1984 Donruss Baseball - the unofficial but legal thread

BugOnTheRug · October 4, 2005 3:12PM

Whelp - here goes!

I hope the 84D crowd and those interested will let loose on this thread. My original intent was to just list the 5 cards need to complete the basic set, but there seems to be a following that this thread may benefit. For starters, and so my original thread doesn't get lost, I need these 5 cards for completion of the basic set:

210 - Al Bumbry
480 - Joel Youngblood
482 - Mike Fitzgerald
539 - Alan Ashby
546 - Vance Law

Any help would be greatly appreciated! Also check my master set - 'Summer of '84D'- Master' - for the remaining DK's and that troublesome #29 Stenhouse in PSA 9/10! PM me or email at [email protected]

So, on we go...........................

There's several sets worth checking out on the 84D registry - Arny's, RVC and his monster 10.0 GPA, Dom's 'ahead of his time' 2002 and 2003 award winner - Dom passed away a few years ago and his set would be the KING of 84D's if around today - a 84D pioneer hands-down, plus others of note that are listed.

Normally these threads start out with good conversation that I hope will happen here, but it's the bottom-line eye candy, the 'show us what you got' mentality that I really enjoy. So here is some of my eye candy........................hope you enjoy it!

Orosco is one of my favorite cards and one of three 10's on my first submission. Doran was just added and #6 in the countdown to completion........

Two other favorites that are very hard to find centered.......

Talk about absolute bears to find nicely centered - Parrish was a submission; Purchased the Clancy and was worth every penny.....

Who are these guys? Gibson is placed 2 cards before Mattingly but you'd never know it; Craig Swan? Yep, he'll probably be on your want list a long, long time...........

And now..........drum roll please.................THE TWO ABSOLUTE TOUGHEST 1984 DONRUSS CARDS PERIOD (IMO)! If you want to complete the set, it's gotta go through these 2 cards !!!!! (both were submissions)

Don't be fooled - there are a host of others that'll give you fits, but hey, that's part of the fun!

So come on guys - now it's your turn to strut your stuff !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

marz · October 4, 2005 6:14PM

carney has gained another carney since this photo~

RayBShotz · October 4, 2005 7:49PM

Bill,

I thought I would paste over my comments from last night since it is likely that this is the thread that will have the legs. Thanks for the heads up on the tough cards and great scans!

Pasted:

I will admit to a certain growing affection for this set. You guys make up the cream of the crop, wholely responsible for most of the truly premium PSA 1984 Donruss cards accumulated on the Registry so far.
I , for one would enjoy a 84' Donruss dedicated thread and might find myself dragged into this for the fun of it.

For anyone casually checking in here, 1984 Donruss photography is classic; just check out some of the impressive scans here so far.
I believe that Donruss stylized these cards in a carefully chosen placement of accent colors, and the stark white and aquamarine reverse is whistle clean.

This is one heck of a 80's issue!

If I manage to get a few more cheap Gemmies from this set I may count myself in!
RayBShotz

Text

rvc · October 4, 2005 7:58PM

way to get things going bill!
i didnt know dom passed away
i hope to get some scans up this weekend
simply the best set of the 80's
trying to find that perfect centering is oh so hard yet they are out there

ArnyVee · October 4, 2005 9:16PM

Problems with centering? You betcha!

These '84 Donruss cards are notorious for the centering. And, it's not horrendous 90/10 type of stuff....just a little too far to be considered even 9s. I've got the Orosco, Lansford & Gibson cards in 9, but the other ones have been impossible for me to find. I opened up an entire box of wax and found that Bumbry (scan on the other thread) and a Dravecky DK (close to a '9', not sure if submitting) that were the only ones that I would chance to send in. Got two approx 75/25 centered Chambliss cards and a K.Hernandez that had a corner ding. Other than that, nothing that I needed for the set worth submitting. Toughies for sure. Especially the Moreno, Chambliss, Parrish DK & Clancy cards.

Has anyone here busted any factory sets? If so, what was the centering like?

