Modern Set of the Year Award - Give me a break

gfb

Now i may be biased since i collect the 78's, but i think our good friend Frank Smith was robbed. No slight meant to T. Allan Bergquist and his- 1975 Topps Mini Set, but knowing the quality of cards in Franks set, plus the fact that its a 726 card monster AND his weighted and set gpa is 9.45 (now i admit it was only i think 9.37 on halloween, but still) its a freakin 9.45!!, do you know how many 10's that is?, its got to be over 300 of them.

I love the mid's as much as the next guy, but i think the late 70's get no respect.

Sorry for the vent

SinibobCards

Ditto.

You and Frank have great 1978 sets.

Oh, I had to count the 10s. Frank has 345 listed.

ZodiacMindwarp

And let's not forget Frank Bakka's amazing monster 787 card 1972 set!

ABBAdad

Don't forget Gary's '74 set either. 9.42 GPA and 4 years older than the '78 set. Frank's '72 set is hard to beat as well.

mcastaldi

I guess I have a problem with a "Best Modern Set Of The Year" going to any set where the overall weighted GPA isn't at least 9.0. I'm sure the 75 Mini set is a wonderful set, but if you're going to give an overall-type award spanning several years, there are just too many better options. While the numbers surely don't tell the whole story, they are a starting point.

Examples of better options (overall weighting)
-- rbdjr1's 1976 set (9.36)
-- Gary Nusbaum's 1974 Master Set (9.40)
-- FB's 1972 set (9.34) - does anyone really know how many tens it takes to get to 9.34 in a 787(!) card set?!?!?!?

But from the posts I've been reading, the consensus is that PSA once again flubbed the Modern Set Of The Year award. I would be interested to know what criteria compelled them to give it to the set they did.

Mike

tkd7

It would be nice to see a "collector's choice" award where 5 sets are nominated by CU in a category and then votes are cast by the public, one to a person.

Might be a popularity contest and open to scamming by false names, but I would think CU wouldn't mind all those people on their website.

softparade

Frank Smith's 1978 Topps set is just mind blowing. As his other 70's and early 80's projects. To me, there are disappointments and bad feelings EVERY time these awards are given out. In my dealings with Frank he comes across as a guy who cares alot more about a perfect 78 Topps Rich Hebner with a smoking image, smooth edges and razor sharp corners than he does about a stupid "award"

PlayBall

I believe one of PSA's criteria is "set dominance", and with a 8.90 and the second place being 7.95 I guess in PSA's eyes it's more dominant than other higher GPA sets. Another thing that annoys me is the "more prone to chipping" comment. Aren't all the sets prone to chipping? Shouldn't it be "chipping that is more prone to being noticeable".

softparade

<< <i>Another thing that annoys me is the "more prone to chipping" comment. Aren't all the sets prone to chipping? Shouldn't it be "chipping that is more prone to being noticeable". >>



right! how about the issues that are "plagued " with OC, print problems, and miscuts? That would be almost ALL of them

sagard

<< <i>I believe one of PSA's criteria is "set dominance", and with a 8.90 and the second place being 7.95 I guess in PSA's eyes it's more dominant than other higher GPA sets. Another thing that annoys me is the "more prone to chipping" comment. Aren't all the sets prone to chipping? Shouldn't it be "chipping that is more prone to being noticeable". >>



I don't have a horse in this race, but I don't like set dominance due to the implication that there is no competition for the top spot.

The '78ers will get recognized at some point, it just didn't turn out to be this year. 9.4 over 726 cards is crazy.

bxb

"Set dominance" as defined by PSA should not be used as a criteria to compare sets between different years unless the sets have comparable competitiveness. For example, there are 55 1978 sets, and 24 1975 mini sets. It is not a fair comparison to say the 1975 set is better than the 1978 set because of a larger lead over the #2 set in each category. The larger lead may simply be due to less competition.

A better way to evaluate "dominance" might be to compare a set's GPA to the highest possible GPA for that set, and to express the results as a ratio. The standard then would not relate to the difference between the top 2 sets, but to how close the best set is to the highest possible score.

I don't envy PSA's task of having to pick one set - there are so many great ones, including all the ones mentioned in this thread.

Just my $.02.

