Qualifiers & Pop - How does this sound?

BJ

Hi Everyone,

We'd like to run these changes by you for your feedback.

The first thing we would like to do is change the qualifier deductions to the following:

if 9Q then -2
if 8Q then -2
if 7Q then -2
if 6Q then -2
if 5Q then -2
if 4Q then -2
if 3Q then -1
if 2Q then -1
if 1Q then no deduction

Then, the using the 1952 Bowman Yogi Berra card as an example, the Pop would display as follows:





Pop calculations:

If the card is a 5, the pop is 49 (PSA5) + 1 (PSA7Q) = 50

If the card is a 7Q, the pop is 49 (PSA5) + 1 (PSA7Q) = 50


Pop higher calculations:

If the card is a 5, then the pop higher would be 51 (PSA6) + 75 (PSA7) + 36 (PSA8) + 5 (PSA8Q) + 3 (PSA9) + 0 (PSA9Q) + 0 (PSA10) = 170

If the card is a 7Q, then the pop higher would be 51 (PSA6) + 75 (PSA7) + 36 (PSA8) +5 (PSA8Q) +3 (PSA9) + 0 (PSA9Q) + 0 (PSA10) = 170


Either post your feedback here or email me directly. Thanks!

Fuzz

Sounds great to me, thanks for the hard work.
Fuzz

CON40

BJ;

This sounds like a great solution... it will really make the registry a lot more accurate.

Thanks so much for the work you and your staff have put into this project!

jimtb

I agree, it's a great solution!

bobbybakeriv

Seems understandable as far as the population report goes.

Still, if a 9Q is really a 7, why the need for qualifiers in the first place? Why not just grade the card a 7? Is a 9Q more valuable than a straight 7? I apologize if this is an elementary question but I am still somewhat new to the whole grading game. Thanks in advance for your responses.

sfmays24

Hi BJ,

With the below formula I see a possible problem starting with 3Q and below;

if 9Q then -2
if 8Q then -2
if 7Q then -2
if 6Q then -2
if 5Q then -2
if 4Q then -2
if 3Q then -1
if 2Q then -1
if 1Q then no deduction

The 4Q and 3Q grades would be counted the same, as 2's? Then the 2Q and 1Q as 1's? There may be no other fix, but it just doesn't seem right.

Mike
sfmays24

AISAVDBBALLINPHILLY

Looks fine. I vote to go with it.

calleocho

i dont mind the lower grade 1 point and no point deductions..after all the people collecting in this grade range are by nature not the pickiest.

on a side note to bobbybakeriv:

a PSA 9 Q most likely would be a straight 7 more often than not ..but in some cases it could be an 8 or a 5 depending on the severity of the Q.

AlanAllen

That sounds perfect! I like the changes to low qualified cards too... right now, a 1Q card actually gives you a negative set rating . This is probably a good thread to discuss PSA Authentic cards as well. If you recall BJ, we discussed this at the registry luncheon, and you and Joe both seemed agreeable to allowing PSA Authentic cards to be registered in sets with a zero grade. Can that be done now that the software upgrade is complete? Thanks!

Joe

Robby

BJ..............I like it ! You are Topp's when it comes to getting the job done ! Appreciate all the time and effort you put in for making the Registry so much better !.............Robbie

Fuzz

Bobby,
A 9Q is probably less valuable than a 7 in today's market place. Most collectors avoid a Q at any price.
However it is a much more accurate grade than a 7. If you get a 7, it could be because one or more of any number of things have happened to the card (ie. corners, gloss, centering, fading, etc.). Most collectors really want to look at a 7 before they buy it because of the variety of potential maladies. With a 9Q however, there is only one thing wrong. Whatever the Q is for should be the only concern (o/c and PD come to mind but OF and others are probably applicable). The rest of the attributes of the card are great.
If you can live with the Q, they can often be had for a song (I have bought a number of them 75 to 80% less than the price of a 7 of the same card).
Fuzz

mudflap02

Sounds good.

Mike- as far as your concern, I don't think that there are a whole lot of Q cards 5 and lower out there. If there are, and they're in a registry, odds are theyre in there to fill a hole like a Wagner or a Mantle, and GPA is not as high a priority as simply showing that you have the card.