By the way, I hadn't heard about Dom's passing. I was wondering why it was 'easy' to catch up and pass him when he was doing so well with the set. Then, Bill comes along and beats me to the 2004 award! After working for a year to get that set to pass Dom's and BOOM! LOL

ArnyVee · October 4, 2005 9:21PM

Bill, just read your comment about the Bumbry on the other thread. I'm hoping that it comes back at least a "9" and yes, I pulled it from a wax box.

mikeschmidt · October 4, 2005 9:52PM

Great scans, BOTR.

For what it's worth, I'm really looking for a nicely centered 1984 Donruss DK Mike Schmidt "Steele" variation.

I would be willing to pay $25- for a PSA 9 and $85- for a PSA 10.

~ms

Rangerman · October 4, 2005 10:48PM

BOTR----- Great scans!!!! Like the #21 L Parrish:-))))))))Tony

sagard · October 4, 2005 11:59PM

Do well centered cards from factory sets typically come back in the 9/10 categories? I'm thinking about doing this set, but can't decide between creating a cherry picked set from several factory sets vs. doing the PSA 9 route.

Are there any cards that don't ever come nice from the factory sets?

ArnyVee · October 5, 2005 12:01AM

I've opened some factory sets of other cards, but never of '84 Donruss. The usual problems occur with these as far as centering problems. But, that's why I was asking about the '84 Donruss set crackers out there....maybe there were better results there than the wax packs.

sagard · October 5, 2005 12:15AM

Sad and interesting is the fact that the '90 Leaf set even throwing out the Thomas and Sosa submissions still has twice as many submissions as the '84 Donruss.

ArnyVee · October 5, 2005 12:47AM

Here's a 1 of 1 that I'm proud of. I couldn't find this puppy in PSA 9 and I finally got a 10! (Scanner is actin' up, not real clear)

More to come

ctsoxfan · October 5, 2005 12:55AM

Thanks for sharing those scans, BOTR - 84 Donruss is a very nicely designed modern set. It was always thought back in the mid to late 80's that this set was "scarce" (by 80's standards), and while that may or may not be true, I personally have never seen a lot of the cards from this set. Look forward to more scans!

mikeschmidt · October 5, 2005 1:23AM

<< <i>Sad and interesting is the fact that the '90 Leaf set even throwing out the Thomas and Sosa submissions still has twice as many submissions as the '84 Donruss. >>

Not sure why that is sad. You have a modern set, with nearly 700 cards in the Master set, that seems to have a large number of submissions and a bunch of people following the set - including a handful looking to put together a completely graded set. I think that's great for the hobby. Wax boxes go for $150- or so, and a factory set is about $100. If you consider that the cost of grading alone for this set approaches $4,000 - the fact that anyone is putting it together points to the interest in the set. 20,000 submissions of 1984 Donruss cards? I think that's very, very healthy.

~ms

5STAT · October 5, 2005 1:23AM

Set vs. Wax !!??!!
I can tell you 1st hand that it's a toss up....
I opened 2 wax boxes....all cards with beautiful white borders..sharp corners...85% off center..either way..TB..or LR..some both!! Now, they my not have ALL been severely OC..but who wants to chance a 9OC??? Not me...I think I pulled 20 cards to grade total...and only Winfield and Fisk were stars...

Then, I broke 6 factory sets to see what was there...I encountered a NEW problem......centering was alot better in the sets..although far from perfect....BUT...it seems alot of the cards were under sized...and MAN did PSA catch me on that one....Perfect corners..perfect centering.....18 cards....Minimum Size Requirement!!! Not gradable!!

So of course....you know what we all do....RE-SUBMIT........NOT.....same thing......ALL came back...

Out of the 6 sets...I did get the bulk of the cards that I graded....I even bought a lot of 9's from 4 Sharp Corners (always had great luck with these guys..cheap selling prices---high shipping..but they have what I needed)...

So personally....it's a 50-50 toss up.....I'd lean more towards the factory sets...just be diligent in your pregrading before you send them in....

As for me....I love the 84 Donruss Set.....would love to finish it someday...but life happens....with a new store...wedding to pay for....and more new product coming out every day....I have to go to the closet!! lol
My set will be broken down over the next few days and will be in my Ebay store....

