one is in his 1952 set).
John >>
John,
I totally agree with you on this one. I collect '69-'75 Topps complete sets (both basic and master as of late). I also collect Rod Carew, Mike Schmidt, and Willie Stargell player sets (again, both basic and master). I actively pursue cards from all of these sets (some more than others at times). Why should I have to purchase/grade the same card 2 or 3 times in order to register it in all of the sets that I collect?
On the other hand, I do agree that registering a card in every set possible, just because you can, should not be allowed. My suggestion would be to not allow a card to be registered in a 2nd set (or 3rd, 4th, etc.) until that 2nd set (or 3rd, 4th, etc.) is 10% complete or has a minimum of 5 cards (these numbers could vary by set).
I have registered sets in the past with only 1 card. I have since deleted all of those sets that I do not intend to continue collecting for this very reason. Every set I have registered is now a set in progress that I will continue to update (some more frequently than others).
If we all follow this example, then there will be no problem. Unfortunately, that will never be the case. I believe PSA should systematically remove any set under 10% complete that has not been updated for 6 months (I think their current policy is 12 months?). Even if this happened to me on one of the sets that I really was collecting, it would not be that big of a deal to just re-register the set when I picked it up again.
JEB.
<< <i>Why should I have to purchase/grade the same card 2 or 3 times in order to register it in all of the sets that I collect? >>
Well, what if you were to sell one of the "sets" you collect? Wouldn't the card go with the single set you sold? So, I still think that you should only be able to register a card once. Of course it's easy for me to say this when my Palmer rookie is a $200 card, not a $20K Mantle.
Taking a different approach, going off of Brucemo's idea: 1) enter all the serial numbers from all the cards you own, 2) enter your search criteria (such as 1969 Topps Master set), 3) the system will automatically go through everyones cards, and build a 1969 Topps Master set for anyone with ANY 1969 Topps cards registered. Sure there will be lots with only a single card or two, however, it could not display anything under a certain criteria (< 5% complete for example). Using this method, you could (in theory) have a player set for all players, team sets for all teams for each year, etc. Of course there would be a lot of data entry to do (entering the team information for each card, etc.)
Robert
Any high grade OPC Jim Palmer
High grade Redskins (pre 1980)