More per Awards
jaxxr
Posts: 1,258 ✭✭
It was fun digesting the results and I am sure some fine sets were not mentioned. Almost any set complete or with a high average is quite an accomplishment. Full sets from pre-war....wow!!, averages well over 8 for early Topps and Bowman....amazing !!
While I am sure I overlooked some great sets, mere quantity alone makes it hard to assimilate, I feel there are 3 sets from post WW2 baseball that are worthy of extra special notation, in date order;
M Fogel, Mickey Mantle player set. The Mick is probably the most sought after guy in the whole world of sportscard collecting. To have the top set and have FOUR gem mint 10s, just fantastic.
R Ritt, 1968 set. Nearly 600 cards and the top vintage ( pre-1981 ) average of any complete major set. 9.30 ??? can't be real.
F Smith, 1975 set, The most popular and thereby most competitive set on the registry. To be number one AND to lead the next by almost .40 points is truly distinguished.
Sincere Congrats to these fellows, all winners, all participants, and to PSA as well. Great concept for a great hobby !!!
While I am sure I overlooked some great sets, mere quantity alone makes it hard to assimilate, I feel there are 3 sets from post WW2 baseball that are worthy of extra special notation, in date order;
M Fogel, Mickey Mantle player set. The Mick is probably the most sought after guy in the whole world of sportscard collecting. To have the top set and have FOUR gem mint 10s, just fantastic.
R Ritt, 1968 set. Nearly 600 cards and the top vintage ( pre-1981 ) average of any complete major set. 9.30 ??? can't be real.
F Smith, 1975 set, The most popular and thereby most competitive set on the registry. To be number one AND to lead the next by almost .40 points is truly distinguished.
Sincere Congrats to these fellows, all winners, all participants, and to PSA as well. Great concept for a great hobby !!!
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
0
Comments
<< <i>that '68 set is amazing. when you look at e-bay there are only 213 psa 9's currently listed and only 27 psa 10's are on the block this week. >>
For argument's sake, let's assume this is the general selection of 9s and 10s on ebay week after week - about 11% PSA 10s and 89% PSA 9s.
Now let's assume a grade weight of 1 for each card (I know this isn't the case, but I would bet that a higher % of 10s have lower weights than the 9s).
If you did end up winning every single auction, your nice start on a '68 set would net you a GPA of 9.11 with 358 cards to go (again assuming that all 240 cards are different).
A GPA of 9.30 for a complete set, no matter what it is, is still amazing!
JEB.
Always looking for 1957 Topps BB in PSA 9!
And only 12,633 psa 9s and 983 psa 10s graded so far? Several commons are up over 100 psa 9 examples...
Howlong did it take Dave Jacobs to get to a 9.0 in this set-- a month?
I am sure the 10s are difficult and everybody is entitled to his opinion but does anyone really think this and a 1975 set are more impressive than Charlie's 1952 Topps set or Branca's 1951 Bowman set or for that matter a host of sets from 1950s. Even in 1960s Rob's 1961 set rating of 8.77 I think I would rank higher.
All sets are impressive and not demeaning more modern sets but just my opinion.
Jim
I think we are on the same page again. Ron's accomplishment is not at issue, and I'll bet he had a lot of pop 1's over they years that are now "very popular".
I had an interesting discussion about sets last night with another collector who also won a few awards for sets that we don't consider particularily difficult or noteworthy at this point. We concluded that a fair analysis of "world-class" sets should not be based on cost or grade averages. Look at a set and ask yourself if it could realistically be put together again in that grade, money and time notwithstanding. I am amazed at how many sets I put in that group, and often it is more than one set in a particular issue (take the Louchois and Merkle 1933 Delong sets for example even though they are in the lowly 7.85 range). You of all collectors probably realize this based on your widespread participation.
But then again......you never know what Mastro has lurking around the corner for us
and that's the fun part.
I agree that there are a lot of sets out there that if the current owner just sits there with it and makes no additions would still be number one in three or four years. I would not say that about Ron's 1968 set.
there is at least one set much nicer and the Unitas(high end) and Brown (low end) are still 7's.
now as for those '71 Greatest Moments ........come and get us
Oh yeah,
what was the "most improved" Davalillo entry ??