(

Not to worry....there's still my 1987 Fleer Basketball set (#3 All time) on Ebay now...and my 85-86 Topps Hockey Set (#1 All Time ) in lock up....that still have my attention!!

ArnyVee · October 5, 2005 1:29AM

5STAT, which one is your set? Is it on the registry? If not, you might want to list your cards here and avoid that whole thing with the listing fees and all.

jimtb · October 5, 2005 1:32AM

5stat,
I left you a message about 84 Topps Tigers in the other 84 Donruss set. Your PM is not turned on. Let me know what 84 Topps Tigers you have in 9's and 10's!
Thanks-
Jim

Stingray · October 5, 2005 1:38AM

Yes please turn on your PM.

Stingray

5STAT · October 5, 2005 1:45AM

My set is listed as Floyd's 1984 Donruss Retirement Set...#8 in the Current Sets...BASIC...not Master Set...

And by all means....if anyone sees anything that they like...let me know.....

5STAT · October 5, 2005 1:47AM

Ok..sorry...newbie to the boards here.....but how does one turn on the PM???

Stingray · October 5, 2005 1:50AM

Go to your profile, click the allow private messages button, that should turn it on.

Stingray

Mefer · October 5, 2005 1:50AM

If you can find them, I would buy rack. I bought tons of rack of 84 Donruss as a kid. I have submitted most of the good stars from the racks and on a submission a couple of years ago, I got three PSA 10 Roses. I was simply floored.

It is a very nice set. Good to see this thread!

ArnyVee · October 5, 2005 2:18AM

Another 1 of 1....my Eddie Murray DK (Steele Variation)!

ArnyVee · October 5, 2005 2:25AM

By the way, I've got some PSA 9s available 'pre-eBay' in the event that there's any interest.

1984 DONRUSS PSA 9s AVAILABLE
#46 Chris Smith (Giants - Rated Rookie) 1 of 4 - $7.50
#297 Hal McRae (Royals) 1 of 11 - $5.00
#342 Larry Biittner (Rangers) 1 of 4 - $7.50
#366 Floyd Bannister (White Sox) 1 of 5 - $6.00
#381 Kevin Gross (Phillies) 1 of 8 - $6.00
#383 Doug Gwosdz (Padres) 1 of 4 - $7.50
Checklist #2 - 1 of 12 - $5.00

....if anyone is interested, simply send me a PM or e-mail me at [email protected]

EDITED: I added the amounts I would want for each card since I've received a few questions via PM already. I would also be willing to trade for any cards that I need to complete the set.

BugOnTheRug · October 5, 2005 5:06AM

..............this is a test of the emergency broadcast system. If this were an actual emergency, you would be informed................

BugOnTheRug · October 5, 2005 5:33AM

Virtualizard · October 5, 2005 10:16AM

<< <i>....BUT...it seems alot of the cards were under sized...and MAN did PSA catch me on that one....Perfect corners..perfect centering.....18 cards....Minimum Size Requirement!!! Not gradable!! ... >>

No offense to anyone collecting this set, but why the hell would PSA think people are trimming these cards? They could easily (and should if they consider themselves a Professional Authenticator) pick up a factory set for reference and see that this is just an issue of a difference in production. I think it's kind of lame (on PSA's part) that you guys spend a bunch of money for the "leader in the industry" to grade your cards and in their "expert" opinion they basically say that you trimmed these cards that, for commons, are listed at $0.15 in MINT condition!!! At least you get your vouchers!!!

JEB.

BugOnTheRug · October 5, 2005 11:20AM

Here's the Reader's Digest version of 84D wax/rack/factory product offerings:

1) Wax/rack contains the STEEL variations of DK's; factory the STEELE variation. I'm unaware if there are discrepancies to this but it is possible.

2) Wax/rack tend to have larger border areas (which I like and try to acquire for my set); factory cards in general are cut smaller and the borders are thinner. Of almost 250+ cards submitted from wax and factory sets, I've only had 1 card returned for 'didn't meet min. size requirement' - none of trimming, etc.

