Options
johnny bench master set has become a joke !
speeder
Posts: 819 ✭
hi all,
wow, hardly know where to begin. the grade weights have been changed to accomadate a few ( at least one) members plan.
they have already said they do not wish to pursue the tougher cards (venezuelans, candy lids, etc.....) so they suggested (behind all
other members back) to psa that there were some changes needed in the weights. this came to light in a thread a couple months ago.
there was some initial discussion of weights in that thread. there was no agreement between anyone.
since than i have not been contacted by anybody about any weight changes. i should say right now, i am the current leader in the bench
master set. this whole weight issue was started by the 2003 bench master set leader. is it all starting to get alittle clearer now ??
well today i see there are some changes in the weights. you will not believe some of these. i`ll list just a few.
a (1973 TOPPS COMIC) and a (1970 TOPPS CANDY LID) have a grade weight of 8
a (1971 MILK DUDS complete box) has a grade weight of 7 !!
a complete box sells on ebay monthly for around $50.00
i have the only 1970 candy lid of bench psa has ever graded,, cost me around $400
and a 73 comic, i have no idea just how much they are,,, I`VE NEVER SEEN ONE FOR SALE !! but know this, its big $$$$$
a 1977 venezuelan league sticker of bench has a weight of 5
a 1973 candy lid of bench has a weight of 4
yet
a 1983 reds yearbook card has a weight of 5
a 1978 sspc allstar gallery card has a weight of 5
PLEASE, that is just plain nuts !!!
psa officials saw no problems with these weight changes !!
its a joke, but to me its not very funny.
lee spies
-------------------------------------------
my #1 johnny bench master set (over 80 scans)
wow, hardly know where to begin. the grade weights have been changed to accomadate a few ( at least one) members plan.
they have already said they do not wish to pursue the tougher cards (venezuelans, candy lids, etc.....) so they suggested (behind all
other members back) to psa that there were some changes needed in the weights. this came to light in a thread a couple months ago.
there was some initial discussion of weights in that thread. there was no agreement between anyone.
since than i have not been contacted by anybody about any weight changes. i should say right now, i am the current leader in the bench
master set. this whole weight issue was started by the 2003 bench master set leader. is it all starting to get alittle clearer now ??
well today i see there are some changes in the weights. you will not believe some of these. i`ll list just a few.
a (1973 TOPPS COMIC) and a (1970 TOPPS CANDY LID) have a grade weight of 8
a (1971 MILK DUDS complete box) has a grade weight of 7 !!
a complete box sells on ebay monthly for around $50.00
i have the only 1970 candy lid of bench psa has ever graded,, cost me around $400
and a 73 comic, i have no idea just how much they are,,, I`VE NEVER SEEN ONE FOR SALE !! but know this, its big $$$$$
a 1977 venezuelan league sticker of bench has a weight of 5
a 1973 candy lid of bench has a weight of 4
yet
a 1983 reds yearbook card has a weight of 5
a 1978 sspc allstar gallery card has a weight of 5
PLEASE, that is just plain nuts !!!
psa officials saw no problems with these weight changes !!
its a joke, but to me its not very funny.
lee spies
-------------------------------------------
my #1 johnny bench master set (over 80 scans)
0
Comments
-Ian
I'll trade you my five 1978 SSPC All-Star Gallery Bench cards (I can always get more since you can buy a complete book at any card shop around here) for five of your 1977 Venezuelan Stickers Bench. Of course the trade will be even up since the grade weights are the same. Oh, you don't have five. Hmmm. Wonder why that is?
Oh well, how about a Milk Duds Bench box (plus I'll throw in a 1983 Topps Bench) for a 1973 Topps Comics Bench? That seems fair.
Maybe two 1983 Reds Yearbooks for your 1970 Candy Lid? You're kind of making out on that deal since I'm giving you 10 in grade weights for your measly 8. I'm feelin' generous.
Bob
P.S. If anybody wants me to go to the corner store and buy them some '83 Reds Yearbooks or '78 All-Star Gallery books, just let me know. I'll pick them up when I go out to get milk and eggs.
bobsbbcards SGC Registry Sets
I regret to inform you that I have requested a change in weighting in the Johnny Bench master set as well. You see, the only Johnny Bench card I have is the 1969 Topps in PSA 8 so I have asked that PSA now give this card a weighting of 100,000. I expect the update in a week or so at which time I should take over 1st place.
