Bench collectors - Update on player set registry?

cardfan07 · June 7, 2004 4:53AM

Just wondered what is or might be in the works. I know I talked with Lee on a couple occasions but wanted to know what everyone thought about a change to the master set or adding a Topps only version.
Since I am now the proud owner of the sports deck set, I'd like to know!

I think I'd personally like to keep the master set as the master set. Limiting it to keep it manageable might be ok, but there should be a logical discussion about it.
Thoughts??
Thanks,
Ryan

speeder · June 7, 2004 6:09AM

hi ryan,
i`ve talked with bj and on our last email she said she would be happy to survey all (bench master set) participants.
but first she would be out of town on business and then vacation until june 14. she asked that we be patient, i told her no problem.
we did not talk on the topps set to any length.

for those who don`t know, the survey will have to do with the 2 decks of playing cards in the master set (1977 pepsi-cola + 1978 sportsdeck) there are currently 14 pepsi playing cards and 31 sportsdeck playing cards in the master set.
there could eventually be 52 of each deck, putting 104 playing cards in the master set. i have talked with some nolan ryan master set
folks who ran into a similar predicament, and a survey was done to see what these collectors wished to do. i think these are our options.
1) keep set as is and allow any and all card submittles (playing cards)
2) keep set as is, but cap the playing cards at their current numbers (14 + 31)
3) reduce set to only one representitive card per playing card deck ( 1 pepsi, 1 sportsdeck)

I myself, would vote for option #3
I currently have 14 sportsdeck cards on the master set, i`m willing to eat 13 of those to keep me from having to buy who knows how many more playing cards 15, 25, 40 ???? these cards are redundant, all the same pic, same year. it could and will snowball
as registrants try to move up. i also feel it degrades and devalues this master set.
your friend, lee spies

jrdolan · June 7, 2004 6:36AM

Those zillion Sport Deck and Pepsi cards make me crazy. Whose idea was it to put ALL of them in the Master set? It makes completion near impossible unless you can find the whole sets at once. And then you have to get all of them graded at a cost of $400 plus.

And yet I can sympathize with those who have spent the money and time to acquire a fair number. They would not want to see all their hard work deleted.

Instead, I say delete 1971 Greatest Moments, Kahn's Wieners, and Venezuelan.

Just kidding, Lee.

Machodoc · June 7, 2004 6:51AM

I'm in favor of deleting all of the Sports Deck player cards in this set except for the ones I have registered.

Steve

speeder · June 7, 2004 7:01AM

steve,
how do you really feel ?
you`ve been on the bench registry longer than me, i would really like to know.
you too, john, step on out.
lee

jrdolan · June 7, 2004 9:12AM

3) Treat Sport Deck and Pepsi's cards as variations on a theme. One representative card per. I would say the same thing about all those 1976 discs (they're all the same except for the sponsor on the back), except that number is small enough to be manageable. Sport Deck is just silly, especially if it grows.

cardfan07 · June 7, 2004 10:03PM

Well, as an owner of the sports deck, I don't mind! But my question beyond this is, what happens when a (or several) new Bench collectors step up and request new cards be added (sportsdeck, pepsi, others )? An updated Bench master list only lasts til someone requests new cards be added. Can we expect a poll each time?

speeder · June 8, 2004 5:48AM

hey ryan,
we`ll ask bj for sure, but go to thread (sjeanblanc you out there ???) con40 is also a ryan collector and he is quite familiar with
the actions we are facing. ryan folks are doing the same thing we`re getting ready to do (but a few steps ahead)
lee

Machodoc · June 8, 2004 6:31AM

Four broad comments:

First, the presence of so many closely related items such as the sports deck and the various discs is overkill, and they add nothing but to make such a master set impossible to complete unless one is a true fanatic.

Second, I'm not sure how to "cure" the problem - sure, one or two examples of the sets in question sounds like a good idea, but on what basis does one pick a representative card to go into the set, when they are all so much alike and there is no obvious choice?

Third, my post above was not as tounge in cheek as it seems. I went to the trouble of getting those cards based upon their presence in the registry and their deletion would greatly harm my set.