3) Wax is suseptable to dinged corners and wrapper glue. Factory sets are prone to possibly one rounded or soft corner from the cellophane wrapping. Additionally, if the lid of the set has been continually opened and closed, some wear will show on cellophaned 'blocks' closest to the lid opening.

4) Centering - sucks in both cases. Whether wax or factory, I've had decent but mostly terrible results. I do notice more tilting or diamond cuts on factory sets as a rule. Regardless, figure on throwing 90% of a wax box or factory set out if you're looking for solid 9/10 centering.

5) Pro/cons of wax/factory sets: I've busted just 3 wax boxes and in 2 cases I suspect tampering. I've had decent luck with factory but 'rounding' and handling damage have been evident. Factory sets are easier to dispose of than 450+ misc. cards from a wax box.
Regardless, it's a total crap shoot but a fun one too!

6) I've had good luck with purchased sets already bindered. I've purchased 3 this way - paid a fairly high price in 2 cases, but was rewarded with quality cards put together by a quality-minded collector. Again, a crap shoot too.

Bill

rvc · October 5, 2005 11:31AM

"Regardless, figure on throwing 90% of a wax box or factory set out if you're looking for solid 9/10 centering." i agree

"Factory sets are easier to dispose of than 450+ misc. cards from a wax box.
Regardless, it's a total crap shoot but a fun one too! " again i agree

"I've had good luck with purchased sets already bindered" so true

how about finding a joe carter rookie worthy of sending in for grading! what an underrated card. who has the darling psa 10 and the fingers/perry A psa 10??? i want them!!!

ldferg · October 5, 2005 11:38AM

i don't have a set on the reg, but i've broken 3 factory sets for grading...no 10s, several 8s and 9s and none returned as "not gradeable". centering was ok on the factory sets but the corners where rounded due to the wraps.... the carters in all the factory sets were too OC to submit. i remember buying these packs like crazy at local convenient stores in my area.

ArnyVee · October 5, 2005 11:44AM

<< <i>Here's the Reader's Digest version of 84D wax/rack/factory product offerings:

1) Wax/rack contains the STEEL variations of DK's; factory the STEELE variation. I'm unaware if there are discrepancies to this but it is possible. >>

Also, Wax/Rack contain the NO NUMBER variations of the Mike Stenhouse and Ron Darling cards. Factory have the NUMBERED variations. That is correct, right Bill?

rvc · October 5, 2005 11:52AM

yes arny "Also, Wax/Rack contain the NO NUMBER variations of the Mike Stenhouse and Ron Darling cards. Factory have the NUMBERED variations. That is correct, right Bill? "
that is correct. i like those variations. darling is harder to find centered

ArnyVee · October 5, 2005 11:54AM

I have the Numbered Darling in 8, but can't find that sucker any higher than that. And the Stenhouse? Fugetabout it! Can't spot any of those around...at least not since I've been putting the set together.

rvc · October 5, 2005 12:01PM

arny i have both stenhouses and i hope to get some scans up this weekend.

ArnyVee · October 5, 2005 8:38PM

Both Stenhouse cards in 10?! Wow, you are THE man!

RayBShotz · October 5, 2005 10:29PM

This might beg a separate thread but I will drop it on you guys because I was looking at the Set Weightings for 84' Donruss this morning.

I notice that a lot of 80's sets seem to be out of whack when it comes to set weighting.

Set weighting is determined at the time a set goes on the Registry and is rarely if ever tweaked after that. Sometimes PSA is heavy handed about what they think, and other times a few of the major collectors of the set help them predetermine the weightings.

In either case, if you track back into the 70's and 60's and 50's it becomes pretty clear that it is a combination of SMR, RC's and HOF'ers that drive the weightings in those years; as it should be.

Trouble is a lot of 80's sets weight a couple of guys, arbitrarily at that and leave it that way. I haven't analyzed this thoroughly yet for this set but at first glance there is obvious omissions of some HOF'ers. Again, not having reviewed all the weightings I'll give a quick example.
HOF'er Tom Seaver gets a 2 weighting. I have no problem with that as it stands. But as I glance down the list I notice HOF'er Dave Winfield and HOF'er Paul Molitor, Niekro, Jenkins, Fisk, Carew are all weighted a 1. Heck I know Ozzie Smith is in SMR and all, but he's weighted a 3. Clearly those other names are as esteemed as the Wiz.