Michael
I've requested that the weights of all cards from now on equal the first digit of the certificate number. All of the certs starting with "0" shouldn't be worth as much as the certs starting with "1", "5", or (drum roll) "9". We'll see which of our schemes they choose (maybe a combination of both).
Bob
bobsbbcards SGC Registry Sets
Your plan will get me off to a good start on my Wally Bunker master set.
this just in from bj,
Lee,
This was an honest mistake. Gayle Kean sent the file to Joe to approve several new cards that were being added. He saw yours and last years winner suggested weights and thought he was supposed to re-weight the entire the set based on your suggestions. What you see is how Joe would weight the set.
Since you obviously don’t agree with his weighting, I think it is now imperative that you and Scott and any of the others you want involved get together and agree on the weights once and for all. I will await your spreadsheet with the consensus weighting and will update the weights as soon as you send me the spreadsheet.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ok, there you go. be assured none of the above listed changes were mine
those were last years winner suggested changes. and joe o. agreed with them.
i tried to explain to them what was up, they just don`t get it.
lee
However, some of these changes seem to be an overreaction, to say the least. I'm glad it was just an "honest mistake" by Joe O., but did BJ mean it will stay that way unless somebody forces the issue? I didn't even know Joe was interested in the Johnny Bench set.
As for the spreadsheet BJ is waiting for, either she or Lee or Scott sent that to me and I replied that I didn't have a problem with their suggestions. (I didn't take sides on the ones they disagreed sharply on, and I think that was a smart decision). I don't know who else on the registry has seen it or responded.
All this acrimony over weights and my-card-is-scarcer-than-yours. I'm starting to agree with jimtb: give them all a weight of 1 and let completion % be the measure. Or let PSA set the weights without helpful suggestions from us submitters. Yeah right, like the registry team has time to research and assign accurate weights to a gazillion different cards and oddball items!
Like I've said before, getting members of any registry to agree on weights is like getting cats to walk in a parade.
Meanwhile, some of those new cards in the set are mine as well as Scott's or Lee's or Ryan's or whoever's. The fact that I'm registering them doesn't mean I like or dislike the weight assigned to it. I just want to move my Bench collection closer to completion.
Not looking to fan the flames of card weights here, but I was wondering why the 74 OPC Bench is weighted less than the 74 Topps Bench when only one 74 OPC Bench has ever been graded by PSA?
Your Nolan Ryan friend,
Scott J.
• 1968 Topps #247 Bench -- 2,255 cards graded including 428 PSA 6s, 502 PSA 7s, 491 PSA 8s, 108 PSA 9s, and 7 PSA 10s (!!!)
compared to ...
• 1968 Topps Venezuela #247 Bench -- 3 cards graded, the best being PSA 5. I believe Lee submitted all of them.
Both issues carry a weight of 9. If all you cared about was improving your rank, you'd go after a regular PSA 6 Bench rookie for $75 instead of the very best '68 Venezuelan Bench known to man.
The regular Topps rookie shouldn't even be the highest weighted in the Bench Basic Set, where 1971 #250 is much tougher and scarcer in PSA 8 or higher.
So difficulties remain. As for the latest changes, I don't know what weights the other Scott or Lee or Ryan requested, but one new card I registered got 5 when I suggested 3, and another got 2 when I suggested 4. Somebody disagreed with me. OK, whatever.
Speaking personally, it's actually nice to ponder these mysteries for awhile instead of life's real problems. Our hobby is good that way.
the basic rule of weighting (per psa standards) is; VALUE IN PSA-8 CONDITION.
thats why you will here bj say, rarity is no part of the equation in determining grade weights.
there are some cards that may be alittle harder to find, but still do not cost much when you find them.
where it really gets funky is when your weighting items where there are no examples in psa-8
heres a great example, i recently purchased a 1975 msa-test disc for $155.00 it came back a psa-1 (has a crease across the back that runs the length of the disc) its the only bench disc to be graded from that set.
so using psa weighting equation, a psa-1 = $155 what would a psa-8 disc sell for ??? and what would you weight it at ???
lee
<< <i>hi all,
the basic rule of weighting (per psa standards) is; VALUE IN PSA-8 CONDITION.
>>
Wouldn't that make more sense if the SMR showed accurate values for PSA 8 vintage cards instead of a basic multiplier?