JMHO

-Jeff

BJ

Yes, I will be working to get the No Grades accepted in the Registry, so although they won't count towards the GPA, they will count towards completion.

As far as the nuances of qualifiers, what we have is not an exact science. Some sets probably shouldn't have a 2 point deduction for the higher grade and there are, perhaps, others that should have greater than 2 points deducted. But we can't code the deductions for every set. We believe the 2 is a number that most people can live with.

mikeschmidt

Great solution - thanks for all of your help

Mantlefan

I think that this is a good approach. It will clarify the pops nicely.

Griffins

Sounds like the best solution to me. I'm in.

mariner

BJ....

I agree with your proposal. This is the way it should be. This is the same thing we talked about at the Set Registry luncheon in Cleveland.

You are doing a great job! Thanks!

LuxuryWines

BJ ,

As the final set avg is posted out 2 decimal places why not do something like this:

if 9Q then -2
if 8Q then -2
if 7Q then -1.75
if 6Q then -1.5
if 5Q then -1.25
if 4Q then -1.00
if 3Q then -.75
if 2Q then -.50
if 1Q then -.25

It has always been my feeling that the importance of the qualifier in the overall eye appeal/value/collectibility of a card decreases as the grade of the card decreases.

Just my two cents ....

The pop report thing looks great!

Jeff

ctsoxfan

BJ - I like the idea. I actually would prefer, for uniformity, a -2 deduction on every grade...but, the point is a good one that the importance of a Q diminishes as the grade scale lowers.

Thanks for keeping us a part of the new Registry changes - and for doing such a nice job with it!

liffeystynx

An excellent solution

... and great to hear that the "Authentic" cards are to be brought in from the cold. Could the same solution apply to "Trade Cards" again for purposes of completion?

Thanks BJ, Cosetta & Gayle,

Jonathan

NickM

Sounds great to me.

Nick

A761506

Only thing I would recommend changing is making it -1 for a 9Q rather than -2. A 9Q is a beautiful card, 9's are difficult to get on vintage cards, qualifier or not. I believe a 9Q should be equivalent to an 8, as the card is nearly perfect in every other facet besides the qualifier, which is typically centering for a 9Q. I'm certain there are many cards with the 9Q label that could be considered 10Q if such a qualifier existed because they are perfect in every other aspect.

jmullen

I haven't had a chance to really look at this, but it seems like there is a huge problem with this formula. You noted that the POP for 5 would include a PSA 7Q. That means the PSA 7Q is getting counted twice and the total POP for the card would be wrong.

My solution is keep the deductions like you have it ... but Do not include any Q in any non-q pop (so a PSA 3Q would just not have a pop column on the report, but be reflected in the total). That makes the most sense to me.


I could just be talking out of my rear here .. at work and really didn't have a chance to read the entire discussion.

Jeff

Jeff@vintagebasketballcards.info

fsjeter

Sounds like a plan BJ.

Scott

clamendo

I was excited to see BJ followed up on my suggestion. I decided to get my T9s Boxers graded and as anyone knows they
are commonly found with pin holes. I noticed that when I listed them on the set registry a two point deduction rules actually lowered the set value. That is, a 1 with a pin hole is actually counted as a -1. A 2MK would be a zero. You'd be better off not having the card. The minimum value should be a 1. What it showed me is that PSA set registry is geared towards the modern cards in high grade. For those of us who collect older rare cards, were happy to get them in any grade to fill a hole. So, I suggested a sliding scale. At the high grade a little qualifier makes a BIG difference. At the lower grades, a VG card with a mk or O/C don't mean that much. That was the rationale for my suggestion. Actually, I pleasantly surprised that PSA would consider readjusting their set registry. It shows me even thow they are the "big guys" when it comes to card grading sevices they are still interested in listening to the little old collector. Hats off!! Still need T9 #70 Phil McGovern......

jrdolan

<< <i>Still, if a 9Q is really a 7, why the need for qualifiers in the first place? Why not just grade the card a 7? Is a 9Q more valuable than a straight 7? >>


Sure a 9Q is more valuable than a 7 ... if there are buyers who will pay more. It's less valuable if buyers will pay less. Don't forget, the -2 thing is purely a PSA invention for the sake of accurate ratings in its registries. It's an invention I agree with generally, but there are 9Q's out there that are still very special cards. Sometimes because the Q is borderline, other times because the card is still gorgeous despite the fact that centering criteria were technically not met.

