1969 set weights

NickM

Any experts on this set care to comment on its weights?

I was adding 2 cards yesterday, and noticed that #640 has a weight of 1. Considering it's a HOFer (Fergie Jenkins) from the high series, that does not seem correct. Any other outlying cards that PSA should fix?

Nick

magellan

Nick, I'm no expert but I play one on a PSA board

I noticed the same thing on Wilhelm, doesn't seem right to me for a HOFer , no matter who it is.....Luis Aparicio is another, & Cepeda yet another. Walt Alston is a 2 & Earl Weaver a 2.5 !

Dave

gaspipe26

Nick,
I wouldnt get to concerned about the set weights until they weigh tough commons. I agree Fergie and Hoyt deserve a higher weighting than Weaver and Alston.

duner

I've been curious about this topic for a while. who comes up with the weights? can they be altered?

i've heard they take smr of psa 8's and adjust the grades accordingly. does anybody know for sure? my particular interest is in the '51 bowman football. can anyone explain how psa 8 commons list at $55 yet a psa 8 van brocklin and landry each roughly book for $800, yet one is weighted a 4 and the other a 5. what gives?

on another note why is weighting so static?? would it be possible for a scaled weight depending on grade? even in the most simplified example of a common, take for instance a common weighted 1. if you have a psa 5, you get 5 points if you have a psa 9 you get 9 points. but as everybody knows the 5 might run you $10 a 9 could run you $500. so basically you spend 50x as much for a nine and don't even double your return for your g.p.a. hell you could have one star rc graded a 9 that costs twice as much as an entire graded set in psa 6....yet will have a gpa of .3.....while the set gets a grade of 6.0, roughly 20X better.

NickM

gaspipe - Weaver is his rookie card. I have no problem with him being 2.5. But there's no way any HOFer should ever be a 1 in a mainstream set like this.

Nick

magellan

Something I've noticed with the '77 set is that there are many weights of 1.25 ,1.5, 1.75 etc. so it seems that the scale there is a little more fine. There are no quarter point weights in '69 and not even any half point weights between 1 & 2. Not sure why they would be so much more fine with the '77 set. I kind of like that Dewey Evans is a 1.25 instead of just a common in '77. Food for thought, I don't know if it can be changed or not.

Dave

JusttheFacts

My understanding is that some, if not most, of the weighting is done by a Registry member for that set. I have submitted several Excel spreadsheets for football and hockey sets that were not yet weighted. There are no set rules as to how to do the weighting. I use the following guideline: (1) The weighting must be in accord with the SMR. Cards that are individually listed in the SMR get the highest weights according to the SMR price. (2) The grade weight for cards not individually listed cannot exceed the lowest weight of any card individually listed in the SMR. (3) For cards not individually listed in the SMR, I use other price guides, my own knowledge, and common sense.

There isn't a rule as to how fine the gradations can get. I have limited the weights to no finer than .5 increments, but I've see others use .25 increments. The difficult part is the scale. There are sets, for example 1976 Topps Football (which I did not weight), where the highest value card (Payton) is about five times more valuable (according to SMR) than the next highest card. Do you give Payton a 10 weight, and everyone else no greater than 2? If you do, Payton gets heavily weighted and everyone else is pretty much the same. Another alternative is to use all of the weights, ranking them by value. This means that Payton will not get the relative weight he deserves (he still gets a 10, but other players get high weights of 9.5, 9.0, etc.) but the weighting for other players makes more relative sense. Obviously, there are an unlimited amount of possibilities.

You are essentially at the mercy of the person who originally did the weights, although I imagine that PSA would consider changes if you made a persuasive case. I agree that, with respect to the 1969 Topps Baseball set, HOF players, high series or no, should receive higher weights than 1. Keep in mind that if you submit changes, it could alter the Registry rankings of sets. I imagine there would be quite a stir if a change caused anyone in the top five of a set to change positions. Of course, this would be especially true if the person submitting the changes was in the top five.