Live long and prosper.

qualitycards

<< <i>I don't envy PSA's task of having to pick one set - there are so many great ones, including all the ones mentioned in this thread. >>


Exactly!
Whatever one they choose, there's another ten that are as deserving.
To win the award or not, shouldn't take away any of the achievement
of the time & effort that each of the collectors named above put into
their sets. Each one listed is fantastic and took years to assemble...jay

PlayBall

<< <i>A better way to evaluate "dominance" might be to compare a set's GPA to the highest possible GPA for that set, and to express the results as a ratio. The standard then would not relate to the difference between the top 2 sets, but to how close the best set is to the highest possible score. >>



If that were the criteria, none of the above mentioned sets are deserving. The logical choice would then be "vintage corvette's" 1990 Leaf set. It's a perfect 10.00! And if you add his #2 set, he had 1006 PSA 10's from that set!

That sure beats Frank's measley little 345 PSA 10's in the '78 set.

ArnyVee

I'm a bit biased in this case, but I think that the '78s do not get the respect they deserve because they are not as old, etc. Now, my vote would definitely go to Frank Bakka's '72 set for sure, but it would be a toss up to me between the '78 and '75 mini sets.

I just think that the Minis are starting to get their respect now and I don't believe that the '78s are too far behind. Since the '74, '76 & '77 sets really had no more than 1 or maybe 2 star rookies, they will probably be overlooked a bit as opposed to the '78 set with Murray, Whitaker, Molitor/Trammell & Morris rookies.

Fabfrank

I sometimes wonder if PSA just gives some of these awards to whomever is that years biggest submitter/supporter. That's life though. It's their sandbox and they make the rules. I really believe though that many of the modern guys collect more for the love of cards rather than any award. I guess as the years go by, we'll all get our kudos
BTW, I also collect modern and have a set that has a perfect GPA and are all 10's.

sagard

<< <i>I sometimes wonder if PSA just gives some of these awards to whomever is that years biggest submitter/supporter. >>



All registry members are HUGE supporters whether they submit or not. Without them DSL/4SC/etc.. and their thousands of subs per month don't exist.

That winning '75 Mini must be a beautiful set as well as the others mentioned on this thread.

jradke4

I have two cents to add to this thread.

Cent #1 is that maybe there should be a rule that if you are an award winner you should have to show your set. This way we all get to drool over the set and maybe some of the critisim of why one set is picked over the other might wash away (ie if many key cards are 10's or high 1 of 1's).

Cent #2 is that as a forum group we could start our own awards. Nominated by people on the forum. Then we have some type of vote ranking the sets in each listing. Winner gets a nice thread started about there set or even collection as a whole. The only catch is finding someone(s) to do the work.

Just my 2 cents.

FB

The way I figure it - I won the inaugural Modern Set of the Year in 2002 - so I really can't complain. I've had my moment in the sun when I had an 8.75 GPA. I like the idea that it spreads around and if I never win again... well, thats alright.

I definitely figured that I was going to get whomped by either the 78 Topps or possibly even the 76 Topps. But, the 75 mini set was a surprise. Dominance is true... but is there a reason for it? I've also got the top 72 OPC Baseball set at 80% with an 8.16 GPA. Nobody else has even 10% of the set registered. Pretty dominant - but I don't expect to win. I figure its because its a niche set that not a lot of people collect.

Congrats to all the winners... and to those that are only winners in the hearts of the registry faithful. Its nice to hear my set thought of fondly by those who know what it takes to build. Thats win enough for me.

Frank Bakka
The Bakka Collection - 72 Topps

Fabfrank

Cent #1 is that maybe there should be a rule that if you are an award winner you should have to show your set

jradke4- Ain't gonna happen anytime soon. We've debated and discusseed on the board. I agree with your statement. If you want to participate in the Registry, but don't want to show your cards, I fell you shouldn't be qualified for an award. I'm not talking about uploading pictures, but just showing the cards in your set. If the Registry is a competition, it makes it unfair to those who show their sets. it;s like playing poker, but your hand is open and the ther player is cupping his cards.

The other faction feels that it's fine to hard hide your sets, because it protects the set builder from being run-up in auctions or overcharged by dealers for cards that they need. They may have a point, but if I was that paranoid, I just wouldn't post my sets on apublic forum.