As one who doesn't buy into a competitive Registry, I agree with making all of the weights 1. One doesn't really know how much supply/demand there will be or coming to agreement because each person's buying experience may be different.
I have yet to see what the weights have been changed to...Although I notice that the set is about 10 cards heavier than just a couple days ago.
I heard from several people that weights were being discussed but I never saw a proposed (or any other for that matter) change to card weights.
It would make sense to put them all at 1, in any case, you are still the leader with the highest graded example or the only graded example...but at the same time, a 1 for a 1984 Fleer and a 1977 Venezuelan sticker doesn't make much sense. There should be a higher weight to those rare cards-even if that isn't supposed to play into the weight system.
Just my 2 cents
It is a joke, but my take in all of this is (and I think Marc - mikeschmidt would agree): Keep adding the cards to the set, suggest weights if you feel like it, and when the set becomes close to a true master set (i.e. there are no gradeable cards left to add) submit a spreadsheet to overhaul the entire set weighting. Although I've never done it, you may want to speak with Joe O. about this. I'm sure he would be willing to listen once you've taken the set to that point.
On a similar note, if anyone is interested in complete lists of player sets, let me know. I have spreadsheets for many players that include most, if not every card, coin, comic, disc, lid, tattoo, scratch-off, stand-up, punch-out, etc. ever produced. I'm always happy to share this info - just email me: jeb@virtualizard.com
JEB.
please give your thoughts on the idea of giving all cards a weight of 1
pro and con.
i`d like to see bob, and marc give their 2 cents also.
your friend, lee
I am completely against that idea! At least the weighting that PSA has in place allows a serious player collector an advantage over the basic set collector who decides to register a master set with the same cards. Some weight should always be applied to any cards that are not mainstream Topps, Fleer, Donruss, etc. issues. For someone to be able to be ahead of you in the Bench set just because they have a few of the basic Topps cards in higher grade is unthinkable!
So, I guess my answer to your question is: there should absolutely NOT be a uniform weighting of "1" in any Master set. If that would ever happen, I'd be out, and PSA would no longer get any submissions from me. Part of the joy of my collecting is in finding the rare issues and the competition that it provides. If my Deckle Edges, Venezuelans, Punch-outs, etc. don't get the credit that they deserve, then what's the fun in that? I might as well just buy overgraded PSA 9s and 10s of the basic Topps issues, just to be at the top! Again, how is that enjoyable?
I have PSA 1, 2, and 3 graded cards in my Stargell Master Set. These are some of my favorite cards, and the hardest to find in any condition. Why should another collector be allowed to accumulate more grade points for a standard issue Topps card than I can for these, just because they fork over the cash for a 9 or 10 that can be purchased on ebay frequently?
Below is one that I'm waiting for PSA to add to my set. I suggested a weight of "6". We'll see what happens.
Best of luck with your set, Lee. I enjoy checking out your set from time to time. Your Bench set, with all of the scans, is one of the few player sets that I truly enjoy following. I feel your pain!
Oh yeah, I almost forgot, weren't you responsible for the weight of a card in my Stargell set dropping?
Just kidding, buddy! I really don't care what Joe O, or anybody else who has any input into this matter, thinks!
JEB.
<< <i>please give your thoughts on the idea of giving all cards a weight of 1 >>
Lee,
Short answer: of course not. That's nuts.
Long answer:
The registry was designed to be a competition. If not, then there wouldn't be any weighting at all, nor any ordering of sets from top to bottom (except maybe alphabetically by submitter). Marshall Fogel's sets would appear with the other "F" names (or "M"). There would be a rush to come up with set names like "AAAAAA Really Nice Mantle Collection" or "AAAAAGGGHHH, I'm Out Of Money Collection". Since people wouldn't really go for such a scheme, let's agree that some weighting and competition is necessary.
Now, should a PSA 10 1952 Topps Mantle have the same weight as a PSA 10 1968 Topps Mantle? I would say no, it should be weighted higher. Why? Is it because it's more expensive in PSA 8 or is it because it's rarer. The two concepts might be linked, but they might not. In the case of the two Mantles, they are linked because there have been enough graded examples of each to establish agreed upon prices. The '52 Mantle is both rarer and more expensive in PSA 8.
I'll make a general statement that PSA 8 pricing and rarity for common "star" cards is fairly well correlated. By common, I mean all cards issued since 1952 or so in regular issue sets. Is a 1952 Topps Mantle a common? Of course it is. You could go buy a dozen or so in varying condition on the Internet by the time you finish reading this sentence.