As I said, it depends what someone will pay for it. The Mantle below, I have on eBay right now and the bidding is already far past SMR for a straight 7. The 53T Mathews, I consider just as nice as PSA 8 because the Q is not very Q-ish in my mind. I'll accept 7 in my 53T registry, but I will never sell that card for the price of a 7.

It's all in the eye of the beholder. There are Q's and then there are Q's!

Vargha

Man, that Mathews card is so sharp, I thought it was a reprint at first. Those are both very nice cards that would probably get an unqualified 8.

ZodiacMindwarp

Could someone let me know what Mick and Ed are looking at please?

jrdolan

<< <i>Could someone let me know what Mick and Ed are looking at please? >>


I don't know but whatever it is, they like it. Maybe Marilyn Monroe just entered the ballpark.

KING KELLOGG

What's a PSA 3..???




(heh..heh........)




KING

jaybyrd

Gotta love that 53 Mathews! I have a 1960 Spahn that is PSA 9 o/c. Perfect centering left to right, but top to bottom is about 70/30. Got the card for less than PSA 6 is in SMR. Sometimes great bargains can be had if you buy the card and not the holder.

AlanAllen

<< <i>I was excited to see BJ followed up on my suggestion. I decided to get my T9s Boxers graded and as anyone knows they
are commonly found with pin holes. I noticed that when I listed them on the set registry a two point deduction rules actually lowered the set value. That is, a 1 with a pin hole is actually counted as a -1. A 2MK would be a zero. You'd be better off not having the card. The minimum value should be a 1. What it showed me is that PSA set registry is geared towards the modern cards in high grade. For those of us who collect older rare cards, were happy to get them in any grade to fill a hole. So, I suggested a sliding scale. At the high grade a little qualifier makes a BIG difference. At the lower grades, a VG card with a mk or O/C don't mean that much. That was the rationale for my suggestion. Actually, I pleasantly surprised that PSA would consider readjusting their set registry. It shows me even thow they are the "big guys" when it comes to card grading sevices they are still interested in listening to the little old collector. Hats off!! Still need T9 #70 Phil McGovern...... >>



Judging by your user name, I assume you are Carl Lamendola? Welcome to the forums either way . If you are he, I have to compliment you on an incredible vintage football collection. I often reference your SGC registry sets for the writeups and the scans. You probably have the most extensive pre-war graded football collection in existance. I also enjoy your articles in Gridiron Greats. Take care from a fellow football guy,
Joe

jmullen

So then wouldn't a PSA 7Q get counted twice in the POP report ... once as a PSA 7Q and once as a PSA 5? If so, the total number of cards graded would be inflated (unless adjusted).

Jeff

RayDBonz

Change the qualifier deductions. It makes no sense to have a negative value card.

However, there is no reason to change the population report. A 7Q is still a higher grade than a 5 (and in most instances a more attractive and desirable card!). The artificial deduction of two points is just an attempt to make the set registry more "fair". This should not be used to manipulate the populations. If someone is really that interested, they can join PSA and look at the full set of numbers. The abbreviated population information provided in the set registry is a courtesy and nothing more. It shouldn't be altered to fit some arbitrary rule.

Bill

RayDBonz

I have noticed one "flaw" with the population reports. By listing the numbers as 7, 7Q, 8, 8Q, etc. the software assumes the 8Q is a higher grade than the 8. For example, the 1961 Topps hockey card #65. The registry software lists the 8OC card as a pop of 1 with none higher. There are 2 unqualified 8's. The report should read a pop of 1 with 2 higher.

The obvious solution is to list the population report in true chronologic order, i.e. 6Q, 6, 7Q, 7, 8Q, 8. Don't list the # of qualified cards AFTER the # of unqualified cards, list them BEFORE as THEY ARE A LOWER GRADE.

If you do that, you won't need to alter the programming to some convoluted formula to account for the artificial "deduction" of two full grade points for a qualifier. If you own the 8OC card, it is a higher grade than the 2 7's or the 2 7Q's and should be listed as pop 1 with only 2 higher (the 2 unqualified 8's).

An unqualified minority opinion.

Bill