Basic & Master?

HammeringHank

I'll like hear what most of you think about what you all think about the Basic and Master set concept with regard to the Registry...are you aware that some collectors place their sets into both categories using the same cards...of course if you have the highest graded Master set...you have the highest graded Basic set...some how this doesn't make sense to me...why not spread and share the glory...pick one category (Master or Basic) and rank your set in that category...what do you think?

goodriddance189

im doing both the Jacques Plante Basic and Master sets. the reason? i want two of those nifty Set Registry Certificates!

1420sports

of course if you have the highest graded Master set...you have the highest graded Basic set...

Not always the case. The Master Set of any player could be 2-10 times the size of its Basic counterpart. That being the case, some collectors do not want to own a Topps and a Topps Tiffany, for example. Check out the Pete Rose Basic and Master sets - two different collectors are at the top of two very different sets. The #1 owner of the Master Set is a madman - and I respect him tremedously for being just that!

Virtualizard

<< <i>...The #1 owner of the Master Set is a madman - and I respect him tremedously for being just that! >>



Neal,

I am a "madman" on a couple of Basic AND Master sets. Unfortunately my Schmidt sets have suffered for it!

JEB.

1420sports

I hear you Jeb - I was a madman on the Rose Master. I just could not find myself grading 110 playing cards. Just could not do it. As you Schmidt set "suffers" other sets you own may flourish.

A wise man once said, "we don't own these cards, we just hold em for a while" - was that Zardoz?

peterredshoes

I like the Basic/Master setup the way it is. I think that if it were set up differently, for example forcing folks to choose which to enter their cards in, or forcing collectors of both to submit different cards to each set, there would probably be more frustration and confusion than with things as they stand now. No one is obligated to register their sets in both places, so the existing setup allows the most flexibility--collectors are free to pursue one, the other, or both as they see fit witha physical collection that contains just one of each card they are interested in owning.

Peter G.

CON40

I like doing both the Basic and Master sets... for me its Nolan Ryan... I lead in the Master, but I trail in the Basic... always have! It's two very different compilations of cards thanks to the weighting systems... If you want #1 in Basic, go for as many Mint and Gem Mint cards as you can get... If you want #1 in Master, just get as much cr@p on one player as you can...

See, it's quality versus quantity! I guess that makes my collection a flea market.

NickM

Even on the particular year's set, basic and master awards can belong to different people, especially for years like 1958 and 1969, where some of the variation cards occur with superstars (Mantle in 1969, Aaron and Clemente in 1958). All you would need is 2 collectors with fairly similar sets overall, but with the one having a slightly inferior basic set having more or higher-grade high-weight variations.

Nick

HammeringHank

Interesting commments...however think about this...

Let's say I have the #1 1959 Topps Master set...why wouldn't I have the #1 Basic set for the same year...the Basic Set is made up from the Master Set...hey if I wanted to I could also place all my card into each of the "Team" categories as well...I "might" even then have "what" all of the #1 team sets as well...there are some collectors that could easily do just that...sort of make a mockery of the registry if you ask me...

I still like the idea...that each collector select which set he or she is going to register and that's it...this way more people have an "oppurtunity" to have the #1 set in a particular category...the same card should not be used in multipule "registry" set...

Okay...I have a complete set of 1962 Topps cards...all are 10's...I'm obviously the #1 guy...I register as the Master, Basic, each an every team set available...then I....what is is called "ARCHIVE" the set...(I hope I used the right term...I'm basically retiring the set)...I now sell my cards...5...6...7 people buy my cards...and they register there sets...one of them is #2...(rememeber no one can beat my retire set...it's perfect)...#2 now does the same thing he retires his set...and sells the cards...now the same cards that were in my set are in 10-15 different sets...and all of them are on the registry as "archived" "retired" sets...something is wrong with this logic...

I'm sure that when this system was thought out no one considered all of this...but it is all possible...it doesn't take away from the registry...it give me something to write about...and you to respond to...neither of us make the rules...but we can question them...thanks for reading...

WinPitcher

ahhh so that is the reason I have the all time finest 1955 topps set "just those in the hall and Hodges too" Im the only one registered...and here all along I thought I had the best.....lmao

jimtb

I believe that basic and master sets are critical for newer (1981 and later) player collectors. It is pretty much an impossibility to complete a master set of a modern player. The basic set is also extemely difficult, but at least you have a shot.
Jim

packCollector

if you have the # 1 master , it doesn't necessarily mean you have the #1 basic. a basic collector may have all the key cards in higher grade and the master may be driven by all the additional cards.

also as a collector , I really don't want to have 2 of the same card just for registry purposes

qmayer

<< <i>I was a madman on the Rose Master. I just could not find myself grading 110 playing cards. Just could not do it. >>



I felt the same way with my Nolan Ryan Master. I went to the National and focused on all oddball issues and Ryans I had never seen before. Probably picked up a good 150 cards I could put in my master set. But then I thought, "why do I want to get all this crap graded? That's at least $750 in grading fees" I completely lost interest in the master set and decided to focus on the Basic and Topps sets. I feel a lot better going after those as the Master set was a little bigger than I could handle.

Justin

TexasHeatWave

Con40,

I take some of that "crap" you have in your set!!!!! I suggest you are being too modest. Outstanding collection from my vantage point, but then again, I always have been the jealous type.

THW

HammeringHank

if you have the # 1 master , it doesn't necessarily mean you have the #1 basic. a basic collector may have all the key cards in higher grade and the master may be driven by all the additional cards.

