Bench Master Set poll result
jrdolan
Posts: 2,549 ✭✭
I received an email from B Searles of the CU Registry. She said the survey on the Bench Master Set was complete, and the overwhelming vote was to allow any ONE card from each of the Sports Deck and Pepsi sets to represent those sets. We don't have to buy and grade every one of the dozens of variations (ace of hearts, ace of diamonds, etc).
Later today, the Registry deleted all the individual listings for these playing cards, instead listing the overall issue; a PSA reg. # for any part of the set will meet the requirement. Those who have more than one of those cards will automatically have the highest-graded one as their representative card for each set.
While it will remove a near-impossible obstacle to completing the Bench set, it will also depress the demand and value of those dozens of different SD and Pepsi cards, I would think. Maybe they were only artificially pumped up by the registry to begin with.
(edited to correct Ms. Searles to SHE)
Later today, the Registry deleted all the individual listings for these playing cards, instead listing the overall issue; a PSA reg. # for any part of the set will meet the requirement. Those who have more than one of those cards will automatically have the highest-graded one as their representative card for each set.
While it will remove a near-impossible obstacle to completing the Bench set, it will also depress the demand and value of those dozens of different SD and Pepsi cards, I would think. Maybe they were only artificially pumped up by the registry to begin with.
(edited to correct Ms. Searles to SHE)
0
Comments
I lost 14 graded sportsdeck cards off my registry. and i`m GLAD !!
i`ll throw em on the bay, and see what happens. or i`ll throw em in the trash and be done with them.
I believe scott probably lost 13 or 14 cards too, though i`m not sure how he feels about it.
we both took a big hit to get the bench registry back in line. but it needed to be done.
your friend, lee
THE "NEW" JOHNNY BENCH MASTER SET
Sounds like the Bench Master Set survey went well and your all happy.
You could also have PSA start side sets for those Bench Playing cards so that they wouldn't be wasted or have to be gotten rid of.
JrDolan,
Just for clarification, BJ Searls is a she.
Scott Jeanblanc
jeanblanc@iconnect.net
Ebay User: sjeanblanc
-----------------------------------------------
Collecting Nolan Ryan cards (68-94)
Happy hunting!
Steve
That is wrong IMO.
The number of different disc sets does not overwhelm the rest of the Bench set. Some are far easier to obtain than others (Holiday Inn discs, anyone?). They were released as part of reasonably broad-spectrum sets (containing most of the stars) and are readily distinguishable by their backs (which is as much as can be said for many modern variations within the same set).
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
bobsbbcards SGC Registry Sets
SW
As far as some of the other discs and misc. items are concerned, I e-mailed a list of all the missing cards (including those SportsDeck and Pepsi cards that weren't already included) to PSA a month ago, and was told it would probably take 8 weeks.
jrdolan- Can you e-mail me a copy of the master set list prior to the change? I'd greatly appreciate it.
there are still a few bench discs that have not yet been added to the master set, here they are;
1975- blank back (this is a rare one)
1976- carousel disc / orbakers disc / red barn disc / towne club disc
1977- msa customized sport disc / holiday inn disc / pepsi glove disc / saga disc / wendys disc
but don`t worry, i have all these (except 1975) and i will get them graded and ask that they be added to the set in the near future.
always glad to help, your friend, lee
gtbeaker, when I said "copied" I meant I printed it out for reference, so I know Holiday Inn was not on there. I don't have it in digital form to email. Sorry.
i`m sorry to hear you are upset. i to lost some money on the whole thing.
but the money you lost, will be offset by the number of playing cards you won`t have to get graded in the future.
you lost 13 or 14 cards, but scott we were going to end up with 2 full decks of playing cards on the set. that means 90 more cards
that you would have to buy or get graded. do the math.
look at the pete rose registry, they have 104 playing cards in the master set, thats where we were headed.
and i don`t think you lost any ground in your set rating, we both lost the same amount of cards.
and i don`t see why the time of year matters.
your friend, lee
Not sure how recent some of these updates to the Bench Master set were made, but I have a spreadsheet for the set on my website. I checked the file date and I last updated it on 4/10/04. Hope that helps.
I'll update the spreadsheet next week to give you guys a few days to see the old version.
