Modern Player Collectors - Can of Worms

jimtb

This is the never ending arguement, but I'd like to hear some opinions. Player collectors, what should go in the Basic set? Where do you draw the line? What about Pinnacle, Ultra, Flair, Collectors Choice, and SP?

Personally, I think none of the above mentioned should be in the basic set. The Basic set in my mind, is just that, the main releases from the major card companies. None of these fit that bill. Somebody tell me where I'm wrong.
Jim

CON40

Jim... OK, you're wrong!

The Ryan guys are in this same dilemna and last summer we decided that all nationally released cards issued in wax packs in a traditional manner are all equal. This means for the early '90s that Topps, Bowman, Donruss, Fleer, Leaf, Score, Upper Deck, Select, Flair, SP, Finest, Pinnacle, UD Collectors Choice, Stadium Club, and even Sportflics are all basically equal.

Once you decide to omit one, say Pinnacle, why? How does it differ from Bowman or Finest or Leaf? It is its own distinct brand within a range of branded products offered by a single manufacturer. I wish it weren't so crowded to be honest. But it is what it is. This is why being a player collector of modern guys really sucks sometimes.

edited because I forgot a couple brands!

WinPitcher

i agree with con40

as long as it was issued nationally and in wax packs it should be in the basic set.

regional issues and test issues are what make up the master set.

jimtb

Hey Con40,
Hmmm, to play devil's advocate, aren't insert cards "released in wax packs in a traditional manner"?

mikeschmidt

<< <i>Hey Con40,
Hmmm, to play devil's advocate, aren't insert cards "released in wax packs in a traditional manner"? >>



Jim - sure, but to clarify to mean that cards released in wax packs in a traditional manner that are part of the base set, as issued by the manufacturer.

This - the myriad inserts, parallels, gold-tinted refractors with game-used grass, etc. are not part of the base set, as issued by the manufacturer.

jimtb

MS, so you are in agreement with Con40's definition as well?

carew4me

Get ride of basic sets. They seem to cause confusion.

They are just a way for set collectors to interfere with passionate player collectors.

Go big or dont go.

ajw

<< <i>Get ride of basic sets. They seem to cause confusion.

They are just a way for set collectors to interfere with passionate player collectors.

Go big or dont go. >>



I disagree. They also serve as a good entry to the PSA set registry. I've got about 3000 unique Will Clark cards, but am not fully committed to building a Master Set. Instead, I'm slowly building a basic set. If I find that I enjoy it, I'll broaden my view and jump into the Master Set. A set with several thousand cards is pretty intimidating to many, and I'm not ashamed to include myself in that group. If you don't like basic sets, don't register one.

JonB

carew4me, there are several reasons for a basic set, the most obvious is that not everyone cares to buy refractors and game used and all of the thousands of different types of inserts these days. secondly, not everyone has the money to build a 2000 card Ripken master set (which is probably still growing) but many could slowly take on the tast of building his 200 card basic set. basic sets without a doubt hold their place very strongly in the registry, and so do the master sets for passionate people with tons of money.

Wabittwax

<< <i>gold-tinted refractors with game-used grass >>



I'd like to find the Ricky Williams game used grass card. They should be in plentiful supply.

imafishinnut

In my opinion, the folks at PSA need to define what should be included in the basic sets. I agree with CON40's assessment, but each player set collector's view on this issue varies widely. As such, the player set collectors probably will never be able to come to a full agreement on the issue. For this reason, PSA really needs to make the final decision based upon the input of the player set collectors.

Mike

NickM

I take a fairly broad view, similar to CON40's, although I personally regard Sportflics as too much of a gimmicky card to be part of a Basic Set (the company produced wax pack releases for only 3 consecutive years IIRC).

A tougher question comes about cards that were shortprints within the set but are numbered as part of the base set. At what point do you drop the card from the Basic Set?
Topps Finest Rare cards during some of the 1990s were seeded 1 per box, so that you needed 50 boxes with perfect collation to get the full complement. Is that too rare?