I'm a firm believer that every HOF'er in the set should be weighted, even if it's only a 1.5.

Has this discussion ever come up with this set amongst the Registrants? Is there a level of satisfaction with the current weightings as well?
How does anyone feel about this issue?

An arguement has been made in the past that no card should be weighted, that completion pct is what set building is all about anyway. Bringing this up I tend to fall in that camp. If weightings and Set rating are the rules of the day, however, it seems to me that a periodic review is in order.

RayBShotz

ArnyVee · October 5, 2005 10:39PM

Ray, I agree with your sentiments about the fact that the weights are 'out of whack'. As a matter of fact, I have volunteered my assistance with several of the sets that I collect to help with realigning things, but to no avail. I have been given some reasoning, but it doesn't always make sense.

I'd align the hall of famers more consistently and also weight some of the harder to find errors or variants among the sets. I don't agree with some folks about the fact that you should weight the 'low pop' cards because those numbers can be thrown off by submitting more of those particular cards.

I would definitely volunteer to put my name on any list to get this set's weighting (or any other set for that matter) aligned better.

RayBShotz · October 5, 2005 10:50PM

Arny,
In the past I have been involved in a few sets where 4 or 5 collectors privately agree, submit adjustments to PSA and all sign off their approval of said submission. Under this type of coersion PSA can't help but consider such an effort. It seems that their are enough important active members of the 84' Donruss set Registry right here replying to this thread.
If someone in the Top 5 on the Donruss Registry takes the lead on this and comes up with a spreadsheet of proposed weightings with columns for the other Registrants to input their feedback, that would be the key to starting this off. Again, PSA will only address this if a majority of the major players of this set are included and agree.

Although I am not yet on the PSA Registry for this set I have been dabbling. If you want my input, I have been through a couple of these before. The folks at PSA at least know who I am.
Let me kn ow if I can help.
Ray

BugOnTheRug · October 6, 2005 12:20AM

Ray/Arny/RVC

I'm in for helping reset the weighings. Probably like every set, there's a disconnect between weights that are 'given' and weights that should be justified. Like Ray says, it'll take an effort on several fronts to correct the issue. I agree about the HOF cards Ray mentioned.

Most glaring example IMO? The 'A' card. 1.5 weight - get real. It's very tough in 9, let alone the single 10 in existence.

ArnyVee · October 6, 2005 1:34AM

Alright guys, I've started a spreadsheet and have basically cut and pasted the current weights from the set composite info on the set registry site. So, now we have to figure out the weights themselves. I'll keep track of the spreadsheet and update it as we see fit. But, I figure that we need a minimum of 3 votes to change something, right? Although, we will probably knock this out pretty quickly and more than likely agree on most points. Let's start with four points to get the ball rolling.....

A) I'm going to assume that the 'commons' (non-HOFers or star players) will be listed as a 1.00. Although, did we want to include some of those notoriously off-centered cards as a higher weight? Or, just assume all 'commons' are at a 1.00?

I agree that the "A" card's weight should be a little higher. Do we want to keep the "B" card at 3.00 and move the "A" card to a 2.50?

C) I also think that on the "master" set the "Steele" variations should get a higher weight than the "Steel" cards....does anyone agree with that? I'm thinking...1.00 for the STEEL DKs and 1.50 for the STEELE DKs? Should we have a difference within the DKs of weighting....for instance, should Boggs or Yount get a higher weight than Dravecky or Guerrero?

D) Also, the master set designates both the Stenhouse and Darling numbered cards as a 1.00. That should change. Suggestion: No Numbers at 1.00, Numbered Cards at 2.00?

