Home› PSA Set Registry Forum

All-Time Wide Receivers Set Updated (Maynard)

shagrotn77shagrotn77 Posts: 5,583 ✭✭✭✭
in PSA Set Registry Forum
A few weeks ago I contacted PSA about replacing the '61 Topps Maynard in the All-Time WR's set with his more desirable '61 Fleer rookie. They made the change today, citing the fact that most everyone with a All-Time WR's set agreed with the change.

For you Steelers fans out there, one question. Do you really think Lynn Swann belongs in the Hall of Fame??? The guy never even had a 1,000-yard season. I don't understand it. I think all of his popularity stems from his great plays in the Super Bowl. So should Timmy Smith be inducted in Canton too?
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."

Comments

  • wolfbearwolfbear Posts: 2,759 ✭✭✭

    Just a word of warning to collectors looking for the Fleer Maynard cards.
    Beware of trying to cross Beckett graded 1961 Fleer cards over to PSA.

    If it's in a Beckett holder, I can almost guarantee it's recently been cut from a sheet.

    Pix of 'My Kids'

    "How about a little fire Scarecrow ?"
  • FabfrankFabfrank Posts: 2,312
    I'm becoming a little concerned with these set changes. I'm all for democracy and majority rules (as you can tell I voted against this change), but I'm beginning to wonder if these changes are for the greater good or just set manipulation. I don't collect 61 Topps or D. Maynard but went out and bought the card to complete the All- Time Receivers set. I WAS image at 100% and just looking to upgrade. But now with this change, I have an incomplete set, own a card that I don't want, and have to now go buy another card that I'm not particularly fond of.
    If this card was so much more desirable, why wasn't it in the set from the beginning? I'm all for adding cards to sets, but I don't like when the set compostion changes.
    Baseball is my Pastime, Football is my Passion
  • shagrotn77shagrotn77 Posts: 5,583 ✭✭✭✭


    << <i>If this card was so much more desirable, why wasn't it in the set from the beginning? >>



    That's a good question. PSA, and whoever initiated the registry set, should have known better.
    "My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
  • estangestang Posts: 1,322 ✭✭✭
    I can understand why you'd be upset with set registry changes given the mindset to have it complete.

    If this is a HOF only set than I would understand the premise of all-time. If it isn't, then its just a subjective list that someone put together.

    Why not just collect what you want as opposed to what others think you should have?

    Enjoy your collection!
    Erik
  • FabfrankFabfrank Posts: 2,312
    Why not just collect what you want as opposed to what others think you should have?

    Aha, I was thinking the same thing. My next thought was than "If I feel this way, than what do I need the Registry for?" I've been building player runs since before the Registry (for the record I don't have any single player sets on the PSA Registry). Those cards are in PSA and SGC holders. I decided from the start that even though the Registry was a good idea I wasn't going to crossover my SGC cards. I wanted to participate in the Registry and decided to do some of the sets and loved the idea of the All-Time player sets. Now many of these cards I never would have collected (T. Fears, D. Hudson, I. Fryar, H. Ellard and D. Maynard), but the Registry brought them to my attention. I appreciate the cards but I wouldn't have pursued them if it wasn't for the Registry. The Registry is only as good as its participants. Imagine if more collectors started feeling the way I feel right now.
    Baseball is my Pastime, Football is my Passion
  • DavemriDavemri Posts: 2,011 ✭✭✭
    Now if we could just get the Jim Kelly RC changed to USFL I would be happy.

    FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
    image
  • sixdartsixdart Posts: 821 ✭✭
    I was in favor of having both brands of rookie cards in a set, however PSA decided to select highest PSA 8 valued card. There was concern about these multiple listings and the future effect of modern cards. Once modern players started becoming eligible for this sets, such as Jerome Bettis or Marvin Harrison, they could have a multitude of rookie cards.

    This was initially in regards to the vintage rookie cards. I felt that both the '48 Bowman & Leaf, '52 Bowman Large & Small and the '61 Topps & Fleer issues should have been included vs. one from either set. There could be a policy with a cut-off date of 1989.
  • sixdartsixdart Posts: 821 ✭✭
    Yes, I would like to see the USFL and the Topps rookies in for both players; Steve Young, Jim Kelly and Reggie White.
  • shagrotn77shagrotn77 Posts: 5,583 ✭✭✭✭
    So am I the only one who thinks Lynn Swann is possibly the most overrated Hall-of-Famer ever???
    "My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
  • FabfrankFabfrank Posts: 2,312
    I guess it goes back to my original statement. If these other cards were so desirable why weren't they included in the first place. I can understand going with one RC card, but a quick look at SMR tells you which one is the expensive/desirable. We wouldn't have these issues now if it was rectified originally. Now it seems I'm involved in a bait/switch scam.
    Baseball is my Pastime, Football is my Passion
  • JasP24JasP24 Posts: 4,645 ✭✭✭
    Maybe i can shed some light on this. Basically PSA only lists sets when they are requested by a collector. Whoever requested the All-Time WR set choose the Maynard card with the most graded examples rather than the most valuable card. Most likely a self-serving purpose as they probably had the Topps card but not the Fleer card. Same thing for the Kurt Warner card that has since been deleted. A collector requested it and PSA approved it since there were no guidelines for the first few football key card sets.

    PSA will load a set almost exclusively how it is requested. Of the 10 or so sets I have requested in the past, only 1 or 2 were not 100% exactly as i requested.

