PSA "Ultimate" type set

Griffins

If you've looked at this registry listing it has huge holes in it-'54 Johnston Cookies, but not '53 or '55, the easy Bell Brands but no '58's ( ),Polo Grounds and Nat'l Game but no Tom Barker, Hires but no Hires Test, and many other similar omissions. They finally added N28 to go with N29's, but for the most part the listing is incomplete, and they've been hesistant to add anything.
Last nite I got an email from Cosetta indicating that the topic might be open to review, and it would be easier if there was a consensus.

If anyone has an opinion on this at all please post and hopefully something can get easily resolved.

My vote is for a couple of different type set listings-

Pre War ('41 and earlier)
Post War ('45 thru '75)
Modern ('76 up)
Any set listed in the pop report and having more than a few examples (leaving out CdV's and the like) would be included.
Unfortunately PSA doesn't indicate back variations on T206's, but if and when they do I think those should be included as well.

Opinions?

jimtb

I'm in! I'm already working on a type set featuring Tigers (naturally). I think it's a great way to get a little of everything.

sloanjr

i second the motion.i'm doing a type set with yankee players and tried to add a 74 opc and was told it couldn't be added but i like the three different sets.

calleocho

Great post!

how about international issues?

Robby

Griffs.................... I like your idea ! Makes alot of sense ! No way am I ever going to collect or afford , pre 1941 cards ! My original goal starting out was to just complete from 1952 to 1975 !.....................Robbie

blue227

I am not sure if the years to distinguish different eras has been set, but if it hasn't, here are my thoughts. I would argue that the Modern Era of baseball card collecting should start in 1974 when Topps stopped issuing their sets in series. In terms of the game of baseball, i would argue that the Modern Era should start in 1973 when the DH was first introduced.

Griffins

Got a few pm's and emails on this- the suggestions were:

Separate listing for 19th Century
1900-1945 (to include the '43 MP & P's issued during the war)
1947-1973 (modern starting with Jackie Robinson breaking the color line and ending with the last year Topps issued in series)
1974 - onward
international would be included in the appropriate set- Billikin's in the '00-45, Propagandas in '47-73 (reading your mind Ricky), OPC's and Venezuela's wherever they are appropriate.
It would be easy to also add things like foreign type set (OPC's, Sanella's, Maple Crispettes) and a regionals type set, but I don't think BJ, Cosetta, Gayle and Juliet need any more work than they already have. So maybe 4 sets would be good, if it's not pushing it. It should appeal to most since the eras are pretty self contained.
thoughts and opinions here would be good, I can summarize in the email to Cosetta and link to this thread.

Robbie- be careful, I set out to just assemble '70 and '71 Topps sets. Slippery slope there!

calleocho

should the sets be weighted or should completion be the ultimate goal?

Griffins

how would you weight it- based on the common prices in 8? what if you list a HOFer? what if there are no 8's ever graded?
I'd vote for no weight, like the HOF sets base it on completion. I hate weighting anyway.

bobsbbcards

<< <i>I hate weighting anyway. >>


Can you say "lazy"?

calleocho

I was thinking more about rarity than price...some sets are quite rare, maybe those should weight a little bit more.

But it really doesnt matter...However since there would be no weights ...maybe you should be as inclusive as possible in order to make it a challange.

jimtb

I vote no weighting! We'll never all agree. There will be arguing, fist fights, rioting in France...

Griffins

<< <i>There will be arguing, fist fights, rioting in France >>



1 out of 3 isn 't bad....

MorrellMan

How can you have Bells and no Morrells? And how about Swells? I think the demarcation between pre-war and post-war is a good place to separate vintage vintage from vintage. I also vote no weights.

I think there is a place in time earlier than '73 or '74 where modern would take over. I'm not sure where; maybe '68 or '69. There's just a huge valuation drop in similar stars around the late '60s.

NickM

I personally would extend post-war vintage through 1980, because the nature of the hobby and the types of available cards were fairly similar for the rest of the '70s as they had been for the late '60s and early '70s.

It was 1981, IMO, when the business of producing baseball cards changed dramatically

Otherwise, I am in complete agreement with the 4-set breakdown Griffins gave in his 12:13 p.m. 11/8 post.

Nick

Bigtrain

I think the four sets would be fine but two sets make more sense. I would like to see it follow the SMR and leave out the regionals and cereals.

calleocho

the more inclusive the better...it shouldnt be easy.

If there its not going to be any weighting, then completion should be quite hard.

I still think that the set should be weighted ...it shouldnt be too hard to decide which cards are amonst the rarest and those should be given a little extra weight.

its a lot easier to find a 15 CJ than it is to find a 14 CJ ...not a whole lot but its should be noted...maybe 1 and 1.5 respectively

Griffins

How would you compare a '15 CJ HOFer to a '14 CJ common? What if one of the '14 commons were the tougher ones that weren't repeated in the '15 set? It would be a programming nightmare.
To my knowledge, none of the HOF sets are weighted, probably because it's not possible. I don't know this is any different, but I really hate weighting on any set. If you're missing 3 cards it's still not complete, no matter what 3 they are.