Home› PSA Set Registry Forum

Building a high grade Registry set - question?

ctsoxfanctsoxfan Posts: 6,246 ✭✭
in PSA Set Registry Forum
I am working on a few Registry sets at the moment, but I am focusing on one set in particular. I am trying to build this set (1980 Topps) in PSA 9 or better, with a large number of 10's. Of course, in the pursuit of all of these 9's and 10's, you wind up with a lot of 8's. At first it seemed like a bad thing to register these 8's in the set, since each 8 I enter "cancels out" one of the 10's I am working so hard to obtain. Does the fact that I could really increase my set completion percentage make it worthwhile to put all of these 8's in until I can upgrade? Or, is it better to keep the GPA high leaving the 8's out? This being more of an opinion than a question, thanks in advance for your comments.
image

Comments

  • ZodiacMindwarpZodiacMindwarp Posts: 680 ✭✭
    I had the same question when I received a couple of 5s and 6s from my last submission of 1969 cards. In addition to that, I had a few other sub NM cards as well as cards with qualifiers from lots I had purchased. Initially I had decided to leave them out of my registry set until I realized that my weighted GPA means nothing until the set is 100% complete. Somebody can have 10 or 20 cards in a the 69 set with grades of 9 and thus have a weighted GPA of 9.00% but nobody can have a complete 9.00% 1969 set as some cards still have not been graded in 9.

    My advice is to leave them in.
  • 1420sports1420sports Posts: 3,473 ✭✭✭
    Leave them in and upgrade as you go. Good luck and talk to RobE - he is the 80's man!
    collecting various PSA and SGC cards
  • VarghaVargha Posts: 2,392 ✭✭
    A set can rate higher than 9.00 even if there are certain cards with nothing higher than PSA 8. There's these things called "PSA 10"s that allow such a phenomenon.
  • TipemTipem Posts: 881 ✭



    I think that it is all a matter of personal preference.I am working on a 56 set and I listed a few 7's that I received on a submission. At first it seemed okay but I have since decided to not list anything lower than my 8's or better,which is where I ultimately want my set to be.

    And 1420 is correct, RobE is the man for the 1980 set.


    Vic
    Please be kind to me. Even though I'm now a former postal employee, I'm still capable of snapping at any time.
  • ctsoxfanctsoxfan Posts: 6,246 ✭✭
    Thanks for the comments all. You are correct, RobE is the 1980 set guru, and he has been a big help to me so far in putting my set together. I think I will go for completion percentage, and upgrade as I go. With this set being so big (726 cards), this is a big undertaking as it is, so I suppose a few 8's won't hurt anything. image
    image
  • mudflap02mudflap02 Posts: 2,060 ✭✭
    You have to look at the big picture - the thing that matters most to me is set rating, not completion % or GPA. That way, it is only possible to help yourself by adding cards - your rating can never go down unless you drop cards altogether. I look at it like this - there are a certain number of grade points in my set that I am going after (ie 530 cards X 10 points apiece, some weighted higher than others). I can always upgrade later, but if I have a chance to add some of those grade points to my set, even in 3s and 4s, I am going to do it.
  • 1420sports1420sports Posts: 3,473 ✭✭✭
    I agree with mudflap, although it really comes down to what you want to do. I recently bought some mid grade 1952 Bowman that I am going to have graded soon. I am looking for completion in PSA 5-6, but if one of the cards gets a PSA 4, I will register it and then upgrade. Same thing for my 1967 Topps in PSA 7-8, there are two 6's in there (submission and part of a lot) that will be upgraded once I get to it.

    In any event, good luck in your decision as that is one small part of the fun.
    collecting various PSA and SGC cards
  • EOMINTEOMINT Posts: 349 ✭
    You guys clearly know my view...image
  • ZodiacMindwarpZodiacMindwarp Posts: 680 ✭✭
    Vargha is of course correct. You can obtain a weighted GPA of 9.00 or better in the 1969 set by including 10s. Of course trying to obtain all of the 1 of 1 PSA 9s and 10s would be difficult and expensive. The highest possible set rating, based on a March 30th population report, is 9.23%.
  • RobERobE Posts: 1,160 ✭✭
    I think I will go for completion percentage, and upgrade as I go. image

    It wouldn't hurt to set it up like that:
    Completion
    GPA
    Upgrade - includes the everlasting uphill climb in finding better quality cards by personal standards in the same grade or better.

    When you hit the stone wall around 75% those 8s won't look so bad,or hurt your GPA that much.Plus there are some nice 8s out there.I had 53 ot 56 8s at 93% with a 9.05 GPA.


    Thanks for the kind words,folks.

    Despite not being as active as I once was I'm loving watching the 80 folks hard at work.Nice to see somone at over 50% too.image October will be interesting. image
    Robert

    image

    My Auctions
  • jaxxrjaxxr Posts: 1,258 ✭✭
    Each set or group you work on may have a little bit different goals or objectives.

    In general, the older the set the lower the grades for acceptability.

    I do collect the 1980 Topps BB set and have it registered. I am slowly trying for mostly 9s and usually will add 8s if submitted for grading by me , and they missed being a nine. Will probably NOT buy an 8 outright, but if a very tough card is available ( like #726 ) then it might be very possible.

    As one goes into more and more detail on any particular set, you learn more about certain individual cards and may change your original perception of any "minimum" grade, as well as the concept of a "complete" set.

    What is a better set ? 1965 BB for example, one with a GPA of 8.85 and about 50 % complete, or a fully complete one with a GPA of 7.60 ? Of course the individual cards involved, matter in the choice, but it truly is a matter of personal taste .

    image
    This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
  • ctsoxfanctsoxfan Posts: 6,246 ✭✭
    Many of the comments I have read have definitely helped me rethink my concept of a "complete" or better set. Thanks again.