JEB
Set Registry Spreadsheets
Scott has a point about the timing of the change.
For better of worse, PSA's practice of awarding certificates for the best sets as of October 31st has created a cycle that could be termed a "collecting year". This cycle has become very important to a lot of set owners as evidenced by the amount of October jockeying that goes on to claim the year-end certificate for a year's best set. Whether that's a good thing or not is not my concern here - the bottom line is that's simply the way it is.
Many people plan their acquisition and/or submittal strategies around this cycle, using the composition of a given set as their roadmap. Sure, we all know that set composition can be nipped and tucked during the course of a year, but a massive change late in the year can wipe out months of hard work and dollars that were fairly and in good faith determined by the makeup of the set up to that point.
I have no problem with the changes made to the Bench master set, my beef is with the timing. In this case, a massive change to a popular set was made nearly 2/3 of the way through the current "collecting year". This was wrong. What should have happened is that once the changes were agreed to, an effective date of November 1st should have been established. This would have allowed folks to go ahead and conclude the current year under the same or similar rules as they existed when the year began to avoid wiping out a lot of hard work and spending.
Finally, this gives rise to a final question, which is at what point in a collecting year could large changes to a set be made without taking effect that particular year? I have no good benchmark, except to propose that perhaps they should not take effect until the following year if made after April 30th (the halfway point) of the current year.
It's important to recognize that many people put hours of work and thousands of dollars into their sets and it's only fair to provide some continuity to the collecting process. I'll be the first to recognize that sweeping set changes are the exception and not the rule, but in this case it's my opinion that PSA should have simply announced that the Bench master set changes would take effectl November 1st so that eight months of hard work by others would not be flushed down the toilet.
My two cents.
Steve
i noticed a couple things in scotts reply that got me thinking. 1) he said he has contacted psa to add the rest of the sportsdeck and pepsi
playing cards to the set. 2) he says it is not much of a strain to complete the master set with the addition of 90 extra cards !!
on point 1) I believe this was done early to assure that they would be on the set by october and then guess what, he would submit
a boatload of playing cards to add to his set rating just before the final bell to take the lead.
on point 2) this statement does not make sense to any collector, except one that plans on using these (playing cards) to an advantage
at a critical point.
this is exactly why these playing cards needed to be stopped now. it now appears the bench registry was getting ready to be
dumped on with 104 playing cards. just like many of us knew would happen (just not so soon)
it also appears that maybe the timing (unknowingly) jammed up this approach.
I have nothing against scott, but the johnny bench master set is better off without 104 playing cards included.
all these are simply my opinion, and i may be wrong. but where i went to school 2+2 always =4
your friend, lee
many of you said that you would sell off your cards that got dropped from the set. why? if you're a true hardcore Bench collector, why would you give a damn whether or not a card was part of the Master Set? if a card gets dropped, is it no longer worth collecting?
no, not 52, that look just the same !
imo thanks,lee
I did correspond with BJ and she told me that you were the one who was coordinating the effort in getting the number reduced for the playing card sets. What was your main motivation in doing so? The impression I got from BJ was that it was in order to make the master set "more collectible", which I infer to mean that it makes it easier to complete, and that people thought it was redundant to have the same card with multiple backs in the same set. Why not then do the same thing with the '76 discs, which are also identical, except for the different logos on the back? If we were looking at making the set easier to complete (which I don't believe is a valid reason to amend the master set), then I suggest we also look at removing the Kahn's, Venezuela, '73 Candy Lids, and any others which are VERY low pop cards. The issue of money needed to complete the playing cards is a non-issue. When I find a worthy raw playing card, I'll submit it, or purchase one I need on eBay. If that means I have to sift through multiple raw decks and submit them at $10 each, that's what I'm willing to do in order to make sure my master set is as close to complete as possible. Including just one card from each deck just doesn't fit the description of what a master set should entail.
Steve echoed my point exactly. The timing of this change seems very poor. I budget my money and make my purchases based upon knowing that I need to have all my registry changes in by October 31st. I have no problems whatsoever in making additions during the course of the year for new cards that have been graded, or cards that have been overlooked previously by PSA. I do have a problem with changing the rules in the middle of the game.