It would have been interesting to hear what some of the nominees and runner-ups were
in the various categories, especially most improved sets.
Your opinions and perceptions are part of what makes this hobby so enjoyable. If we all thought exactly the same, not much fun.
Probably all agree any award winning set is impressive. In general the older the set, the more difficulty involved, however the comparison of grade average, completion percent, overall size must be factored in. And remember older sets may have had a 20+ year head start in collecting.
I still feel that competition must be considered in part to really merit extra credit, along with the size of a set .....the 33 Goudey set has 240 cards and 19 collectors with a set rate of 1 or better, the T-206 set has about 520 cards while 10 collect it with a set rate of 1 or better, the 51 Bowman has 324 cards and 12 active collectors. Even the mighty 52 Topps classic 407 ( which has several outstanding groups ) has less activity than the 1968 or 1975 set
A 9.30 average for a 1999 Topps set would be impressive, but for 1968, a 598 card major issue, with 37 collectors having a set rate of 1 or better, the rivals , the size, and the fact that it is the highest grade average of ANY major vintage ( pre-1981 ) set make it quite noteworthy, to me at least.
The 1975 set is based more on popularity being the most collected ( actively and passive ) set on the registry, although 660 cards is quite large, the amount of collectors, the almost reasonable cost, combined with such a wide margin ( almost .40 ) over the number two complete set makes this one a stunner.
I truly admire many older sets, and do collect 52 Bowman, 56 Topps and 57 Topps FB, however I feel that being older and more expensive does not make them automatically more attractive or desirable, somewhat like women ??
I think 1971 TGM is a conspiracy. Even now that I have 6 psa 8s--2 of them will not register and whoever had them before me says he still has them and psa will not let me put them in my set.
Jaxxr,
Exactly--great when people have different opinions. 1975 is popular probably because it is a readily doable set in psa 8 or better, is affordable for the majority of collectors and could represent a set that many remember from their boyhood--similar thoughts about 1968.
However, cards from the 1950s and before are legitimately scarce in 8 or better and I feel it is orders of magnitude harder to put the older vintage sets together. The top sets in many of these years will probably never be challenged unless they are broken up.
This may be heresy but I feel(no offense to Stump) that a 7.0 set from 1952 Topps is more impressive than a 9.0 set from 1968.
Good luck with your sets.
Jim
I've had cards that wouldn't register before because they were still in someone else's set or because of mechanical error, but upon faxing a Xerox of the card I could put the card in my set. After doing this on your '71 GM's you still can't register them? What is PSA's argement for not letting you register a card you own?
Anthony
Always looking for Topps Salesman Samples, pre '51 unopened packs, E90-2, E91a, N690 Kalamazoo Bats, and T204 Square Frame Ramly's
pm me those cert numbers so i can double check my set, but i think i know where yours came from, so i would be really surprised.
I don't mean to beat the subject to death or offend any collector, but truly am interested in your ( or anyones' ) views on set importance/accomplishment.
You feel a 7.00 52 Topps set is more "impressive" than a 9.00 1968 one. While I don't really agree, I can understand many observations and views comparable to yours. Please allow me to ask your thoughts on several continuations of this type senario.
What grade would a complete 52 Topps set have to be, to be comparable to a complete 9.00 1968 set ?
How about the actual 9.30 1968 set realative to a 7.00 1952 set ?
What would the 160 card 1953 Bowman set at 7.00 compare to a 598 size 1968 ? or 660 size 1975 ?
Would the larger 494 size 1958 Topps at 7.00, maybe 7.50, be more impressive than a 7.00 52 set ?
Should smaller sets like 1948 Bowman, 1938 Goudey, 1911 Mecca be higher grade to compare to a 7.00 1952 set ?
I am cognizant there are no absolutely "correct" answers to these or many such topics, It would be quite interesting to hear your feelings, as I am aware of your vast collections and corresponding experience.
.