Does weighting cards by PSA 8 pricing in "basic" sets make sense. Yes. Does it make sense in "master" sets. Of course not.
A Master set (for players especially) shouldn't be thought of as an extension of a basic set. People who are at the top of the basic set for a particular player who think "I'll just register my cards in the master set and then see what else I can pick up" are missing the point of the master set. The Master set should be thought of as all the really interesting and rare (in some cases) cards of a player that have ever been issued in any form. Oh yeah, it just happens to include all those "common" cards that are part of the basic set.
Is a 1968 Topps Bench rookie rare? Of course not. Is it expensive in PSA 8? Kind of. Should it be weighted a 9? Of course not--maybe a 3.
Is a 1968 Topps Venezuelan rookie rare? Of course. Is it expensive in PSA 8? I have no idea--there aren't any. Should it be weighted a 9? Of course not--probably a 10.
Is the 1968 Topps Venezuelan rookie just so uninteresting a card that all those people who have nice copies in binders never even thought about submitting them? Maybe, but probably not. My guess would be that there aren't any PSA 8 1968 Topps Venezuelan Bench cards.
How do you establish a PSA 8 price for a card that's never been graded (and might never be). I think the only way would be to ask people who might be potential buyers how much they'd pay for such a card. I'll go first:
I'll pay $7,432.14 for a PSA 8 1968 Topps Venezuelan Bench card.
If I'm the only one on the planet that would pay that much, then I wouldn't think that's a very good way to get PSA 8 pricing, but I'm pretty sure there's a few people that would pay more (I'm not even part of the Bench registry). Watch which cards in the MastroNet auction get crazy bids. Imagine a PSA 8 Venezuelan Bench rookie sitting in those pages with a nice glossy picture and a "glowing" write-up. Five figures easy.
Continue the same rule of thumb for all of the other cards in the Bench master set list--Candy Lids, Comics, Venezuelan stickers, OPCs, Deckles, Milton Bradleys, etc. How much would you pay for each in PSA 8? Would you pay more or less for a 1974 OPC Bench than you would a 1977 Topps Cloth sticker? Would you pay more or less for a 1978 SSPC All-Star Gallery Bench than you would a 1977 Venezuelan Bench sticker?
Now, the really mean part. If at any time you said "I wouldn't pay anything for those cards. They're stupid. I would pay more for a regular issue Topps Bench card, especially the rookie." then I'm afraid you shouldn't be competing in the master set. If you're not drawn to the "stupid" cards (the ones where there's no PSA 8 pricing in the SMR) like a moth to the flame, then you should stay as far away from them as possible.
Bob (IMHO)
bobsbbcards SGC Registry Sets
If I buy a '73 Topps Comics Bench for $2.50 because the seller has no clue what it is, and it grades PSA 8, does that establish a new value for that item and thus drive its weight down to 1? (There's only 2 other graded copies and maybe the prices paid for those are unknown) Besides, on very low-pop cards, how does PSA know the value? Should we be sending in our receipts with our submissions of scarce items?
Another thought... On some issues PSA 8 is fairly easy, but PSA 9 or 10 is a b*tch. For Bench, 1970, 1971, 1981 Topps come quickly to mind, and there are many others. So the established value for PSA 8 is some pedestrian amount, but PSA 9 will cost you an arm and both legs when one of the few copies comes up for auction.
This is not just speculation on my part. I paid 3x SMR for a 1970 #464 Bench PSA 9. That card's weight is only 2.5, but you hardly ever see it offered for sale even in PSA 8. The past couple times a PSA 8 has come up, this SMR $32 card sold for over $400. In that sense, maybe my 1/2 PSA 9 was a bargain since I didn't pay 12x SMR for it. This is not an obscure, oddball card that nobody has cared to grade. If its weight is 2.5 because 10 years ago a couple PSA 8 copies sold for $32, that's just silly.
Now, taking the other viewpoint... Maybe PSA's argument would be: "It is flawed, but we don't have any other way to track value. We can't base it strictly on population, because then we'd have to give a weight of 9 or 10 to every first-graded card that comes in and then constantly adjust the weight as more are graded."
To that I don't have an answer. And even if I did, chances are somebody on the Bench registry wouldn't agree with me. So what the hell. The weights desired by Lee, or Scott, or Joe Orlando are fine with me. Somebody's going to be unhappy no matter whose numbers are approved. In the end, I love all my Bench cards regardless of the number that is next to them in the registry.