    Jaxxr has a great 80 set, and Rob's of course is the benchmark, so the road ahead is long. But, that's what makes it fun, right? I am just happy to be in the top 10 at the moment, but it's not really about numbers, but the enjoyment of seeing this set again (my first real set collecting experience back in 1980).





    << <i>October will be interesting. >>



    What happens then? Curious to know! image
    image
  • RobERobE Posts: 1,160 ✭✭
    October 31st.

    Girard as someone here put it to me the other day.Sometimes you'll never find That card that has it allTaking what's available can work until it's time to upgrade.


    A few old notes to pass on about approximately 75 cards and population (Feel free to update this)

    Last update 12/24/03 is where I left off..

    It would be impossible at 12/24 to have a 100% complete 1980 Topps set at least in Mint 9 until these cards begin to exist in a grade better than a 8 unless noted otherwise:

    1) 6 DEL UNSER - two 8s and one 9O/C

    2) 14 DAVE CASH two 8s no 9s

    3) 29 MARK WAGNER 1/1 8 and nothing else

    4) 49 MARIO GUERRERO 1/1 8 and nothing else

    5) 67 DOYLE ALEXANDER 1/1 8 and nothing else

    6) 68 LARRY HARLOW 1/1 8 and nothing else

    7) 82 ASTROS TEAM MGR. BILL VIRDON 1/1 9

    8) 82 ASTROS TEAM 1/1 8 and nothing else Could this be a variation without Mgr name?

    9) 92 RICK RHODEN 1/1 8 and nothing else

    10) 138 ROSS BAUMGARTEN two 8s and nothing else

    11) 140 RICH GOSSAGE two 8s and one 8Q

    12) 214 ANGELS TEAM MGR. JIM FREGOSI four 8s no 9s one 10

    13) 227 LEN BARKER two 8s and nothing else

    14) 263 DAVE LaROCHE two 8s and nothing else

    15) 279 ROB ANDREWS two 8s and nothing else

    16) 305 RANDY JONES only one 7 and one 8

    17) 331 RICH HEBNER four 9s and one 8

    18) 331 RICH HEBNER one 8 and one 8Q possible unidentified variation (Please see PSA population report for further details)

    19) 387 FRED STANLEY NAME IN RED 2 8s 3 9's

    20) 387 FRED STANLEY one 8 two 10s No variation specified

    21) 387 FRED STANLEY NAME IN YELLOW One 7

    22) 389 PETE LaCO_CK 1/1 8 and nothing else

    23) 391 TONY ARMAS two 8 no 9s

    24) 398 BARRY FOOTE four 8s and nothing else

    25) 410 BOBBY BONDS two 8s and nothing else

    26) 420 BUTCH HOBSON two 8s and nothing else

    27) 421 DOUG BIRD 1/1 8 and nothing else

    28) 422 LARRY MILBOURNE 1/1 8 and nothing else

    29) 452 STEVE DILLARD 1/1 8 and nothing else

    30) 487 WAYNE NORDHAGEN 1/1 8 and nothing else

    31) 496 SILVIO MARTINEZ two 8s and nothing else

    32) 507 LEON ROBERTS two 8s and nothing else

    33) 523 KEN HENDERSON two 8s and nothing else

    34) 560 DAVE LOPES two 8s and nothing else

    35) 563 WILL McENANEY 1/1 8 and nothing else

    36) 619 SERGIO FERRER only 1 9Q

    37) 649 TOM GRIFFIN two 8s and nothing else

    38) 666 TIGERS FUTURE STARS five 8s no 9s

    39) 680 EXPOS FUTURE STARS five 8s no 9s

    40) 682 PHILLIES FUTURE STARS three 8s no 9s

    41) 697 DAVID CLYDE 1/1 8 and nothing else

    42) 723 SHANE RAWLEY 1/1 8 and nothing else

    Please note one or more cards not listed above have a 10 grade but no 9s or 8s Cards with zero Population.

    To date - no graded examples of the following 33 cards:

    1) 31 JAY JOHNSTONE Updated - First graded PSA 101/1 - 32 left to 100%

    2) 33 TONY SCOTT

    3) 37 KIKO GARCIA

    4) 69 RICK WILLIAMS

    5) 127 GARY THOMASSON

    6) 134 MATT KEOUGH

    7) 148 MANNY SANGUILLEN

    8) 164 GREG PRYOR

    9) 216 PHIL MANKOWSKI

    10) 226 BILL STEIN

    11) 238 ROB WILFONG

    12) 242 LAMAR JOHNSON

    13) 253 JOHN MONTAGUE

    14) 268 RAFAEL LANDESTOY

    15) 291 RANDY SCARBERRY

    16) 301 MIKE EDWARDS

    17) 336 GEORGE MEDICH

    18) 347 HARRY CHAPPAS

    19) 349 JACK BROHAMER

    20) 434 JOHNNIE LEMASTER

    21) 446 DUFFY DYER

    22) 451 INDIANS TEAM

    22) 494 CRAIG MINETTO

    23) 508 U.L. WASHINGTON

    24) 537 ALEX TREVINO

    25) 539 RUDY MAY

    26) 541 MIGUEL DILONE

    27) 549 LARRY WOLFE

    28) 555 ED FIGUEROA

    29) 597 TOM POQUETTE

    30) 645 RICK BURLESON

    31) 688 STEVE STONE

    32) 696 JULIO GONZALEZ

    33) 703 OTTO VELEZ

    Robert

    image

    My Auctions
  • ctsoxfanctsoxfan Posts: 6,246 ✭✭
    Great notes to work from, Rob...thanks, man! (The 1/1 #31 Johnstone resides in my set!)

    But, I am still lost on the significance of October 31...
    image
Sign In or Register to comment.