Lee- As far as your insinuation that I was planning on adding the cards to the registry merely in order to further my chances this year, I take offense at that. I submitted a list to PSA on May 26th, asking for a list of 20 cards be added to the master set registry. Five of these 20 were SportsDeck cards which hadn't already been added to the registry. Everyone has the same access to the Pop Report, and therefore you and everyone else knows exactly which cards have been graded to date by PSA, and you can tell whether or not they've made it onto the registry or not. The SportsDeck cards were included in last year's list, and in my mind should have been included in this year's list. As far as me "dumping" a bunch of playing cards into my registry set, that's entirely my right (or at least it was before the changes you requested). If I have a raw card that meets the criteria for the Bench master set, I can submit it to PSA to be graded, and then have it included in my registry set.
I have tried my best over the past few years to make this as pleasureable a pursuit as possible, and have done quite a bit in tracking cards and laying the groundwork for making sure the Bench master set is as accurate and complete as possible. I have thoroughly enjoyed being a part of the registry, but this situation is beginning to turn sour. I plan on talking with Joe Orlando regarding this issue and will hopefully get a resolution on this issue (one way or another).
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
please let me clarify a few things. yes, i did begin the process of getting bj to start a poll about reducing the playing cards.
I did not do this behind the scenes, there were discussions on open forums with some nolan ryan registry folks, and some johnny bench
registry folks.
and all that just led to a vote, which could have gone either way. and i would have stood by what ever happed. i did no arm twisting.
and as far as i can tell you are the only one who had a problem with it. and the only cards that were eliminated were the the 2 playing
card decks. if you have a bunch of other cards, other than the five sportsdeck cards, go ahead and submit them they have not been affected.
and bj was not correct in her assumption that i was trying to make the set easier to collect. it is about keeping the master uncluttered
with 104 redundant playing cards. and the discs that you speake of at least have some character and were produced to be collectibles
to baseball fans. and at most theres about 20 total from 75,76,77,81.
towards the end you mention something about " the changes i requested" what i requested was that a poll be taken and let everyone vote on this subject. so the change was brought on by all those who voted.
psa has made no changes on anything I requested !
when i joined the bench master set around a year ago (though i had watched it for some time) there were 5 people total on both the
master set lists (all time + current) and activity, adding and upgrading was far and few between.
it was a secondary set for all the collectors. the #1 master set looked like an extented basic set.
look at the set now, it has changed, it has grown. and it will continue to grow.
and scott, if you take over first place, so be it
your a great collector, i`ve seen some of your other sets.
i want you to know that nobody was out to get scott and none of this is personal. it does seem you have a different opinion on the set
than all the other collectors. and thats fine, i hope we can work it out some way.
always your friend, lee spies
By the way, many of these discs and Kelloggs and even some mainstream Bench cards in the 1980s do not have individual price listings in SMR. I suppose that means they are considered close to commons in those sets to the non-Bench collecting public. Or not enough of them change hands to generate an accurate value.
One thing to consider about the 76-77 MSA discs, is that they are not all created equally. Each company had their own production runs and some are far and away rarer than others. Saga, Little Ceasar, Redbarn, and Safelon are significantly harder to find than Isalys or Buckmans.
All the discs are listed in the SCD Baseball Catalog.
Scott Jeanblanc
jeanblanc@iconnect.net
Ebay UserId: sjeanblanc
------------------------------------------
Collecting Nolan Ryan cards (68-94)
Here are other areas where there has been a conscious decision not to include certain cards in a Master Set:
Ted Williams - only the #68 (scarce) card from the 1959 Fleer set is included. If all 80 cards were included, 70% of the Williams Master Set would be from this set.
Nolan Ryan - only 1 card apiece from each of the 3 Pacific 110 card Nolan Ryan Series is included. The Upper Deck Comic Ball cards are not included, except for the National Convention promos. Upper Deck Comic Ball is generally considered a non-sports set. The Pacific sets would have amounted to 330 cards if left in, so that a substantial portion (at least a fifth, IIRC) of the Ryan Master Set would have been from these sets, which are available in unopened boxes and complete sets for far less than original issue price and are considered junk by most collectors.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.