Short-term:
Basic Set should be properly weighted. No exceptions. Weighting should be based upon PSA 8 values of all cards. There are supply and demand issues abound on this. The 1968 vs. 1971 Johnny Bench example is a good one. In the long-term, Bench's rookie card will almost a priori be more valuable and desirable in PSA 8 than the 1971 Bench. Rookie cards generally demand greater value - and they will continue to in the future, as long as there are rookie card collectors. In this case, there are significantly more rookie card collectors than Bench collectors. Sometimes weighting gets a little tricky when you have player set collectors chasing 9s and 10s of cards that are otherwise easy in PSA 8. I think PSA 8 has been the "gold standard" and should continue to be. Bringing in my own collecting expertise - I would suggest that with many 1980s Mike Schmidt Topps cards, they have a current market value of $1-3 in PSA 8, $5-10 in PSA 9, and potentially $100+ in PSA 10. 1981 Topps, 1985 Topps (never a 10), and 1988 Topps (never a 10) all exhibit this dynamic. Both 1989 Donruss Schmidt 10s sold in the $75 - $100 range, which is kind of silly, but hey, it is what was paid. Keep the standard at PSA 8 value - and look more toward long-term trends in the weighting.
Master Set - I believe for the next year or two, why not just leave all new additions with a weight of one? Does it really make much sense to weight now, until we have a better idea of what the "final" Master set looks like? It doesn't to me. You can make comparisons now as to what card is rarer or more desirable than others - but it doesn't make sense until all the potential Master Set cards are graded and included in the Registry. I think there are too many X-factor out there that will change relative weights, especially when you are working on a 1-10 schedule. I have explicitly tried to make all additions to the Master Set with a one rating for the near future, because of concerns like this. Heck - PSA's ability to continue grading certain issues might cause some changes, too. If PSA no longer grades Ralston Purina or the Perma-Graphics cards - then they shouldn't be in the Registry, and that might cause a new ripple of relative gradings. I would rather keep them in the Registry in the near term, though, in case PSA will grade those cards again sometime. I think there might be a few dozen more Schmidt cards added to the Registry - and that is before some esoteric questions are sorted out - like the different combinations on the 1981 Topps Scratch-Offs, and the 1988 and 1989 Topps Sticker/Stickercards. Heck - from a "true master" set collector angle - I would love to see PSA differentiate on its grading of a) the different colors of the 1977 Pepsi issue, b) the 1981 OPC gray/white backs, and c) the 1987 Sportflics issue with the 1986 or the 1987 copyrights. But I don't see PSA grading any of those differences anytime soon - so who's to say what may or may not happen?
Long-Term:
The Basic Set will stay the same, so no issues there.
The Master Set will have to be re-weighted. But my suggestion here is really to wait until the Master Set has essentially reached a critical mass of "all" or "likely all" the different issues that PSA will grade. With additions like Hostess Panels, All-Star Game Program Insets, etc. being graded - the Master Set is likely to change for most player sets. Not to mention goofballs like me who insist on cracking Fleer Stamp boxes to fulfill my Schmidt needs - and thus population a few other player set collectors' collections. For many of the "oddball" type issues, I think it is going to be very tough to properly weight certain issues. OPC and Venezuelan issues are great examples. Although there may be a significant amount of limited demand for these issues - that demand may fall off the map after 3-5 collectors get their cards. Yes, 1970s OPC is tougher than Topps. There is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT. However, there is a critical mass number somewhere in the mix. For example, with 1973, 1977, 1978 and 1979 OPC issues, the high grade Schmidt cards sell for a significant discount over their Topps counterparts, even though the population is much smaller. 1974, 1975 and 1976 OPC will sell for a premium, mainly because not all the Schmidt player collectors have found top grade examples in the grade they wish to obtain. Therein lies the crux of the matter. If something on the supply-side changes in the future - a re-weighting might be necessary. When have have five or less people competitively vieing for top-grade oddball issues of certain cards, what is the proper response? I frankly am unsure. The drop-off in price factor can be too significant, in my opinion.
