Recommendations for the NFL HF RC set - class of '04

AlanAllen · January 31, 2004 3:45AM

Carl Eller 1965 Philadelphia #105 SMR $50 Weight 1
Bob Brown 1966 Philadelphia #134 SMR $20 Weight 1
John Elway 1984 Topps #63 SMR $45 Weight 1
Barry Sanders 1989 Score #257 SMR $15 Weight 1

Joe

Basilone · January 31, 2004 3:57AM

Bob Brown = borderline selection (is that the best they can offer)

shouldabeena10 · January 31, 2004 4:01AM

Hey Joe,

If the "fridge" ever makes it in.... what would his weight be?

AlanAllen · January 31, 2004 4:12AM

John,
That's a different discussion, but no, I don't personally think Brown deserved to get selected. Art Monk and Ray Guy are way overdue.

Joe

JasP24 · January 31, 2004 4:48AM

I'd take Harry Carson and Bob Kuechenberg too before Brown. Brown did have quite a few Pro Bowls and was a an All-NFL Tackle for quite a few years...BUT, why wasn't this guy a finalist before?Ever?At least Eller was a finalist like 10 times before...

The cards listed are the correct cards for each player...

Just an FYI..
Final 6 were: Elway, Barry, Eller, Brown, Bob Hayes and Rayfield Wright. That means Hayes and Wright will automatically be finalists next year.
First Cut from 15 to 10 were: The 6 listed above plus, Harry Carson, Richard Dent, Cliff Harris, and Bob Kuechenberg.

I think Monk is hurt by the fact that he only made 3 Pro Bowls and was really only a DOMINANT player for one season..But retiring as the All-Time reception leader should count for something...

Jason

sixdart · January 31, 2004 9:46AM

Question ... should there be a modern cut-off year where PSA 9 is the standard for a card's registry set weight? Maybe 1980? I think that we all plan to collect PSA 9 RCs for that year and beyond, if not some PSA 10s.

Eller maybe played too long - wasn't his career over 20 years? I thought Carson would have made it for sure.

GoSoxBoSox · January 31, 2004 10:12AM

<< <i>Carl Eller 1965 Philadelphia #105 SMR $50 Weight 1
Bob Brown 1966 Philadelphia #134 SMR $20 Weight 1
John Elway 1984 Topps #63 SMR $45 Weight 1
Barry Sanders 1989 Score #257 SMR $15 Weight 1

Joe >>

No doubt Joe. I guess I need to buy a Brown

purelyPSA · January 31, 2004 4:59PM

JasP - Brown has been a finalist before, just not recently.

wolfbear · January 31, 2004 6:24PM

Bob Brown, for those of you that don't know,
deserves to be in the hall, and is long overdue for selection.

Believe it or not, one doesn't have to actually touch the football to have a huge impact on each play.
Bob stood head and and sholders above all other offensive linemen not yet in the Hall,
other than poor Jim Tyrer, who is an ALL-TIME GREAT, but alas, played mostly in the AFL.

Hopefully Jim Tyrer, like Bob Brown, also will soon be recognized as one of the greats of the game.

purelyPSA · February 1, 2004 5:18AM

Tyrer could be held back because of the circumstances surrounding his death. It's possible.

estang · February 1, 2004 5:53AM

I've found the registry weighting at both PSA and SGC to be flawed. I think they need to put a bit more work into weighting the cards on a set. I've elaborated at this in great length, but there's just not enough effort put into it.

I also want to point out that I'm very pleased that Carl Eller was elected and is well deserving. I'm disappointed Jim Marshall didn't get in, but I don't believe he was as good as Eller and may still have a chance in the senior committe. He had longetivity on his side, but he wasn't dominating. Just 2 Pro Bowl selections during a very deep list of NFC HOFers playing at the same time (Eller, Page, Deacon, Merlin Olsen, Youngblood, Randy White, Willie Davis and Bob Lilly).

I also want to point out that the gentleman who deserves to get in but wasn't even a finalist is L.C. Greenwood. He played from 1969 to 1981 and was a SIX time pro-bowl player and WON 4 SUPER BOWLS. However, he had only 73.5 career sacks.

Do people even realize that this is 7.5 more than Joe Greene had with a mere 66!

Jim Marshall had 127!!! Carl Eller had report of between 130 to 138!!!

I can never understand why they don't legitamize and verify the sacks as far back as they have either radio or game tapes.