The cards that someone else insists he has that I am looking at now are 39 Petrocelli 30113765 and Apericio 05376728.
Any help is appreciated.
Anthony,
I could fax them--its a matter of principal.
What started my disagreements with Joe Orlando is that I believe that for certain long-term customers that they trust, you should not have to do this. It should be enough that I say I am looking at it and I have it. First time you are proven to be lieing, you lose this privledge. I have a handful of other cards that won't register for one reason or another and as a silent protest I am not sending in copies.
On another topic, in my coming batch of cards I am sending in to PSA is most of the Callahan set. While I probably will not get up to your rating, at least for the time being I should pass Marshall--not many sets I am ahead of him in.
Jaxxr,
My opinions(and thats all they are):
1)A 1952 Topps complete set with a set rating of 6-6.25 would be about as impressive as a 1968 topps set at 9.0
2)Tougher to say but I would say 1968 Topps 9.30 is as impressive to me as 7.50-7.75 in 1952 Topps
3)Do not believe number of cards should be an important consideration. For example, to take things to an extreme, 1 1933 Delong, 1954 Wilson or a 1971 Topps Greatest Moments set in 8 would be more impressive to me than 1968 Topps in 9.0
4)No--1952 Topps at 7.00 more imporessive than 1958 Topps at 7.50. 1952 Topps is king of the post-war sets.
5)1948 Bowman is hard now because so many of the cards are locked up....but 1952 Topps more impressive at similar grades.
1938 Goudey very tough--may be tougher and more impressive to assemble 1938 Goudey above 8.0.
Do not collect Mecca--have just one card--but I would venture it is probably tougher--don'tknow though.
Jim
Davalillo, Why do you think you are any different that the Fogels, Merkels, Brancas etc? They all have to send in scans or faxed copies of cards that don't come up on the registery for what ever reason. I feel for Joe Orlando having to deal with arrogant collectors as yourself.
Lewis
Thats the trouble with this board--you give opinions--you get called arrogant. Fogel, Merkel, Branca, Louchios should get this privledge as well. I did not say I should be the only one to get it. What I am saying is there should be a group of long-term loyal psa customers whose word is taken as their bond.If they are proven to lie then they will no longer be in the group. Maybe you should be in too.
Jim
neither cert # is accidentally in my set.
and a (the) '71 GM set in 8.0 or Wilson's in 8.0 vs. a '68 set in 9.0 .......
You can get started with a Ted Williams psa 8 for Christmas from Uncle Bill
Davalillo, In regards to having to send in a scan or fax, I agree that this is a pain. However, this only happens when the person with it registered says that they have the card. Since you have the card, you know that they are either willfully lying or just mistaken, but how would PSA know that. The other person may also be a loyal customer, so they can't choose sides and tell them that they are incorrect any more than they can do the same thing to you. The answer should be that if someones abuses the system by saying that they have a card when they don't, there should be consequences. Perhaps the first time they get a warning, but the second time, they may have their listing priveleges suspended.
I think you are overlooking some other possibilities.
When it is two long term-customers I agree completely with you but if it is some yahoo, I think PSA ought to take the word of its long-term quality customers. Start with 50--I could even give them the list.
Also, my cards will not register at times because the card is not on their data base. I should be able to give them the number and they can register it.
Lastly, I have two cards now-- a 55 Bowman Burdette and a 54 Dan Dee Rizzuto-- that are 8s but the system shows a 7. Several people have seen these cards and would vouch for me. But PSA will not accept my word that they are really 8s. I think they should.
Agree completely with your comments on the older sets.
Jim
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
I have encountered every problem you have mentioned and more when trying to register cards in my sets. A quick email to BJ has solved the problem every time. I had to send a scan once when another collector said they had the card, but other than that, the problem was taken care of quickly, sometimes within minutes, and I was able to register the card.
I just don't see what the big deal is.
JEB.
Problem is I cannot send scans. Of course BJ can work out many problems but the three I cited earlier cannot be worked out unless I sent a scan or made a copy.
