Does PSA change weights??

mrc32

I think I know the answer to this question is NO, but I thought I would put this up for debate.

The set I am interested in is of course the one I am working on. There are many cards in the T-205 set that are very tough to come by. And if you do come by them they are often in very bad condition. So in other words some are drastically more available than others.

Just looking at the POP report you can see that some of the variations barely have 10 cards graded. For example the R. HOBLITZELL No stats card that recently went in the Mastro auction is (Link) for close to $7,000 for a PSA 3 that is weighted a 2. There are 10 of those graded. But there are several other cards in the set that have more copies graded (therefore easier to come by), have a much higher weight in the set. So in effect you could buy this Hobilzell for 7K and only bump your set rating up .02, but you could spend less money on say a PSA 7 Mathewson and make a huge jump of .15 (Link).

This does not make sense to me. What are the weights based off of? I think I have read on these boards that they are based off of SMR. Well shouldn't the weights be adjusted once SMR rises??

Also since PSA has been grading cards for years and years, shouldn't their population report now be used to get a general idea about the availability of cards, and then weight them appropriately?? There are lots of cards that are weighted a 1 that are very tough to come by, while many of the more common cards are also weighted a 1 or higher.

I know this applies to other sets as well. The 1954 Topps set(which I spent a long time building) has several "common" cards like the Buster Mills and Ben Wade weighted a 1. These are not as easy to come by. While some of the more "Common-commons" are weighted 1.25 or higher.

Maybe someone from PSA could address this as well.

Just my thoughts.

Michael

(I would also note that I am not a set rating chaser as I am collecting a lower grade set, but I do notice what each card does to my set rating when I enter it)

AlanAllen

Officially the set weights are based on SMR for a PSA 8. Joe Orlando approves all of the set weightings, and it's clear that he takes other factors into consideration. it can't hurt to shoot him an e-mail with your rationale.

Joe

mikeschmidt

Michael:

The basic answer is that if you have a strong and persuasive enough argument -- weights will eventually change. Also -- though SMR is reviewed regularly (and sometimes updated), grade weightings are much more static and change much less frequently. Often the changes in SMR are for sets as a whole -- and not so often with individual players. At any rate, if you write to BJ and Joe Orlando together, they will probably re-weight the Hoblitzell a bit. There have been a few of those that have transacted over the past 4-5 years -- enough to reweight the card at least somewhat appropriately. I do not think that Hoblitzell should reach the weight of Cobb or Mathewson (not all T-205 collectors put together the "master" set), but it should be more than what it is.

You do have a good point about the common cards from the 1950s. PSA, I think, is appropriately taking a cautious and conservative route on this matter. Perhaps too conservative for my tastes -- but that's a separate argument. You are right that every 1950s set has a significant number of very tough to find commons in PSA 8 or better grade. However, past practices have sometimes showed the danges of being too proactive in adjusting prices (and, thus, weights). The best examples all come from the 1952 Topps sets where there are a number of commons that many years ago reached well into the five figures for a PSA 8 common card, only to see time increase their population and decimate the "value" of the card by upwards of 50%. It is a slipperly slope -- but one that I believe PSA should be more proactive in addressing.

MS

FB

Adding on to what mikeschmidt says, I believe your best bet would be to start out getting consensus from a number of the top registry members of the set that you want to change weights on. This way it shows that its not only your opinion, but other respected and knowledgable members of the colllecting world as well. Secondly, do not make the weight change a ridiculous one. It will be easier to convince that a 2 weighted card should be a 5 rather than getting a card weighted 1 changed to an 8.

I was able to get a couple of 1972 OPC cards changed in weight when the set was first posted. Most changes were only 1 or 2 weighting points - nothing radical.

Just my 2 cents.

mrc32

I used the Holbitzell as an example, but there are several such cases with my set in particular. The Jiggs Donahue(not a variation) card is very rare but it has a weight the same or lower than some of the more readily available cards.

AlanAllen- How could a set like the T-205s be based off of SMR for a PSA 8?? There are only 148 PSA 8s and 10 PSA 8Q. That is out of 5500 cards graded?? 2.5% of the cards graded are PSA 8s. SMR on a PSA 8 is even more meaningless than a low pop 50s common card that goes for 10-15X SMR. In fact I can't remember ever seeing a PSA 8 come up for auction / sale.