    I think these changes are good. We are now taking the self-serving reasons out of which card to use of a player by using the most valuable card. When we start getting to the modern card being added(like Marvin Harrison) there is no guesswork, it will be the SP rookie.

    As far as the USFL cards go, we had that discussion here in the forum over a year ago before the Hall of Fame set was ever loaded. I wanted the USFL cards in it too, but in the end PSA decided against using the USFL cards.

    You can still collect the USFL cards though, and they can even be added to the Registry All-Time QB and All-Time Defense sets.

    Hope this helps,
    Jason
    I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit,
    according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
  • FabfrankFabfrank Posts: 2,312
    You make good points Jason, but the seld-serving analogy works the other way too. Someone has the Fleer Maynard and not the Topps Maynard card. He uses the arguemant that the Fleer is more desirable and should be added. Again, those who have the topps card are now stuck.
    Baseball is my Pastime, Football is my Passion
  • JasP24JasP24 Posts: 4,645 ✭✭✭
    Actually, I have both cards. The Fleer is also part of the Hall of Fame rookie card set. The only reason I ever purchased the Topps Maynard was to complete the WR set. The Topps is not his most valuable rookie, but every other card in the set is the most valuable rookie card of each player, so it really didn't fit.

    The Registry mistakes made in the past(Maynard Topps and Kurt Warner in the QB set) can now be corrected by providing a poll to those who collect the set, with a majority rule. Now that every card listed is of the most valuable base issue rookie card of that player, future additions will be automatic. No guesswork wondering which RC will be added when the player has multiple rookie cards to choose from.

    My PSA 8 Topps Maynard is now available for $50 if you are interested..lol

    Jason
    I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit,
    according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
  • FabfrankFabfrank Posts: 2,312
    My PSA 8 Topps Maynard is now available for $50 if you are interested..lol

    Mine will be available too, but it's a 9image

    I'm just venting at this point. I wasn't happy about Warner being deleted either. Maybe he shouldn't have been there to begin with, but just because his career progress has stalled shouldn't be reason to delete him. Another card that I didn't want that I now have to sell.image
    Baseball is my Pastime, Football is my Passion
  • sixdartsixdart Posts: 821 ✭✭
    I heard Warner may go to the N Y Giants?
  • sixdartsixdart Posts: 821 ✭✭
    I still don't see the harm in having both RC cards listed for different brands ... pre 1989.
  • FabfrankFabfrank Posts: 2,312
    I still don't see the harm in having both RC cards listed for different brands ... pre 1989

    Especially in the case of the Maynard where one card has been in the set from the beginning
    Baseball is my Pastime, Football is my Passion
  • sixdartsixdart Posts: 821 ✭✭
    Someone will soon request a master NFL HOF RC set because they'll want both brands/versions pre '89, which will be excessive.
  • JasP24JasP24 Posts: 4,645 ✭✭✭
    Sixdart, there already is a master set of sorts, the NFL HOF Player/Coach/Admin set..You can add any Maynard card you want to that set...Even a 1969 Topps...lol

    As far as Warner goes, he should have never been added to set so early. And if PSA is giving us the opportunity to correct that, I think it is a great move on their part. What better way than conducting a poll of those who are registered on the set. They even nipped the Tom Brady addition in the bud by asking if he should be added. I think he will likely be added one day, but why now? Why not wait until he is a sure thing?

    That is what happended with Warner, he was "inducted" before he was eligible...lol

    Jason
    I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit,
    according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
  • AlanAllenAlanAllen Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭
    I haven't posted yet on this thread because I have mixed feelings on the issue. I think it's important for the arbitrary sets like this to be consistent, which would mean picking a standard and sticking to it (such as choosing each player's most valuable RC). I did vote to switch the card, but I second thought I think I would have voted against it. Because the set is arbitrary, it's too damaging to registrants to change a card mid-stream unless there are published guidelines to go by.

    I think the root of the problem is the lack of front-end due diligence by PSA. As Jason said, they basically just upload the sets however they are asked to. For arbitrary sets like Key Card sets and Player sets, they really need to research, develop, publish, and stick to strict guidelines about what cards are included and how they are weighted. With strict, consistent standards, registrants will be able to plan their purchases with more confidence and build consistent collections. I think the registry is young enough that it can be fixed soon without too much harm, but they shouldn't wait much longer. If they started developing the standards now, they could implement them after the awards in October. My two cents,
    Joe
    No such details will spoil my plans...
  • AlanAllenAlanAllen Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭
    edit: double post
    No such details will spoil my plans...
  • JasP24JasP24 Posts: 4,645 ✭✭✭
    That's a great idea, and is exactly what is needed. The Registry doesn't have alot of manpower though, so I think BJ and Gayle look to the collectors to police the sets. Hence the polls...If they were just arbitrarily switching the cards, I would have a problem with it. The fact that they had a vote amongst the specific collectors of the set is enough for me to buy into the cause. Had the majority vote been to KEEP the Topps Maynard, I would have been fine with that as well.

    The bottom line is that the Registry is FOR the PSA collectors, and they will do whatever they can to make the Registry what we, the collectors, want it to be. Look at the amount of different sets currently available. There are so many, I don't think they have the time and manpower to research every set, which is why they routinely ask for collectors to send checklist for certain sets. It's going to be up to the us to maintain the guidelines. Switching the Maynard is a step in the right direction of standardizing the Key Card and All-Time sets.

    Jason
    I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit,
    according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Sign In or Register to comment.