AlanAllen · February 1, 2004 6:10AM

What's wrong with the weighting in this set? About a year ago, we ranked the cards my SMR value for an 8 (per PSA's direction), and put them in half-point buckets based on that. Any cards worth $50 or less in 8 ended up being weighted 1.

Joe

AlanAllen · February 25, 2004 9:29AM

Again PSA screwed it up. They ignored Carl Eller for some reason, and ignored their own weighting system by weighting Elway and Sanders at 2. I'll try to write a nice e-mail asking about it when I cool down.

Joe

helionaut · February 25, 2004 10:47AM

Should a 1965 card be weighted the same as a 1989 Score card? Even with the relative magnitude of the players and the small price difference, I'd think condition scarcity should count for something. If you look at something like CGC's Comics registry, I think they have the right approach. They have a sliding scale for condition, so that a 10 is worth about 5 to 15 times as much as a 9.4 on older books. Et voila.

Obviously, this adds a new layer of complication, and going back and retro-fitting the hundreds of registry sets would be a chore, but I think it is well-deserved. And I think PSA/DNA auto'd cards should get bonus points, too.

GoSoxBoSox · February 25, 2004 11:16AM

Guys,

This may be partially my fault. Monday I sent Cosetta an e-mail asking her if anyone asked to have Brown, Sanders, and Elway to the HOF set because they were sitting in front of me on my desk. I forgot about Eller because I sent his rookie card into PSA for grading.

Cosetta e-mailed me back asking which card should be in the sets and I gave her the three rookies cards for these guys. She never asked about weights and I never made any recommendations. If she did I would say 1's for all of them.

That's the story. Sorry if it caused any issues.

Tom

shouldabeena10 · February 25, 2004 11:38AM

Hey Tom,

Why don't you call the Hall of Fame and see if they have Art Monk's plaque ready yet....

hey, if it's that easy to get someone in or out, maybe it would work in Canton too?

Mike

GoSoxBoSox · February 25, 2004 11:57AM

<< <i>Hey Tom,

Why don't you call the Hall of Fame and see if they have Art Monk's plaque ready yet....

hey, if it's that easy to get someone in or out, maybe it would work in Canton too?

Mike >>

Mike,

That is about as ignorant a comment as I've heard. You're gonna give me crap because I asked her a simple question? It's certainly not my fault she asked my opinion and that she decided to act on that opinion.

And your Monk comment makes no sense. Those guys have actually been voted into the Hall. Monk has not. And if I'm not mistaken the cards I gave her in my opinion are the exact same cards that were chosen in the thread as you can see above. I never gave opinions on weights.

Get your head outta you a--

edit: typo

AlanAllen · February 25, 2004 12:19PM

Tom,
That makes sense, and obviously this isn't your fault. Maybe your should be the one to e-mail Cosetta. Let's don't forget to remind them of their own weighting policy either

.

Joe

GoSoxBoSox · February 25, 2004 12:23PM

<< <i>Tom,
That makes sense, and obviously this isn't your fault. Maybe your should be the one to e-mail Cosetta. Let's don't forget to remind them of their own weighting policy either

.

Joe >>

Thanks Joe.

I'd be happy to e-mail Cosetta to add Eller as well. I believe everyone is happy with the four choices as mentioned in the thread. The Eller is the '65 Philly card, correct?

What is the weight issue so that i make sure I'm clear. I know the HOF set should all be 1's. What should it be for the rookie set for each of the four cards? I assume it should match the weight for the sets they belong to?

I believe this is what you want for both set. Let me know.

Carl Eller 1965 Philadelphia #105 SMR $50 Weight 1
Bob Brown 1966 Philadelphia #134 SMR $20 Weight 1
John Elway 1984 Topps #63 SMR $45 Weight 1
Barry Sanders 1989 Score #257 SMR $15 Weight 1

Tom

AlanAllen · February 25, 2004 12:31PM

Yeah Tom, those weightings were meant for the HOF RC set. All of the weightings were set based on SMR for a PSA 8 (as prescribed by PSA), and it turned out that every card valued <= $50 was weighted 1 when the set was uploaded. All of the class of 2004 is valued <= $50 in PSA 8.

Joe

GoSoxBoSox · February 25, 2004 12:36PM

Got it. E-mail sent.

I suspect it'll take a few days to clear this up. I'll keep you posted.