I guess the real question is shouldn't the cards weight be based off of how hard it is to get a card for your set-- if it turns out that the weighting Joe did several years ago turns out to be not accurate due to the evidence deduced from the thousands of thousands of cards now graded by PSA (ie what is tougher to come by), then shouldn't the weights change?

Just more thoughts for the "smarts" on this board. Where is Jeb?? He is the man when it comes to set weights.....

Michael

PS- mikeschmidt: glad to see you still posting here. I was sad when you said you were leaving as I find you one of the most informed collectors on these boards.

theBobs

You may have more luck with variations.

At Nationals, Joe made it very clear regarding low pop commons -- PSA is adopting a wait and see approach. The concern being that what "appears" to be a low pop card due to scarcity may in fact be a low pop card due to lack of submissions. I believe this point was made in reference to the SMR but the logic holds true to weightings as well.

I would then assume that in order to change weightings based on the pop only, one will have alot of convincing to do...

Also, keep in mind a majority of the registry logic is in place for the large mainstream national sets. This makes sense, as there are so many folks building 1952 or 1965 Topps... For tobacco, caramel, or regional collectors, alot of this logic may not apply well to the sets they collect.

Skycap

PSA is excellent in many areas, but I believe that they should do away with the weighting system. Not only is it unnecessary, it is inconsistent.

The importance of a card in relation to its set is already accounted for in the price at which it sells, which is accurately or not-so-accurately reflected in the SMR. It is the actual auction and sales prices that determine the value of and demand for a card at any given moment in time and, in turn, how much it weighs against the rest of the set. If we already have price as a determinator, why try to make things needlessly more complex with the assignment of an arbitrary weighting as a second determinator?

And as for inconsistency, I've noticed that sometimes the same card will have two or three different weightings across two or three different sets (regular, team, player, etc.), yet other times they are aligned. Sometimes a card has a higher weighting in the regular set than the player or team set, and other times the opposite is true. Also, the scales are all over the place. Most are 1 to 10, but I've seen some that are 1 to 50.

What do others think?

Skycap

RayBShotz

MRC32 - Great question. A while back PSA expanded some sets to basic/master due to collectors need to build it as they saw fit.
The 69' Baseball set was one of these that got split up.

69' Baseball was among the first 20 or so sets in the registry and the weightings established for it at that time, were done without the type of group feedback that occurred later on with set weightings. Collectors of particular sets were canvassed for their input and PSA finalized those weightings soon afterward.
Many of the 69' cards of minor stars and some HOF'ers remain as weighted 1 in the current configuration and should be considered for reweighting. I wasn't planning to address this issue until after I completed my set but it seems to me that a second look may be in order for the weightings of some of the cards in this set down the road; or now if others feel the same. If any of the 69' collectors are out there listening I would be curious to hear your thoughts on this topic.

As for player weighting based on "hard to get in high grade" I would be against that. I believe the weightings have always been indicative of the quality of the player (HOF'er, star player, specialty card) and also scarceness based on high series (less cards in the runs) or SP's (cards short printed based on sheet configuration).

Just because a card is "tough to get in high grade" shouldnt effect its weight. It doesnt lessen the challenge of acquiring this card but that challenge should not be factored into weighting.

My 2 cents.
RayB69Topps

sixdart

PSA is excellent in many areas, but I believe that they should do away with the weighting system. Not only is it unnecessary, it is inconsistent.

The importance of a card in relation to its set is already accounted for in the price at which it sells, which is accurately or not-so-accurately reflected in the SMR. It is the actual auction and sales prices that determine the value of and demand for a card at any given moment in time and, in turn, how much it weighs against the rest of the set. If we already have price as a determinator, why try to make things needlessly more complex with the assignment of an arbitrary weighting as a second determinator?

- SKYCAP

If the SMR correctly reflected auction values on these cards, then the answer would be "yes". PSA could then just query their data to update all set "weight" values - very simple.