Jim
Do you not own a scanner or digital camera? How can you expect any sympathy when you spend 100s of thousands of dollars on baseball cards but you can't go out and buy a $39 scanner? And then it's PSA's fault because they don't take your word for it? If you really don't want to buy a scanner or digital camera, I'm sure you have access to a copier. Suck it up and copy the card.
I just don't get your frustrations with PSA. These complaints you have are so minor and are easily fixed, but you tend to blow everything out of proportion, in public on their forum, no less.
JEB.
I am not making a big deal of it--I am answerinng a question...and the last thing I am asking for is sympathy.
You are the one making a big deal of it.
Duscuss the topic if you have anything to add.
I have deleted cards from my sets before when I've sold them, only to get an email saying it was still registered in my collection and someone else was trying to add it to theirs. Turned out I had neglected to delete the card from some player/team set. I wish there was a way to delete a card from all of my sets in one click. This would certainly save PSA a lot of time tracking things down, and make it a lot less frustrating for the new owner and less embarassing for the old one.
Best of luck with the Callahans. I bought a set from Lipset a few years back and had a couple graded (I think the Wright Brothers as it was either that or an Old Judge or CDV I couldn't afford) for my HOF set. But I found the set so totally unappealing graphically that I never went thru and figured out what variations I needed to truly finish it. Do you or anyone else know how tough some of these variations are?
Anthony
Always looking for Topps Salesman Samples, pre '51 unopened packs, E90-2, E91a, N690 Kalamazoo Bats, and T204 Square Frame Ramly's
<< <i>Museum of Sports History's 2001 SP Legendary Cuts set should be entered into the HOF. This is a master set, with autographs and game-used cards included, and is 98.69% complete, including 1 of the 2 1/1 autographs and 1 of the 2 1/2 autographs. Unfortunately, it has been closed to public display (maybe because he was being driven up on the scarcest autographs, many of which are numbered to 10 or less). >>
I totally agree....to complete that set with those grades is freaking amazing.
Personally, Jim is a stand-up guy, and he has invested a lot of time and money into the hobby. The bottom line is that in every industry and every service, best customers are afforded more leeway than others -- justifiably so. As PSA customers, we all want PSA to treat us fairly and equitably. However, those loyalists that have been on board for 5-10 years, and have promoted the hobby should be afforded some additional leeway and consideration. I often question why people do not understand this concept. I grew up in a grocery store business that my family operated for over 70 years. I grew up in that supermarket, and got to know generations of customers in my 15 years working there. I can relate numerous stories where our customers made mistakes , but we bent over backwards to provide that superior level of service that helped keep them happy customers. From a long-term ROI perspective, this was always the best investment we could make. You had to advertise extensively to get new customers -- however, it is often small token that allow you to retain your most loyal customers. (the absence of which may drive them away....)
Jeb, administratively, you have some points. I have numerous times been in contact with BJ, Gayle and others in improving many aspects of PSA -- and updating their databases to reflect more accurate information. However, these efforts are often very time-intensive for me, yielding little personal returns. I tend to think I am still part of the "younger" generation who has grown up with computers and technology. Though I know many younger and older people who are much more astute technological whizzes than I, the bottom line is that if PSA wants to continue a strong growth curve, they should have an accommodating and welcoming interface to bring in new customers and facilitate their long-term health. Whatever they do is their own perogative -- but certain actions are customer-friendly, customer-indifferent or customer-hostile. I tend to view PSA overall as customer-indifferent. Though they are often friendly to me -- I realize that I invest a lot of time to get that feedback.
Perhaps Ted Williams isn't the best example -- but Mickey Mantle is a good one. I know two or three collectors who love Mantle and have since the day I was born. These collectors own everything Mantle -- including rare cards like all his Venezuela and O-Pee-Chee cards (but perhaps not the 1961 Dice Game.....). Those cards are generally not available in top grade -- and there is no reason to think that they might be anytime soon. But to me, that shows more passion about a player rather than a straight 8/9/10 collector.
MS
good point. I once asked Marshall if he wanted me to track down some Mantle Stahl-Meyers for his run, he said sure,......If they are 8's, otherwise I'm not interested.