John

RayBShotz

Nick M - 1969 Topps Baseball was one of the earliest sets listed on the PSA Registry. I believe it may have even been the first listed of all 60's issues. At that time PSA did all the weighting without any real input from the collector. I am sure guidelines were sketchier at that time also.
I always felt that some of the heavy hitters (collectors) on the 69' set would address the weights eventually once we got closer or to 100% complete. Maybe the time is right now. Your comments about HOF'ers are well taken. I have always believed they should be weighted. Some in the 69' set are not as you have discovered. In some sets players are rewarded with a slight increase in weight due to outstanding achievements the previous year. I would be a proponent of weighting the regular 69' Denny MCLain card. Not many other single season achievements in last 40 years stack up to a 30 win season.
A roundtable is well deserved to re address the 69' Basebll set weighting.

Gaspipe - As for low POP's. I think weighting those is a pandora's box. I am in full agreement that there are cards in this set that are truly tough and it makes for really great chat to discuss them, especially here on the boards. But I think the flavor of card weights has been based mostly on player stature or importance (HOF) and maybe secondarily on some issues where high series cards are truly short quantites. (SP's in many issues are still in mass abundance and an arguement can be made for their weighting reductions in some sets where they are weighted high. 52' Topps would be an example of a set where high weights for high series is truly warranted.)
It would be an administrative nightmare to follow the very liquid populations of cards considered low POP. To be constantly be readjusting the weights accordingly. The weights are something that should be considered a set standard.
Hof'ers are HoF'ers for life. This established fact makes the weighting of these players a fixed entity and keeps the weightings stable. Stability is needed so that everyone is working towards the same end when collecting their sets.

RayB69Topps

gemint

The 1969 set was the first set newer than 1956 to be listed on the registry. The weighting has not been changed since it was first listed and a redefinition seems to be in order. I would volunteer for the task but I'm not sure when I can get to it. I have some other projects that I haven't completed yet which take precident.

sjeanblanc

We have had similar issues with some weights in the Nolan Ryan sets and BJ would always reply and say that all weight changes have to go through Joe Orlando as he sets them. So just email Joe and inquire about the oddities.

Scott Jeanblanc
jeanblanc@iconnect.net
Ebay UserID: sjeanblanc
------------------------------------------------
Collecting Nolan Ryan cards (68-94)

magellan

How about a proposal that Jenkins, Aparicio, Wilhelm, & Cepeda (HOFers all) be reweighed to a value of 2 ? I don't mind emailing Joe on it with a link to this thread if someone has his email at hand .

Dave

RayBShotz

Dave,

Be real sure there are no others that need reweighting (HOF'ers?) before you go to Joe. I'll take a look at the weightings also myself.

Ray

magellan

Ray I went down through the set looking for the HOF symbol......I print out the SMR then put all weights over 1 on it. I could have missed some or PSA could have left the HOF off so a double check would be wise.

Dave

magellan

Ok, I've gone back down the list with the TuffStuff HOF autograph guide in hand, there are another handful of HOFers who aren't weighted with several not even acknowledged as such. They are: Al Lopez, Leo Durocher, Bill Mazeroski, Red Schoendienst, & Billy Williams.

I then noticed something else, the only RC's in the set that aren't HOFers that are weighted are Bobby Bonds (5) , Graig Nettles (3) , & Al Oliver (2). Al Oliver !!!!!!! What about Joe Rudi & Sparky Lyle just for instances, they both had more impact than Al I believe . I'm not putting Al down , he was a very good hitter but this doesn't seem consistent at all.

I noticed something else too.......only Rose & Hodges are weighted for non HOF, non RC players, I'm not arguing they shouldn't be but there are some other very popular players who aren't weighted such as
Bobby Murcer , Ron Santo , & Lyle. edited to add that Mike Marshall is also weighted as a non HOF player, this isn't his RC is it?

This brings us to another quandry......it's not inconceivable that Santo, Dick Allen , & Jim Kaat might someday be enshrined in the Hall while managers such as Bobby Cox, Joe Torre, & Lou Pinella could very well end up there too.

Now that I've discovered all of these little anomalies thanks to NickM I'm hestitant to email Joe until we've had a chance to thouroughly hash this out here.

Opinions Please !

Dave

scottsusor

<< <i>I wouldnt get to concerned about the set weights until they weigh tough commons. >>


You heard it here first, and you can write it down -- THAT will never happen.

Scott