1977 Topps realistic set weights

downgoesfrazier

Thanks for pulling up this thread. I have added the first half of actual weights for the 1977 Topps Baseball set in my registry. They are typed in the "discussion" column. I have factored in desirability, difficulty, regional premiums, collector base, realized prices at sale and current circulation-availability. PSA's weighting system is quite outdated and I, until now, have done nothing to help the situation. I will send a complete weighting to the registry folks and we'll see if any adjustments are made. I doubt they will, but these weights actually reflect the current state of collectability of the individual cards. I have added a .25 premium to regionally collected players where the collector base is strong and likewise added various premiums to commons that are notoriously more difficult to find in MINT grade. I welcome questions and any well thought out suggestions. I would love to see guys that have spent a few years collecting their sets share these type of things more often...Frank's 75's, Any of the '71 guys, any of the original '72 guys, Rob's 80's, etc. Again, thanks for looking,



dgf

***I have edited the set to include specific reasons for some particular premiums. In many case a card typically has more than one problem. I listed the one I personally found most. It currently includes through card #400. The toughest stars to obtain through that number would be Tom Seaver, Thurman Munson and Jim Hunter.***

Again, thanks for looking.

ajw

Link to DGF's amazing 1977 set

SOM

Great idea!

I will gladly work together with Frank and Guy and anyone else to do the same thing for the 1978 set.

Nice job, dgf!!

bobbybakeriv

Very worthwhile and enjoyable effort DGF. Do you plan to do the same for the rest of the set? Thanks for sharing.

BugOnTheRug

I guess the registry's 'weighing' of individual cards was a 'best effort' initially, and not sure how/when/if it has evolved to it's present state. I'm sure that in every set there are quite a few cards that really need to be revamped. Sure, a headnod goes to the stars, rookies, maybe the first and last cards of a set, but this is too general and doesn't reflect what's REALLY going on inside the set.

If you take each set, say 52T and on, and ask 'experts' of these years to pick the 20 toughest cards in each, probably 8-12 would be on everyone's list and I seriously doubt they'd be the stars, etc. It would overwhelmingly be the commons, subset cards, etc. We all know stories of cards that are next to impossible to find centered and in higher grades. Whether this is already refected in 50's sets I don't know, but in 70's and up I'm sure it is not.

Obviously the hardcore folks know this, and if attempts have been made and ignored, I'm curious as to why. Is it considered a work-in-progress??..................the world may never know.............

Bill

downgoesfrazier

***I have edited the set to include specific reasons for some particular premiums. In many case a card typically has more than one problem. I listed the one I personally found most. It currently includes through card #400. The toughest stars to obtain through that number would be Tom Seaver, Thurman Munson and Jim Hunter.***

Again, thanks for looking.


dgf

NickM

Personally, I think the set weighting should be much more dependent on the raw price of the cards than on the graded price or perceived difficulty of locating in a particular grade. This will reduce fluctuation in registry weights and avoid biasing the registry on sets where there have been few submitted of most of the cards.

I do agree with the premium on regional stars, and think that it should be .50 in many cases, as the demand for these players is significant.

Nick