A problem with Modern Player Sets

Wabittwax

I was looking through the Michael Jordan master sets on here and I noticed that this set has a 2002 Fleer Showcase Masterpiece card #'d 1 of 1 in it. It's quite an impressive card but then I thought that it isn't really fair because the other 6 Billion people in the world are mathematically eliminated from reaching 100% on this set. I think if I was involved in this set, I wouldn't drop the kind of money necessary only to reach 99.9% on it. If anyone at PSA is reading this, please make an official ruling on serial numbered cards. In my opinion, it should be cards that are #'d 10 or higher so that there are at least 10 possible complete sets.

ctsoxfan

Steve, that's a great point. I would vote that short printed, serial numbered cards like that shouldn't be included at all - but if there has to be a cutoff, make it cards /100 or more. Even 10 cards doesn't really give you a realistic shot of completion.

gregm13

I collect Marino cards, and I'm somewhat lucky because the cutoff for his cards for the basic and master sets is 2000. There are a few cards serial numbered to less than 100 but not as many since the explosion of low numbered has only occurred over the past several years.

I agree that the cutoff should be at cards numbered at 100 or more. Any card with less than 100 print run would be too difficult (and costly) to obtain. Just my two cents.

Regards,

Greg M.

jimtb

Hi Steve,
I think you're right as well. A 1 of 1 has no business in a Master set because it makes it impossible for anyone else to complete. I'm just glad that the guy I collect (Trammell) retired before these extremely limited cards and sets came out.

Wabittwax

Yeah, 100 sounds good. Whatever number it is, at least it would be a level playing field for everybody. Someday I want to attempt a McGwire Master Set again (I started once but lost interest), but I want to see what they do with these first.

NickM

Personally, I'd draw a cutoff point at #/98, because there were a number of parallels numbered to those marks, but very few below #/98 until you're down to #/75 or so.

The market also treats #/98 or #/99 cards very similarly to #/100 cards (no great surprise here).

Other reasonable points to draw a line are #/50, #/25, or #/10, each of which is a fairly common numbering system for rare inserts or parallels.

I do think there should be exceptions made for sets (not player sets) where many or all of the cards are #ed to less than the cutoff for player sets. SP Legendary Cuts, many of the autos in which are #ed to less than 10, is a prime example - and Museum of Sports History has a fantastic set here, including 1/1 and 1/2 PSA graded autographs (their set was originally open to view). Other sets that I can imagine someone doing in PSA form that follow this sort of numbering system include some of the Pacific rookies subsets in FB and HK products, which were #ed to the player's jersey #, as well as Leaf Certified Fabric of the Game G/U (and/or auto) insert sets, which were #ed according to varying systems, including jersey #s and the last 2 digits of a key season.

Nick

AlanAllen

Strange, they did not include a 1/1 Marcus Allen in the master set, despite two requests.

Joe

theplasticman

this one seems like itll have a wide base of opinions.

I agree, no 1/1 cards but dont know where to go from there.

EagleEyeKid

I agree also....no 1/1.
Not just because I've never pulled one or
is willing to fork out some big dough, but let
me ask you this.....if you pulled a 1/1 of your
favorite player; wouldn't you want it in your
master set?

CoachTom

I collect mostly older cards, but I have always wondered what if someone was able to add a certified autographed 1969 Pete Rose card that was signed in person say in 1970? It would be in the population report, so would that qualify it to be added to the Master?

Alfiewt

No way should 1/1 cards be needed to complete master sets. I have no interest in these manufactured rarities. I agree that PSA should only make cards with a print run of 100 or more neccessary for the master sets. They don't have completly eliminate them from the sets, they can list them as optional, and not have them effect the completion % or set rating. I don't think anyone would object to this. I you had one of these cards you would still be able to show it off, but it should in no way effect you completion % or set rating.

peterredshoes

My personal experience (which is pretty well confined to collecting post-retirement Trammell cards) is that #/50 is something of a sweet spot economically--the graph of $ vs. serial numbering seems to start to increase rapidly after this point. Of course, this may not be true of other players.

Given the number of sets registered for the most popular players, using #/10 as a cutoff would seem to be too restrictive if the goal of a cutfoff is to give all registrants a shot at 100% completion. Even #/25 would be pushing it for some of the most popular stars, particularly if the number of sets registered continues to grow over time.

I have found a cutoff useful just for my raw collection in terms of coming up with a list that I think I can realistically achieve 100% completion on. For what it's worth that cutoff is #/50. I also go by stated print run and not strictly by serial numbering--there are a handful of very low print run cards that are not numbered. Best example on the Trammell checklist is '97 Pacific Silver, which is old enough to be eligible for inclusion on the Master Set and limited to just 67 copies.

Peter G.