Comments four is related to #3 - is it unfair to make radical changes to a master set when people make decisions to try them based in part upon what's included at the time of their decision? While I agree that so many discs and sports deck cards in the Bench set is silly, who's going to pick something that doesn't nullify a chunk of my work? Like many of you, there are cards I would have never bought save for their presence in a set of a player I much admire.

Consistency in the ground rules is important. Small changes here and there for a master set is normal and to be expected, but wholesale revisions to them once you have a captive group of set builders is a step fraught with problems.

My two cents.

Steve

PS - My fellow Bench collectors attending the National should check out the "photo-op" package.

cardfan07 · June 8, 2004 6:38AM

Steve,
To that end...the sports deck obviously has 52 bench cards...but only half or so are listed. Consistency says that all 52 should be listed if we already have 30 or so...common sense says that they are the same thing and shouldnt be listed 52 times.
What is the point of a master set? Realistically, I'm not going to find all 52 cards in a deck of cards..but I dare say that I might not find some of the other, VERY rare cards ever. Sometimes they compete with other sets (greatest moments) or are so rare that only a couple people have them. It does seem a little concerning about discussing which cards should and should not be included based on what each of us has or has ready to grade. I think we all have something that others may not have at all (or in a much higher grade) that we don't want to be removed. Could we reach an impasse with the list?

NickM · June 8, 2004 6:50AM

As one of the people on the Ryan thread, I have to point out that the original player set to face this issue was Ted Williams, who would have a registry set completely dominated by the 80-card 1959 Fleer set except for the fact that the decision was made to only include one card from that set (the scarce Ted Signs for 1959, #68). In the context of Ryan, the consensus was to allow in the entirely of the 26-card Donruss Coke set (a nationally distributed food issue), but only 1 card each from the 3 series of Pacific Ryan baseball (110 cards per series).

2 decks of playing cards would dominate the Bench registry. That would be a very bad thing. Since the pictures are all the same, PSA should, IMO, include one card from each deck in the registry, and allow any number/suit to be used by a registrant for that card.

Nick

speeder · June 8, 2004 8:18AM

this is good,
we need to bring these things to light. we all know we have a potential problem on our hands, now lets get our hands dirty and fix this
thing. steve, honestly, no one is trying to purposly harm your master set. your questions are valid. if you, me and scott all reduced our
playing cards we would be right where we are, just at a lower set rating. i don`t believe any of us want the strength of our master set
to be playing cards. its a never ending, we have another collector right now (cardfan07) whose ready to grade a bunch of these, because
their on the list and he wants to move up the ladder, then somebody else who got passed, grades a bunch himself, then you get passed
and so on and so on,,,,,,,, its true there are many cards on the master list that are going to be very hard to find, and possibly, afford !
that is the hard truth of jumping into the master set. and if it comes down to it, for those of you who don`t know me yet, i`ll have 104
graded playing cards in my master set. i`m not going to let someone put 5 playing cards at a grade weight of 2 (total grade weight 10)
and nullify my 71 topps greatest moments (also a weight of 10) card that i spent considerable time and money on.
like i said in a previous thread i`m willing to delete 13 playing cards to keep from having to buy 50, 60 ?? playing cards.
its like , hey i don`t need to find a 74 deckle edge or a topps candy lid, i`ll just wait for a grading price special and send in 20 playing cards. right now, if some had 52 graded sportsdeck cards (8s and up) and nothing else, they would probably be ranked #1
that would be wrong, wrong, wrong.
again, with all that said, i think we would all save money in the long run to cap it low, very low.
your friend, lee

Virtualizard · June 8, 2004 8:59AM

Boy, I'm glad that I don't collect Ryan or Bench cards!

JEB.

qualitycards · June 8, 2004 9:15AM

Imagine doing a Jeter, Clemens, Bonds or an A.Rod (or any current player thats been around for awhile). By the time any of them retire there will be well over a thousand cards per player w/ all the regular issued cards, paralells, inserts & oddballs out there. So if you thought the '72 Topps set had a lot of cards needed for completion, that may be a walk in the park compared to every licensed Griffey card produced...jay