.....Let's start with these four points and then move onto the suggested weighting of the HOFers and other star cards.

rvc · October 6, 2005 5:02AM

now we are making some good progress. i really like the idea of re -weighting the set so my vote is in. last year i tried to get psa to add the numbered darling and stenhouse ,not the no numbered error version, to the basic set but they wouldnt since there were already so many sets on the registry. they agreed to enter the master set after last year's registry's awards. i have found discussing these issues with psa to be favorable in the end.
arny-get that list going with the new weights and i'm sure we can get them to change it but i would guess they wouldnt do it until after the awards again. thats ok with me and i'm sure all will agree.
i agree the steele variation s/b a little higher, boggs s/b on the high side it's his 2nd year card, carter rookie s/b up there, #29 and #30 should be 2's or 3's while the nonumbered versions remain 1's.
i think any tough common that bill thinks deserves a higher weight should get it. and who has the A card in psa 10?!?!?

BugOnTheRug · October 6, 2005 11:54AM

I'm curious if what we are trying to do has been attempted by any of the other 'modern' registry builders..........say 1980 and up. What about HOF, specials, variations, etc. weights in '80 topps, '83 topps, or ?????

My gut feel is that PSA will entertain changes, but based on what I've assembled so far, a larger rework of weights that would really be realistic might be frowned upon. I think older sets, such as series-based warrant such catagorizing and scrutinity. However, I'm not so sure for modern stuff. Even though 84D is considered 'limited production', there's still oddles of the stuff everywhere.

Ray, what is your take on PSA recognizing the truly difficult commons in a modern set? I agree with Arny about DK's - they are harder find in high grade but you can even complicate it more by arguing that Matt Young, Dave Dravecky, or Larry Parrish in either DK variation is extremely tough.

I think the way to approach PSA on weight changes is to do a little at a time, while at the same time conveying to them there are a core group of collectors/registry folks with a real and realistic interest in this set. I think they will facilitate us if we work with them slowly and sincerely.

So, as to not complicate changes too much at first, maybe we should start with Ray's idea - get the HOF's in line if that's agreeable. Then look at the DK situation, variations, and specials, which isn't much. After that, go after the super tough commons. I'm thinking maybe 10-20 or so should warrant some changes.

So here's my input out the gate:
* Change all 1.0 HOF'ers to 2.0. Drop Ozzie back to 2.0. Leave the rest as they are, and although I disagree somewhat with what's listed at 3.0 and higher, I'll take it for now.
* Switch the A & B card weights. 'A' should be 3, 'B' should be 1.5.
* DK steele's should be 1.5, but slightly higher for the real tough ones.

I'll have to think more about the tough commons, but for now, if we can get even the first suggestion implimented, it would be a victory.

Let me know what you guys think..........

Bill

RayBShotz · October 6, 2005 9:26PM

You cannot add weight to tough commons. PSA will reject this hands down, as they should. Tough commons are only tough for as long as the POP's are low. What's tough today may not be tough 3 years from now. As demand increases, dealers will search out tough cards for grading and the skew will adjust over time. That's a guarantee with 80's sets. Yes, we know some cards are tougher, but this won't fly.

I think we have one shot at this. One of the veterans here (Arny seems to have started already) should spreadsheet and reweight the whole set with a brief explanation attached. Pass that on in the form of an email attachment to the next guy who can weight the entire set in the next column, Once 3 or 4 or 5 people have done this everyone can discuss the results.

Chances are much of the weights will be the same on the different sheets. Where they differ, it should be easy for everyone to agree.

Once this is solid then we petition PSA (after the awards) with 3,4,5 set Registrants all on board.
I think they will move on that, and the set will be better off for it.

RayBShotz

ArnyVee · October 6, 2005 9:28PM

I think that we should come up with all of the changes and agree on the entire set's weighting. Then, we submit it to PSA little by little as we (PSA & us) see fit. Or, we can put the ball in their court and ask them if they'd like all of the changes at once or part by part. Thoughts?

Okay, so we agree on some things. But, before we put those to rest, I want to include all the details here. So, here goes....