The SMR strongly indicates that the realized auction values on low population commons will not be reflected in the SMR pricing. Joe still has never responded to how he wants these values communicated to him ( quantity and format ). All of us can give examples until we're blue in the face. Until this is done, the set's "weight" values must indicate the difficulty of the card.

I have called BJ to correct a few "weight" values errors, and she did so promptly.

JeffVN

I've had several set weights changed. joe looks at your argument for doing so and either agrees or not. If he agrees with you, they change. If not, they don't. Give it a try. The worst that can happen is that they will stay the same as they are now.

sixdart

Was this done via phone or through a series of e-mails. If you could give the details it would be greatly appreciated.

For the sets you mentioned, did you involve the opinion of other PSA Set Registry members?

Thank you,

Marcus

AlanAllen

The one time I suggested changing weights, I got the concurrence of the #1 registrant in the set and e-mailed BJ. It was implemented probably two weeks later.

Joe

downgoesfrazier

skycap,
Sharp post. I totally agree with you. The weights for many sets are quite arbitrary and do not reflect the disireablility of -- or the difficulty in-- obtaining the card.

dgf

Vargha

My 2 cents (actually more with inflation) -- Most commons will remain equally weighted since your paradigm typically only applies in high grade. Also, don't sweat it. It's just a list. Quite frankly, I would rather have the most difficult cards rated as a "1" so as not to alert any more than already know the scarcity.

mrc32

<< <i>Also, don't sweat it. It's just a list. >>



This I know, and if I cared about being at the top of the list then I would be buying all the top grade cards. I don't as I am happy with my collection.

But if PSA is going to have this thing called the set registry (where people pay massive amounts to go up one grade), I just wanted to make sure that it is fair.

My 3 cents....

DaveRead

Interesting thread. I was always under the impression that the bigger the star, the higher the weighting, especially for rookie cards. Since SMR only values star cards and makes no mention of low pop common cards, the weighting as a whole makes pretty consistent sense. I see very few, if any, examples of 60's and 70's cards of any weighting related to scarcity. If scarcity begins to enter into the equation (and hence the corresponding true pricing), then the weighting would have to be redone from scratch. What should have a higher weighting: 1) a set that has 150 common 1/1 PSA 9's and another 200 low pop common 9's, but mainly PSA 8 star cards, or 2) a set that has all the stars as PSA 9's, and most all the commons as 8's?

Vargha

Again Dave, that's fine for high-grade. But what if I'm building a set in all PSA 6 and 7? The weighting of the low-pop. 9's then no longer applies.

DaveRead

Dave, I'm not advocating a weighting system based on the pop report. I think the weighting system in place now is fine. It applies equally to low grade and high grade. I do think it would be nice to have a way to reward sets that have a lot of high grade 1/1's. Stump and I discussed this issue the other day. Why spend $150-200 each on five 1/1 PSA 9's that have a weighting of 1, when you can spend a little more for a 1/25 HOF'er with a weighting of 5? I guess I still do it because I'm addicted to getting any 9's made available to me first, and whatever score the registry has is second. But I agree, not much bang to the buck unless you have unlimited resources.

NickM

I emailed BJ a while back about weights for the 1972 Topps FB set - I felt that some of the In Action cards were overweighted (including Staubach). SMR didn't come close to justifying the weights given to those cards (and they often sell for SMR or under). They did change the set weights shortly thereafter.
IMO, set weights should not be based on graded card sale prices, but rather on raw card prices as given by Beckett or SCD. This gives a decent historical perspective of the general desireability and importance of the card, regardless of condition.

Nick

Fuzz

I requested some changes by email a few months ago and they were implemented within a very short time. In this case, it was Topps cards where there are known SP's. Some of the years weighted the SP's higher than a normal common, some sets didn't. The argument was they should be the same and since they are priced seperate made an argument for a higher weight of the single print. It was accepted.
In that case it was a documented fact that would not change. Pop reports unfortunately don't meet that standard. The best approach seems to be to document as many sales as possible of the cards in question, and request it be a listed card in SMR. Once it is listed then an argument can be made to weight it differently. Just a suggestion.
Fuzz