JasP24 · February 25, 2004 8:52PM

Joe is 100% correct. I actually thought Joe had already sent those cards to be added along to PSA otherwise i would have. The weighting should be 1 on each of those cards as well.

I was wondering what was taking them so long. Last year i sent the new additions to them, and the players were added in about a week..This time it took a month. I'll be sure to send that e-mail next year for this set.(My baby)..lol

Jason

GoSoxBoSox · February 25, 2004 9:51PM

<< <i>Joe is 100% correct. I actually thought Joe had already sent those cards to be added along to PSA otherwise i would have. The weighting should be 1 on each of those cards as well.

I was wondering what was taking them so long. Last year i sent the new additions to them, and the players were added in about a week..This time it took a month. I'll be sure to send that e-mail next year for this set.(My baby)..lol

Jason >>

I agree Jason. After a month of waiting I figured nobody asked or it slipped through the cracks. That's what prompted me to ask Cosetta in the first place.

AlanAllen · February 26, 2004 12:29AM

I dropped the ball on that one. I was halfway through the e-mail when I got distracted, and later remembered writing it, so it never got sent

.

Joe

GoSoxBoSox · February 26, 2004 6:55AM

Cosetta is adding Page to the sets and forwarded my e-mail to Joe to approve the weights of 1 for each of the four cards.

shouldabeena10 · February 26, 2004 9:13AM

Wow, I come back over to see what the HOF thread is doing and I see I've been all lit up.

GoBox.....

The comment was meant to be a joke....

...... as a way to sneak Art Monk INTO the Hall of Fame. (by calling the secretary at the HOF and asking if his plaque was ready.... maybe she would type his name in the computer and accidentally get him inshrined).

Geez..... guess I better start using the cheezy winks every time I make a joke.

Mike

GoSoxBoSox · February 26, 2004 9:40AM

I'm sorry Mike. I'm a little touchy these days. I've been getting a great deal of hate mail lately from these boards.

I should've given a little thought about how that kinda comment would be out of character for you.

My apologies.

shouldabeena10 · February 26, 2004 12:00PM

GoSox,

No problem, I'm just glad I checked back on the thread to catch it....

..... now if I could just get my head outta my A$$

Mike

(new mandatory wink rule used)

GoSoxBoSox · February 27, 2004 9:16AM

AlanAllan and others who care. I sent Cosetta the info as requested. These are the two e-mail's I received tonight on the topic of weights for the Rookie HOF set.

e-mail #1
-----Original Message-----
From: "Cosetta Robbins" <CRobbins@collectors.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 11:46:20
To:"tompapa" <tompapa@tmo.blackberry.net>
Subject: RE: Set Registry

Hi Tom,

The online pop report will be updated next week to show Bill Durnan and Jack Stewart under 1951 Berk Ross Hockey.

I have added Carl Eller to both of the football HOF sets. In the rookie HOF set Carl Eller was assigned a weight of 2. The regular HOF set is not weighted. If you would like to provide suggested weights for the set, please send me the list and I will forward it to Joe for approval.

Thank You,
Cosetta

e-mail #2
-----Original Message-----
From: "Cosetta Robbins" <CRobbins@collectors.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 12:36:16
To:"tompapa" <tompapa@tmo.blackberry.net>
Subject: RE: Set Registry

Hi Tom,

Joe is the one who weighted the Rookie set. He has informed me that there is no rule that cards worth under $50 in PSA 8 are weighted 1. The cards should be weighted proportionately to other cards in the set.
Just so I am clear are you saying that all of the cards in the HOF football (not the rookie set) should have a weight of 1 ?

Thank You,
Cosetta

END E-MAILS

So....apparently the rule you mentioned to me is not considered a rule at all by Joe. I'm not sure who's mixed up on this one but the weights will stay as is for Brown, Sanders, and Elway. Eleer will be added as a 2.

AlanAllen · February 27, 2004 9:20AM

That's the point, proximate to other cards in the set, they should all be weighted 1. Steve Largent is $50 in PSA 8, and he is weighted 1. How can anyone justify weighting Barry Sanders as 2 when he is $15 in PSA 8? Assuming of course that we follow PSA's own guidelines for weighting, which apparently their own president does not. I call bull****.

Joe

GoSoxBoSox · February 27, 2004 9:28AM

Maybe you should call Joe this time. I wasn't around during the creation of the rule so I can't give him specific issues that were brought up.