Not to bash this approach, but obviuosly it is not mine.
some of my bestest mostest cards have creases or other flaws.
does this make me more passionate or true ? NO !
to each his own. thank God or we'd all collect the same stuff.
Very good point. Marshall is as passionate as they come. I guess I've just always had a penchant for the oddball and regional cards -- condition regardless!
Regarding Museum of Sports History: All of his sets are hidden. If I'm not mistaken, he won the most football certificates this year, and maybe the most overall. He has a significant accumulation of modern stuff.
Joe
You brought up another gripe of mine. Though I respect every collector's right to hide their sets (I certainly understand why it is done in many instances -- and I would do it myself were I accumulating a large set, needing a few more upgrades....), I personally think that down the road people should not be eligible for awards unless everyone can see what's in it. Just a personal thought -- it's great to register, I think that sets should still allow to be hidden -- but don't let others vote on your set's strengths or weaknesses when they can see your set and we cannot....
MS
Marc-
This brings up an interesting point. From my understanding the awards are chosen by PSA- but they aren't collectors. It would be interesting to see how the awards would play out if the participants themselves were chosing the winners.
Always looking for Topps Salesman Samples, pre '51 unopened packs, E90-2, E91a, N690 Kalamazoo Bats, and T204 Square Frame Ramly's
And honestly probably wouldn't have won it if I hadnt. I was leading that set for most of 2003 only to be surpassed in August/September while I was deployed (Army). My main competition seems to have an unlimited bank account, which I don't have. So the last few cards I bought leading up to 31 Oct, I just waited to add them all at once a few days before the deadline. My belief is, if I HAD added them right away, he could have and would have continued to purchase enough cards to beat me...
Once he got a commanding lead, he rested. I'm sure he didnt imagine that I could bump a full 1.00 in a few days, but thats what I did.
I don't see it as being unfair at all. I see someone spending 2X-3X SMR just to outbid me on every card I need as more unfair..lolol..
Bottom line is, whoever has the best cards on the last day wins. If I could afford to spend 5k a month I probably would, but since I can't compete on those terms, I have to adapt and overcome. I think the 5 years I have put into the set is reason enough for me to have sniped it.
JasP24
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I couldn't care less about the certificates, although I have to admit the plaque for 2002 Best Regional Set was nice. I got beat out this year by the 1954 Wilson Franks set, but thats ok because that set is awesome.
Out of 208 different cards in the four 1952-1955 Red Man sets, I currently have 15 PSA 9, 160 PSA 8, 30 PSA 7, 2 PSA 6 and 1 PSA 5. So I still have lots of work to do. If anyone has any low population Red Man to sell, let me know. Of course all Red man are low pop, but you all know what I mean.
I agree. I could care less about the certificates and if my set ranks better than someone elses on any given day. I am striving against my own goals in terms of complete sets in psa 8 (or occasionally psa 9) or better.
Jim
Regardless of the certificates, it's still fun to participate.
As far as the 1971 Topps greatest Moments cards that you have. I am researching it right now. One of the cards that you mentioned says that it is in my set and the other is registered under Scott Webbs' collection. I will delete these two cards once I have time to research this. Sorry for the inconvience.
P.S Did you get your Mantle/Boyer yet?
1954
Wow, what a pleasant surprise--and here I thought Dave was trying to keep me down in the set registry(kidding).
I did get the Mantle and Boyer and will send you a check on 1/1/04.
Many thanks,
Jim
You are doing a fine job of keeping yourself down on that set.
better stop reading that SMR
Funny! And true!
I would make a comment about SMR but now that I am the kinder and gentler Davalillo I won't as it will probably offend someone.
Jim
1968 sets at or above 9.0 (and 50%)--2
1952T sets @ 7.0 (and 50%)--at least 5 or 6 if I recall.
Used to working on HOF SS Baseballs--Now just '67 Sox Stickers and anything Boston related.
Used to working on HOF SS Baseballs--Now just '67 Sox Stickers and anything Boston related.