Complicating this is the raw vs. graded factor. There are some cards that are infinitely rare in raw grade that simply don't command premiums in graded form. What do you do there? A good example of this is some of the rarer disc cards. Coming to the front of my mind are the 1975 MSA Test disc, the 1976 Red Barn Disc, and the 1982 FBI Bantam discs. I don't know much about the first one, as Schmidt is not an example. But the latter two I can speak to. With the 1976 Red Barn disc - a Schmidt raw from that will command $100+ without creases. What would a PSA 7 command? PSA 8, 9 or 10? Who knows? I got my raw example for something like $130, and was blessed to get a PSA 10. But I nonetheless don't think the market value would be much more than $100-$200, even in the 10 grade. The premium is placed on finding the card, not finding a high-grade example. Similar is the FBI Bantam disc. In those cases - is it really "proper" to weight a card significantly when it commands a lot of money raw, but no premium for a high grade? I'm not convinced.
My best suggestion is to "wait to weight". And, furthermore, when the time comes to weight - all major players of the Master Registry must come to some sort of concensus. Let's be honest - guys. We ALL feel that our top-grade oddball cards are worth significant value, and are proud to own them. And sometimes we don't feel the same way when another member has a rare oddball that we need. In those cases, we are confident that we can upgrade in the future for less money when the opportunity comes around. It's almost just human nature. If some sort of concensus must be reached - then that is the best way to go. There is simply too few people that collect these players to waste precious hours and times disagreeing over silly things about proper set weighting. Yes, participants will not agree with one another. But if they are willing to concede certain weights here to receive certain weights elsewher - an agreeable solution might be reached. At the end of the day - placement on the Registry is almost always more dependant on completion percentage than it is on grade weighting. This should be preserved. The bells and whistles about individual card comparisons is something further down the road. I definitely have an opinion on the issue - but I don't have 100% confidence I'm correct.
Wait to weight
Cheers-
~ms
It's always nice to see you taking the time the do a little homework before you decide to bash me in an open forum. I was NOT the individual who requested the weights to which you refer in your post (I forwarded you the e-mail I sent to Cosetta with my suggested weights for some of the cards), so perhaps you need to look elsewhere to find the person responsible. I do agree with you about one thing...the Bench Master Set is quickly getting out of control. Too many people trying to make tweaks and suggestions, and PSA rightly doesn't know who to believe. We're obviously not going to agree on the weight of EVERY card, but there does need to be some sort of standardized approach for weighting new registry cards among all the various sets.
I did send out an e-mail a month or so ago soliciting input from the members of the Bench Master set, and go no response from anyone. If we can't even acknowledge a simple e-mail asking for honest input from other members, how do you think we're going to agree on card weights?
I'm at a loss as to where we go from here, but as always, I'm open to suggestions...
Scott
You will never get a concensus as to how individual cards should be weighed. Simply because one person paid a lot of money on a single occassion for an oddball card, does not mean that oddball card should have higher weight that a RC or second year card. Who is to say a rare oddball card is more important to a set than a mainstream card or visa versa?
It will never happen, but I would recommend that the PSA registry eliminate weighting altogether for player master sets.
50 1978 O-PEE-CHEE JOHNNY BENCH 2 (player registry)
50 JOHNNY BENCH 1 (base set)
195 1976 TOPPS NL RBI LEADERS BENCH/LUZINSKI/PEREZ 1.50 (player registry)
195 NL RBI LEADERS 2 (base set)
70 1977 TOPPS JOHNNY BENCH 2 (player registry)
70 JOHNNY BENCH 3.50 (base set)
Is it harder to find these cards if you're one collector or the other???
That's my two cents...
Jim
first of all scott, i went out of my way to make sure i did not use your name in my thread. all anybody knew was it was last years master
set winner. if someone knew that was you, so be it.
I stand behind what i said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
scott, here is the cardinal rule for weighting ( from psa ) ------- VALUE ($) IN PSA-8 = GRADE WEIGHT
rarity plays no part in the equation. outwardly that is. but in real world conditions, rarity does play a part. sellers know they have a rare test issue. and they will set the price high. you know, supply and demand.
i don`t care what you wish to grade some $25.00 item that can be bought any month of the year on ebay. we`ll all have it and its a push.
what i do care about is when one of us spends the time and the big bucks to track down a rare or hard to find item and the registry
does not reward with a high grade weight. i`m talking value here, not rarity.
scott, as long as you look at weighting in the master set as you do with the basic set, we never will agree on some of the more expensive
hard to find bench items.
scott, you make weight suggestions on cards that you have no idea what there value is, in any grade, or even raw.