Card #A (Fingers/Perry) - 2.50
Card #B (Bench/Yaz) - 2.00

#1 Robin Yount DK - 2.00
#1 Robin Yount DK (Steele) - 2.50
#2 Dave Concepcion DK - 1.00
#2 Dave Concepcion DK (Steele) - 1.50
#3 Dwayne Murphy DK - 1.00
#3 Dwayne Murphy DK (Steele) - 1.50
#4 John Castino DK - 1.00
#4 John Castino DK (Steele) - 1.50
#5 Leon Durham DK - 1.00
#5 Leon Durham DK (Steele) - 1.50
#6 Rusty Staub DK - 1.00
#6 Rusty Staub DK (Steele) - 1.50
#7 Jack Clark DK - 1.00
#7 Jack Clark DK (Steele) - 1.50
#8 Dave Dravecky DK - 1.00
#8 Dave Dravecky DK (Steele) - 1.50
#9 Al Oliver DK - 1.00
#9 Al Oliver DK (Steele) - 1.50
#10 Dave Righetti DK - 1.00
#10 Dave Righetti DK (Steele) - 1.50
#11 Hal McRae DK - 1.00
#11 Hal McRae DK (Steele) - 1.50
#12 Ray Knight DK - 1.00
#12 Ray Knight DK (Steele) - 1.50
#13 Bruce Sutter DK - 1.00
#13 Bruce Sutter DK (Steele) - 1.50
#14 Bob Horner DK - 1.00
#14 Bob Horner DK (Steele) - 1.50
#15 Lance Parrish DK - 1.00
#15 Lance Parrish DK (Steele) - 1.50
#16 Matt Young DK - 1.00
#16 Matt Young DK (Steele) - 1.50
#17 Fred Lynn DK - 1.00
#17 Fred Lynn DK (Steele) - 1.50
#18 Ron Kittle DK - 1.00
#18 Ron Kittle DK (Steele) - 1.50
#19 Jim Clancy DK - 1.00
#19 Jim Clancy DK (Steele) - 1.50
#20 Bill Madlock DK - 1.00
#20 Bill Madlock DK (Steele) - 1.50
#21 Larry Parrish DK - 2.00
#21 Larry Parrish DK (Steele) - 2.50
#22 Eddie Murray DK - 2.00
#22 Eddie Murray DK (Steele) - 2.50
#23 Mike Schmidt DK - 2.00
#23 Mike Schmidt DK (Steele) - 2.50
#24 Pedro Guerrero DK - 1.00
#24 Pedro Guerrero DK (Steele) - 1.50
#25 Andre Thornton DK - 1.00
#25 Andre Thornton DK (Steele) - 1.50
#26 Wade Boggs DK - 2.00
#26 Wade Boggs DK (Steele) - 2.50
DK Checklist (1-26) - 1.00
DK Checklist (1-26 Steele) - 1.50

#29 Mike Stenhouse (No Number) - 1.00
#29 Mike Stenhouse (Numbered) - 2.50
#30 Ron Darling (No Number) - 1.00
#30 Ron Darling (Numbered) - 2.50

....how's that for a start? Any adjustments? Bill, I only remembered the #21 Larry Parrish DK being a tough one, should we include any others (#4-7)?

ArnyVee · October 6, 2005 9:30PM

Ray, I was already working on the first part of our re-weighting project and didn't notice your post. So, should we not include the Larry Parrish DK as a 2.00?

ArnyVee · October 7, 2005 4:23AM

Anyone looking to start a set or add to theirs might want to take a look at this lot on eBay Linky Poo with the DKs as "STEELE" except for the Yount DK which is "STEEL"....and, the Ron Darling is the NUMBERED one. Problem is that quite a few of the cards are in 8, but it's not a bad start to the set. Lots of HOFs already graded. I e-mailed the guy to get the info, just so that anyone looking to start wouldn't have to waste their time.

BugOnTheRug · October 7, 2005 4:42AM

Arny,
Your weights are fine, but I'd put the 'A' card at 3. If tough commons don't matter as Ray suggests, it takes some of the energy out of reweighing the set for me.