AlanAllen · February 27, 2004 9:29AM

I will do just that. Thanks Tom,
Joe

sixdart · February 27, 2004 10:21AM

Again ...

Question ... should there be a modern cut-off year where PSA 9 is the standard for a card's registry set weight? Maybe 1980? I think that we all plan to collect PSA 9 RCs for that year and beyond, if not some PSA 10s.

... are we going to be looking PSA 8 values on cards from the form the '90s and '00s. A modern card with 4,000 PSA 9s is not going to be as tough a a '60s PSA 8 - is it? I just feel this line will need to be crossed someday.

AlanAllen · February 27, 2004 10:25AM

I agree sixdart. But until PSA changes their published criteria, that's all we have to go off of.

Joe

sixdart · February 28, 2004 3:24AM

How do some of the baseball collectors feel about this?

GoSoxBoSox · February 28, 2004 4:19AM

To be honest I don't put much stock into the weights or competing against other collectors. I understand their purpose but the way I see it the weight of a particular card is the same for everyone so it probably isn't all that important for me to waste time thinking about it. Besides...in this forum the weights are just one mans view of a cards attainability and it's a battle that can't be won. Somebody will always disagree.

Just one man's view.

JasP24 · February 28, 2004 8:15AM

As it relates to the NFL HOF RC set, the initial set weighting was made using the SMR of all cards in PSA 8. Not a different weight for each $50 exactly, but each card worth $50 had the same weight, and each card worth $300 had the same weight. If PSA is going to make the Barry Sanders RC equal to a Joe Montana RC, then it pretty much makes the weighting meaningless. In my opinion, weighting the set is necessary in order to compare one set to the next. Like it or not, that what the Set Registry does. Without the weights a Joe Namath 8 ($3,500+) is equal to a Mike Munchack 8 ($6)...Wont give a very good comparison of which set is stronger...

PSA needs to correct this, and i think they probably will. I will e-mail Cosetta and hopefully clarify this with her, and with Joe if that is who came up with the new weights. Consistency is the most important thing to me.

Jason

JasP24 · February 28, 2004 8:33AM

Here is the quote from the PSA Set Registry "RULES"...I would think PSA would follow their own rules since that is the playing field in which all who take part...

"Set rankings are determined by the grades of the cards in the set, the "weight" assigned to each card in the set, and the set's completeness. Each card within the set is assigned a Card Rating based on the value of the card in NM-MT condition. For example, a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle would have a much stronger rating than a 1952 Topps common and, therefore, be given more weight in evaluating the set as a whole. Most sets are broken down using a 1-10 scale, with 10 being the greatest weight. Some sets feature ultra-rare cards. Those cards will command a much higher weighting according to their relative rarity. If the set is very small with little variation in individual card prices, then the scale may be 1-5. Weighting for each set is viewable by clicking on the set composite link found on each set page.
Then, using the individual card ratings, the grade of each card, the completion percentage and set size, a unique formula is created for each set in the registry. To be specific, the weighted grade point average is determined by multiplying the grade of each card listed in a set by the weight of the card. Then these totals are summed and divided by the total sum for weights of those cards. The final set rating is achieved by dividing the weighted grade sum by the total sum of the weights in the entire set. Now, while this is NOT an exact science, the formula should provide an accurate evaluation of each set registered on our site. This means you can compare your prized sets to the best the hobby has to offer.

Additionally, two point deductions are taken for Qualifiers. Therefore, if your card is graded PSA 9Q, the grade calculation in the Registry will be 7."

Pretty cut and dry in my book..
Jason

JasP24 · March 3, 2004 2:03AM

Just an update. I e-mailed BJ with an updated spreadsheet reflecting a few changes in the weighting. Since last year, a few SMR prices have changed, so I changed any weights that were no longer the equivalent of the SMR 8 price. Included were the changes that need to be made to Eller, Brown, Sanders and Elway.

She said she will have Joe take a look, and once he approves the changes they will update the set.

Jason

AlanAllen · March 12, 2004 7:07AM

Well, Joe Orlando replied to my phone message with an e-mail for clarification. I gave it, and he replied, "I'm on it for you." As of yesterday, the weightings have been fixed. Thanks Joe and set registry team!

Joe

Recommendations for the NFL HF RC set - class of '04

Comments