scott, when i make a weight suggestion on a tough expensive card, it comes from first hand knowledge on how much green i had to remove from my wallet !!
and i don`t like the fact that i`m out there spending my hard earned money on bench items that are the first ones to be graded by psa
(68 +77 venezuelan issues, 1970 candy lid, etc...... ) and some guy from the third row comes along and decides he dosen`t like those weights. he does not have those cards or know what their value is ,,, but he thinks they should be adjusted !
and i never received any email from you about anything. (edited) i did get one today.
lee
BTW, 1978 OPC is not weighted at all, IIRC.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
I don't know that I totally agree with your line of reasoning...who cares where the card is located-regular set or player set? And if you do, then it leads to the credence that weighting based on scarcity or importance within that set says that a rare or important card gets a higher weight. Especially when the weight in one set is based on PSA 8 standards, how does the weight change between sets? The price is the same regardless of where it's going...
Just my 2 cents.
My Auctions
what ??
lee
Well, I did send out an e-mail to the Bench Registry members, and so did BJ. I heard nothing back from my request from the other members. Perhaps I should send it out again and see if I get any better response.
You're still missing the big picture...I did not request changes to most of those cards you mentioned, nor were many of those cards changed (the 77 Venez still a 5, a 68 Kahn's still a 10).
If you follow your logic regarding card prices, since you paid $155 for an MSA test disc, which graded out at a PSA 1, that would mean the value for a PSA 8 would be well over $1000, which would mean just about any other card other than the "super rare ones" would be weighted less than 1, assuming the MSA test disc was given a 10. Does that seem fair to you? What weight did you request for this card?
Obviously this is an issue we're going to continue to disagree on, which is fine. What I would appreciate is just a little common courtesy from you. I forwarded you an e-mail I sent to Cosetta with the weights I thought were fair for some cards that were recently added, and to which you had taken exception to, even though the weights I asked for were MUCH lower than what they were finally given. However, you still seem to think I'm out to "get you", which I'm not. You bashed me in a public forum when you didn't have the facts, and now that those facts have been presented to you, showing I'm in the clear, you still seem to think I have some ulterior motive. That's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it.
The past 6 months or so dealing with all these issues regarding card weights, inclusion or exclusion of cards, and the constant bickering is really starting to get old. Trust me, I do appreciate your efforts in building your set, and the money it has taken to reach this point. What I don't appreciate is how you think that since you've tracked down all these rare cards that somehow your opinion carries more weight than the rest of us.
Anyway, enough whining from me. This just isn't what the registry is supposed to be about. Somehow things have gotten completely skewed along the way. This is supposed to be fun!
JEB.
I already returned the spreadsheet to Cosetta or whoever and said I was fine with Lee's and Scott's changes. What the holdup is with that, I dunno. As for the new cards with the odd weights, some are higher or lower than I suggested, I don't know if that's Joe O. fooling around with them as BJ said, or a result of other suggestions being received. Whatever, just ask her to change them to whatever you guys want -- or make them 1. As with the other changes that were shown to me, I'm fine with it... just get it over with and worry about something more important, for god's sake.
I wonder if there's an opening in the Kurt Bevacqua registry.
I agree. Also, the word "Byzantine" come to mind. Makes me glad I dumped this set many months ago. Life's too short....
Steve
R73 1933 Goudey Indian Gum - Series 288 - Nos. 118
Also looking for 1953 Parkhurst & 1953 Quaker Oats Ripley's BION.
If you have any available for sale PM me
Loves me some shiny!
Nick,
I don't know that I totally agree with your line of reasoning...who cares where the card is located-regular set or player set? And if you do, then it leads to the credence that weighting based on scarcity or importance within that set says that a rare or important card gets a higher weight. Especially when the weight in one set is based on PSA 8 standards, how does the weight change between sets? The price is the same regardless of where it's going...
Just my 2 cents.
Rare or important cards in a set are worth more than other cards in that set.
Consider the Mickey Mantle Basic Set.
Mickey is normally a 9 or 10 registry weight in every Topps set he appears in, because he is one of, if not the most expensive card in that set. But when the relevant comparison is the price of other Mantle cards (from different years) as opposed to the price of every other 1968 Topps card, it would not make sense to give every card in the Mantle Basic Set a weight of 9 or 10; instead, they are weighted as against each other, so that the 1952 Topps gets a 10, and the weights (and prices) go down from there.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.