Anyway, it doesn't seem that PSA will change it's policy (especially when it's biggest supporter/owner of cards keeps their sets hidden). It's their sandbox and they make the rules.

WinPitcher

Cent #2 Jradke you are hired.


btw...............congrats to T Allen........aka............Minimaster, that is a fine set. My fav from the 70's are the two 75 sets. good job


Steve

MiniMaster

Thanks Steve. It's nice to know their is someone who can share a thread of respect to a fellow collector!

I'm aware of all the fantastic Modern Sets out there. I congratulate all the #1 set owners in this and all the catagories! All are winners in my mind. We've all worked hard to perfect our sets. We all have a great passion for our sets

Thanks to PSA for giving a great deal of respect to my 1975 Topps Mini Set

Late1970sTopps

Since my 1978 set was mentioned in a couple times in this post, I thought I would respond.

First off, I would like to congratulate Allan on winning the modern set of the year award. His 1975 Mini set is beautiful. It has a nice GPA and thoroughly dominates the other competition in this issue. I can tell you I would be very proud to own his set and would absolutely love to have it.

I can also relate to what Allan is feeling with all of the second-guessing associated with his selection. As some of you will remember, there was some controversy (not as much as in this year or last year) when my 1975 set was selected for the award. As the owner of the set selected, I can tell you it is disheartening to hear many of your peers, people you respect, talking in a negative manner about something you worked so hard to put together. While we can comment on the merits of the selection, and I certainly will, it was not Allan who had anything to do with the selection process and we should hold his set in the highest regard.

I would also like to echo the comments made by Frank Bakka when he said, “I won the inaugural Modern Set of the Year in 2002 - so I really can't complain. I've had my moment in the sun when I had an 8.75 GPA. I like the idea that it spreads around and if I never win again... well, that’s alright.” I feel exactly the same. I won my award in 2003 and if I win again, great. If not, that is OK as well. The fact that Guy, Mike and Dan would comment on my 1978 set, makes me feel really good. For the individuals you buy, sell, trade, and compete against to recognize the accomplishment of what you done, is far better than any award or certificate.

When the October 31st deadline had passed, I thought four sets would likely win the award:

1. Gary’s 1974 Set
2. Frank Bakka’s 1972 Set
3. RBDJR’s 1976 Set
4. Kurt’s 1975 Set

The positives/negatives for each of the sets (as I saw them for winning the award) were as follows:

Gary’s 1974 Set – Positives: This year had not been selected before; awesome GPA; set rating that was very close to the finest possible set rating. Negatives: Set is closed so people can’t look through it and “talk” it up; there was a “buzz” to the 1974’s a few months ago, but it had fallen off; not considered a “sexy” issue.

Frank Bakka’s 1972 Set – Positives: Owner and owner’s competition is extremely well known; 1972 is a popular year that certainly has a “buzz” to it; large set that has over 100 cards more than the other sets, set has a very high GPA compared to finest possible set; oldest set of those I was considering. Negatives: This set had already been selected as Modern Set of the Year; other years have higher GPA’s.

RBDJR’s 1976 Set – Positives: This year had not been selected before; awesome GPA; set rating that was very close to the finest possible set rating. Negatives: Not many people building the 1976 set; not considered a “sexy” issue.

Kurt’s 1975 Set – Positives: Awesome GPA; set rating that was very close to the finest possible set rating; is a mainstream, “sexy” set due to it’s rookie cards and is one of the most popular sets on the registry. Negatives: This year was selected for the award in 2003; Set hasn’t shown as much improvement during the year compared to the other top sets from other years; other 1975 sets have closed the gap from last year to this year. Note: This set or Phil Apostle’s 1977 set really should have won the award last year.