ParkCollector...generally...the difference between the Basic and Master...is that the additional cards for the Master sets are harder to find and lower in pop then the Basic cards...so the Master owner generally has the high-end "Basic" cards...

Bighurt4

I'm working on the Ryan master as well, very new at it though. It looks like there is considerable interest in all 3 sets, which is great. I put my cards in all 3 sets. In several years, I may lose interest in trying to attain perfection and retire one. Until then, I will work on the Master at my price points and grade goals, update the others and have a blast.

Brent

BTW- Once the Thomas sets get approved, I will probably slow on the Ryans. But the competition on the Ryan sets is so much fun. Keep it up guys.

Skycap

Henri (HammeringHank) said "...generally...the difference between the Basic and Master...is that the additional cards for the Master sets are harder to find and lower in pop then the Basic cards...so the Master owner generally has the high-end "Basic" cards..."

I would say that, generally, this is not the case. The additional cards needed for a Master Set can be easier or harder to find. Also, they do not necessarily have lower populations. For example, the 1964 Topps Giant All-Stars are in many Master player sets, and they are quite plentiful.

As for your comment about someone having all PSA 10's in, for example, the 1962 baseball set....It's not gonna happen. Sure, someone may get all PSA 10's in a modern and/or small set, but the chances of getting all PSA 10 for 1962 baseball is close to zero. There are large mainstream vintage sets (Topps, Bowman) on the Registry which dominate all others, such as John Branca's 1957 set, but very few -- if any -- of them would have the best team set for every team. Some sets aren't even registered.

Speaking of player sets, the A-Rod Master set has 1,285 cards.... and it doesn't even have most of the 2003 cards yet. As this pace, the set could have 2,500 cards by the time he retires!

Skycap

HammeringHank

Skycap...

My example was an illustration to show a "what if"...I realize the chances of having a 62 set with all 10's is near impossible...I was using it to make a point that the same cards....particularily from a retired set could over the course of time be in multipule sets...if the best you could do is 8.62 for an example and you had a 8.62 set...and you are the 1st to display it...no one willl dethrone you...you will be #1 for ever...what I was attempting to show is that you could retire the set...remain number #1...and then someone else...and I said hypothically that #2 bought some of your cards and he ends up with 8.58 and then retires (or dies or whatever)...and now those cards go into someone elses set...the same cards could be considered in multipule sets...hey it's not happening now...but it could...that's my only point...

I personally like the idea of the registry...it certainly created a upswing in the market...all I'm trying to show is what I perceive as possible flaws...and asking all of you...so what do you think? Thanks...

Skycap

Henri,

You said "the same cards could be considered in multiple sets...hey it's not happening now...but it could...that's my only point..."

Actually this has already happened many, many times in the Registry! (Let's disregard that extreme all-PSA 10 1962 set.) For just one example, late last year John Branca, then the owner of the 2nd All-Time Best 1957 Topps baseball set, purchased Nick Romano's set, which at the time was No. 1. John selected the best cards from each set and has been selling off the duplicates (some of which, incidentally, are in the current Superior auction). So now John Branca's set stands as the All-Time Best at 8.76 while Nick's sold-off set is second at 8.58, yet many of the same cards appeared in both sets. This can happen anytime a single card is sold. It's possible that a card could have appeared in as many as all five of the All-Time Best sets. Not likely, but possible. There are probably several Top Fives in which there were cards common to two or three of the sets due to now-vacated sets.

Skycap

Virtualizard

Here's my opinion on this:

PSA should remove the All-Time Finest list from the main page of each set and just provide a link to it for anyone that is interested. That way you could always be listed on the set even if you sell, but the current sets, with people working hard to complete them, upgrade them, and keep the cards, would be highlighted at the top of the page, instead of one or more sets that sold in the past.

JEB.

Aaronman

A few comments. I do like the Master and Basic concept though.

1.) As sets move to the HOF they should be removed from their respective categories. I'm not sure if this is already happening but it could work like the HOF (real players) voting. PSA can "vote" a set into the HOF. It would be removed from the Set Registry and placed in the HOF. This would give other people a chance to get to be #1.
2.) In reference to the point about someone having the number 1 master set and the #1 basic set. It's certainly possible and more prevalent in the fulll/complete sets but not as much as the player sets. I would not change anything there.
3.) Basic Player Sets. I would like to see these expanded.... a little. I think the set itself should be considered "Master" or "Basic" and all the cards should be in their respective sets. Example: In 1958, Hank Aaron (not sure why I chose him) appears on 5 cards (regular WL, regualr YL, Fence Busters, WS Heroes and an All Star). I think all 5 of those should be in the Basic set because the Topps set is a mainstream set. The Hires Root Beer card of Aaron in 58 should just be in the Master set. This can work well (with PSA determining what's mainstream and what's not) for vintage but is increasingly more difficult with modern.

Sorry, that was long winded and I think I had a #4 & #5 but I fogot them.

My $.02,
Doug

1967topps

I focus on 1967 baseball. The problem with the Master set is PSA doesn't recognize as
many variations as I do. So far I've mostly just entered the graded variations in my collection,
and uploaded some scans of variations that they are not yet recognizing.

That and even among the variations they do recognize they need to clean up their
descriptions, for example # 86 for both the Traded and No Trade Statement variations the
template says "1967 TOPPS MIKE McCORMICK NO TRADE STATEMENT "

I've emailed Info@psacard.com twice about this with no resolution. Of course they are busy
with all the submissions you guys sent in February. Perhaps they need to hire some more
people?