<< <i>Tough commons are only tough for as long as the POP's are low. What's tough today may not be tough 3 years from now. As demand increases, dealers will search out tough cards for grading and the skew will adjust over time. That's a guarantee with 80's sets. Yes, we know some cards are tougher, but this won't fly. >>

Ray - While this is a logical statement, I'm not sure it's realistic. Here's why: There are a few large volume dealers that 'do' 84D on a continuing basis, along with other 80's sets. To date, only 1 (and not as frequent a seller as the others) looks at the pop report/set weighting and prices accordingly. The rest simply submit what they hope will 9/10 (shooting for 10) based on centering and could give a rat's a*s about what the populations are. If you put Craig Swan at 2.0 or 3.0, who really cares besides the few registry folks here? Nobody collects Craig Swan cards! So, in that sense I disagree that demand will increase for this card - and not because it's a 3, but because it's Craig Swan, Ted Power, or Joel Youngblood. I just don't see dealers 'targeting' weighing points for commons in '84D to benefit a few registry folks. They will target what they can get 10's on - and you can bet #632 Del Crandell and #625 Runnin Reds will continue to be found on the bay - even if they bring a few dollars each.

Based on your experience concerning PSA's stance on commons, the above seems like a mute point. I'm slightly disappointed if that's the case, but if PSA refuses to budge on that issue, not much I/we can do.

Bill

RayBShotz · October 7, 2005 5:37AM

Arny, I would say no on a premium weight for Parrish.

Bill,
The POPs are nowhere near mature yet. When there are 50,000 84' Donruss graded, things will come into perspective. Will the POP's get there? Perhaps. This is a keynote set of the 80's. Optimistically, there will be 40 or 50 folks collecting the set someday PSA graded. If it gets there then the POP's will grow. Some cards will end up being "tough" (relatively speaking) for issues like centering, but ultimately this should not be a part of the weighting system.
No vintage set uses Low POP or "tough" as a consideration for weights. If a card is "rare" for some reason like an error /variation that's a different story. Physical populations of those cards are less, therefore a legitimate argument for a higher weight.

But right now I'm just the voice of reason / or dissent

depending on how you look at it. It's your set right now to steer in the direction you most see fit.

Arny,

If you plan on doing this piece meal, let PSA know what you have in mind and what other collectors are on board with this. Submitting to them just the DK's may give them the misimpression that we only have a problem with the DK weights.
Otherwise I think you have the weights basically right. I don't know the Steel/Steele thing that well but I am assuming you guys can agree on which one is more prevalent, and that's the key; Is there more of one available than the other? Not is it tougher to find one nicer than the other.

Ray

RayBShotz · October 7, 2005 5:41AM

Arny,
By the way, thanks for the link. I've got my eyes on it.
Would be a nice modest start for me.
Ray

RayBShotz · October 7, 2005 5:52AM

Bill,

As to the Craig Swan factor. I have been invloved in a number of vintage sets over the years where some of the commons are just brutal to find centered (and some stars as well).
Take for instance the 69' Topps set. For years folks talked about Mike Shannon being impossible to find centered. They were dead on. It's an absolutely brutal card. Nicest one I ever owned was a 7 because the 8's would eBay in the statosphere. Weighting - 1.
Ask Arny about the weighting on a 72' Topps Schaal IA or Expos Rookies or Jerry Grote. Two years ago you couldn't touch these cards and there were only a handful of 8's because it was believe they were impossible to find centered. Weighting - 1.
In both of those cases, those cards remain tough cards by definition. But the POP's have loosened up abit on those because the total graded count is now very mature.

Back to an original statement I made in my first post about this topic. Weights are reserved for HOF'ers, Rookies, Errors/Variations (in Master Sets), sometimes High Numbers if they are flat out less available, that's about it.

I was in your camp many moons ago regarding tough cards, but finally realized how unsuitable "drawing up a Constitution" would be if every couple of years we had to try and get PSA to move to ammend it as the tough cards change. They are likely to only agree to do this for us once.
It's cool everyone's talking about this though.
Ray

BugOnTheRug · October 7, 2005 5:56AM

Ray,
I appreciate your insight. I know little of what factors into weights but was just making a general observation of what I've seen in putting this set together. I hope you are right that others will finally register what's been arguably called the best set period of the 80's. I'm just glad you came aboard for the ride!!!!

1984 Donruss Baseball - the unofficial but legal thread

Comments