SMR getting to be a joke

theczar

The latest SMR with the Star Wars crew on the cover has more ads in it than any noteworthy information. They say that the pricing is just a guide and no one can expect them to have every card accurately matched to the market, but they could do some sort of pricing based on populations. Obviously a 1/1 PSA 9 common from the 1960's will be more valuable than a 1/23 PSA 9 semi-star. There is rarely any movement in those cards. Where can one go to get some decent information in the market in a publication as opposed to 99% of ads and recycled information?

MorrellMan

Why don't you try the Beckett board?

Stone193

<< <i>Why don't you try the Beckett board? >>

zef204

<< <i>Why don't you try the Beckett board? >>

Buccaneer

It is funny. I had raved about the November issue of SMR was the best one I had ever read. Truly a card collector's delight with great articles on the 1963, 1960 and the Bob Fisk collection. Then I suspected that they spent all of their collective juices on that issue and had absolutely nothing left for the December (Star Wars) issue. It was quite something to go from an issue that took 2 hours to reach to one that took 30 seconds.

Please, more issues like the November one.

charliehustle14

I like SMR and read just about every article, but truthfully, I can't really relate much to the guys who have these multi-million dollar collections. Sure, it's fun to look at 50's PSA 9 Mantles and high-grade Pre-War stuff, but those items are just so far out of the range of the average collector. I'd personally like to see a section devoted every month to the interests of those of us with more modest collecting budgets. I've observed the posts and traded messages with more than a few folks here the last couple years, and I would wager a lot of us would like to see articles like "PSA 6 Ex-MT: The Underappreciated Grade". I've talked to lots of guys on here who, like me, are working on 50's sets and think a nice PSA 6 or decent PSA 7 is just fine.

I think the Price Guide section needs some work too. We all know of examples of cards you can't even touch for SMR, while at the same time there are cards that routinely go for less than 50% of SMR. This makes me wonder how much tracking and research actually goes into the Price Guide. Often, the updates seem to be confined to just a few sets at a time. How accurate can that be? Yes, it's just a guide, but I think it could be a lot better one.

There is also the matter of no pricing information at all for certain sets. The modern market is all but ignored...2003 is the latest year they have listed. The earliest O-Pee-Chee set listed is 1978, and from there on it gets really spotty. Is 1978 really the first OPC set that garners a lot of interest? Kellogg's pricing is pretty spotty too. In the SMR, we are encouraged to view the SMR Online for more comprehensive pricing, but it doesn't seem much more detailed to me...Pretty much the same sets with commons listed for some. One would think we'd be able to look up pricing for, let's say, the cards in the 1972 OPC Baseball set online, even if it's not in the SMR. Obviously, there are a LOT of cards out there, and there's no way a price guide could list every card every month, but you don't have the same kinds of space limitations online as you would with a print publication.

I'd hate to see a price guide that attempts to track each and every individual transaction, with listed values varying wildly every month...This is not the stock market. However, I do think, with a little extra effort on PSA's part, we could get a LOT better SMR Price Guide.

I'm a PSA fan and PSA is my grader of choice...These are meant to be constructive criticisms.

-Todd-

onlychild

<< <i> I had raved about the November issue of SMR was the best one I had ever read. Truly a card collector's delight with great articles on the.... and the Bob Fisk collection. >>



Thank you very much! Let Joe know.

Kevin Saucier

WinPitcher

I am still awaiting my issue.

SD

duner

if you're really concerned, email psa. i thought they sucked for the '51 bowman fb. I emailed joe o and showed him the matrix i built for sales in the set, and for the past several months it's been fixed. now, the smr looks far closer to reality than it did before. if you are really concerned, you just need to take an active role.

Buccaneer

It's funny, I don't even look at the real part of the SMR: Price List and Pop Report. I get all that stuff online. In determining my purchasing (and selling) strategies, I just copy and paste the online SMR into my database and go from there. I love to learn about vintage baseball cards and sets and that what made the November issue so special.

ndleo

Price Guides are generally reluctant to lower prices. Remember the Beckett up and down arrow fiasco in the 1990's? When prices had up arrows, it was great and more people bought price guides. When the down arrows all showed up, they sold less prices guides the following month. That is why they stopped with the mass up and down arrows.

Brian48

I don't really collect as much as some of the other board members here, but I do fancy '91 Topps Desert Shield cards. Considering how much activity I've seen with them for over a year now, I'm just disappointed (and surprised) that the only card SMR lists is the Chipper Jones rookie. The high grade cards of Ryan, Clemens, etc.. have yielded much higher prices than the Jones rookie.

Anyway, I rarely use the magazine or the online database to check the current value cards. I do appreciate the few articles each month though.

smallstocks

Over a month ago I sent in the results of every 1955 Topps baseball card auction in 2005 for PSA 8 cards for which SMR was miles off. Did they reflect the accurate prices? Nooooooooooooo.

onlychild

<< <i>but I do fancy '91 Topps Desert Shield cards >>



Thanks again! Let Joe know.

Kevin