What about serial numbered shortprints of a player that are part of a subset? Here, a distinction can be drawn on whether there are multiple cards of the player in the set - for example, SP Authentic basketball for the last several years has had SP Specials #ed to 2000 along with a regular card of the player in the set, so it might well make sense to exclude the subset card and just include the regular card (especially if the regular card has full statistics and the other doesn't).

What about serial numbered rookie cards? Is there a scarcity point at which those should not be counted? Pacific in recent years numbered some cards (which were checklisted as part of the set, not inserts) in both football and hockey to player jersey numbers - and since some of these guys wore the #1, that meant there was a 1/1 rookie card floating around. Should that be included? What about #ed to 100? 400? 1000? 2000? 3999? 8799? [That last number was on base set cards from 1998 Topps Stars football, which also had parallels #ed to 3999, 1999, and lower numbers, with some of the parallels having identical pictures and simply different color foil stamping.]

Wabitt - there are no Ricky Williams game-used grass cards. There are plenty of Ricky Williams game-used ash cards though.

Nick

jimtb

Great questions, Nick. Where is the line drawn? That's my question.

sixdart

One weird thing that I've noticed for individual player sets, PSA has always listed cards for their playing years only. The last year outside of these years, which actually represents their last playing year (playing years +1), is almost always omitted from these sets.

For example, Barry Sanders' last year in the NFL was 1998. However, his cards are listed between 1989 and 1998, but should include his 1999 issues ... as they represent his 1998 statistics and accomplishments. Anyone else notice this?

jimtb

Hi Sixdart,
I know that on the Trammell set, we included the year after the last playing years for just that reason.
Jim

imafishinnut

Sixdart,

I think they do actually include the cards you are talking about. For example, Wade Boggs' playing years are listed as 1982 to 1999. His basic set includes cards from 1983 to 2000. The reason you might be noticing this in the Barry Sanders set is that no 1999 issues have been graded or that no 1999 issues have been added to the basic set yet. PSA doesn't add a card to the player set if none have been graded or if no one has requested the card to be added. The Wade Boggs player set is currently missing about 35 - 40 cards because they haven't been graded yet and/or requested.

Mike

JonB

Sixdart... we are currently in the process of adding the '94 cards to the nolan ryan sets to account for this.

sixdart

Mike (imafishinnut),

The reason you might be noticing this in the Barry Sanders set is that no 1999 issues have been graded or that no 1999 issues have been added to the basic set yet. PSA doesn't add a card to the player set if none have been graded or if no one has requested the card to be added.

They are hundreds of Barry Sanders cards that have been graded prior to this set even being listed - this is not the reason. At least it's not widespread?

peterredshoes

I also agree with Con40 on this one.

With regard to the issue of short print base set cards, this isn't actually a new concept inasmuch as there are different quantities of different cards even in vintage sets. A well-known example is that of the lower production of high number series cards. The only differences I see between that and the modern short printing is that today's short printing is more extreme (lower production runs) and more aggressively advertised (both in promotional material and on the cards themselves if they are serially numbered). Unfortunately I can't see a logical point at which to draw the line on how many of a card have to be produced for it to be "basic." If you make it 50, for example, why didn't you make it 100 or 25? For this reason my feeling is that if a card is defined by the manufacturer as part of a basic set, I'm going to have to call it basic even if it's got 45 pieces of game-used material in it and is 1/1.

I probably have more I could add to this thread but my mind is going blank, so I'll save it for later.

Peter G.

theplasticman

yes on the pack issue thing. No parallels. Just the primary card in the base set. Id also go so far as to say (for example) the primary Will Clark 1990 Topps and the All-star card in the set should both be in since both are base cards from the pack issued set.

This is always fun... never really any firm boundaries and opinions differ widely

67standup

<< <i>Get ride of basic sets. They seem to cause confusion.

They are just a way for set collectors to interfere with passionate player collectors.

Go big or dont go. >>



I kinda like this idea. Or, rather than a Basic set, maybe just change to Topps only. Why does a Fleer/Donruss count, but not a Topps leader card?

JonB

the basic set is the players main card from a nationaly issued set, this does not include "inserts" or record breaker cards, or anything else... i thought it was pretty simple