Once this year’s award was announced, I was quite surprised to see that one of these sets didn’t win the award. At that point I started thinking about how I would select the finest set that wouldn’t be subjective. I played around with it for a while and came up with the following criteria:

1. Strength compared to #2 current set with the issue;
2. Strength compared to the finest possible set rating;
3. Penalty based upon limited competition

The penalty based upon competition needed to have some balance to item #1. I came up with the following based upon the number of sets with 50% or better completion:

1. 25-30 sets – 0 points
2. 20-24 sets – 1 point
3. 15-19 sets – 2 points
4. 10-14 sets – 3 points
5. 5-9 sets – 4 points
6. 1-4 sets – 5 points

Once this was done, I put all of the top 1970’s sets on a spreadsheet to see how they fared and came up with the following table which you can reach using this link:

Link To Rankings

I found this very interesting for a few reasons:

1. All of the sets I thought were worthy of serious consideration ranked in the top spots. The 1974 set would win the award.
2. The 1975 Mini Set ranked in a tie for 7th along with my 1978 set (as of today).
3. 1977 Set outperformed the 1975 Mini set in two of the three areas and tied the set in the competition factor.

Like the BCS, I’m sure are will be many ways to criticize what is listed, but at least it’s a start. I might need to change the cometition penalty. However, I would love to hear your thoughts.

Frank

MiniMaster

Thanks, Frank. I appreciate your positive/kind remarks regarding my set. I also respect your opinions! I can tell you I was quite surprised when I received word of my set being awarded. I was also extremely thrilled that my set had been chosen. As I mentioned prevously, I felt like the 75 Mini's had received some long overdue respect. There is no question the sets you listed as probable winners were certainly on my mind as the most likely to receive the award! But like baseball, there is never a sure thing. That's one of the reasons I like the outcome of the PSA Set Registry Award selections

As with any award selection I suppose there will always be individuals that will second guess the decisions of others. I find it highly inappropriate in this forum considering the owners of the sets selected read these threads. The negative remarks are extremely disrespectful considering we all are fellow collectors trying to enjoy our hobby. The creator of this thread should (with all do respect) remove the "Give me a break" remark in the title of this thread! I'll leave this topic with one final message:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you

T. Allan

lostdart58

...............some consideration should be given to the amount (or %) of 1/1s in a particular set.

I went through the top TOPPS sets from each of the 72-78 sets including the 75 Topps Mini......(74 top set was unavailable)

The numbers ranged from 14 to 85.

Most of the sets ( 4 of 7) had between 60 and 70 `1/1s

The 72 set had 85

One set had 40

....and one set had just 14!!

SinibobCards

I must be missing something. I didn't see a single comment in this post that aims negative remarks at the mini set or its owner. I actually only see positive comments. The complaints and comments are aimed at the system.

Have we become that sensitive about our pieces of cardboard? Second-guessing will always happen. If you are affected by a healthy discussion then it probably isn't a good idea to read public message boards.

Sorry to complain but I see too much PC crap every day and I'd rather not see it on a baseball card message board.

We all would love to have that mini set. It is incredible. Some us just think other sets were better. Where is the crime in that?

-Mike

Late1970sTopps

Mike:

Are you saying that there is a certain PC’ness in the military and government? I would have never guessed.

I agree with most of your comments. My purpose was not to make a PC post. If I was doing that, I would have raved on about how great PSA was and what a great selection PSA made. I would have stopped at that point without bringing up the fact that I would have not made that selection. As I was not drinking the Cool-Aid, my purpose was:

1. There was only one person who actually congratulated Allan for winning the award. He has a nice set and I thought he deserved some kudos. I didn’t think congratulating him was being too PC.

2. I know from experience that it SUCKS when you win the award and see everyone stating what a bad selection it was. It SUCKS when you go to a show and people ask you, “Why did your set get selected? Did PSA tell you why?” Allan didn’t make the choice and shouldn’t have deal with justifying why his set was selected. It takes away from the whole, otherwise positive, experience. I wanted to acknowledge to him that I understood this.

3. You are absolutely correct in that no one said anything bad about the set selected. However, I had received a couple of PM’s and e-mails (not from anyone who posted on this thread) irate about the set selected and the merits of the selection. My post was basically telling them to let it go. Even if I was picking the award I wouldn’t have chose myself.

4. Lastly, I wanted to state my opinion about some other sets on the registry that were very deserving and respond to some messages about which set I would have picked. Also, since I work with math all day, I wanted to see if there was a way I could come up with a model for set selection. As I figured it, if I was being PC, I would have left this off.

I agree that open conversation is good and should be encouraged. I have to laugh at you implying that I was being PC since the reason I left my last job was due to the overwhelming and nauseating nature of PC’ness. I thought it was BS to the point that we were not as effective as an organization as we should have been otherwise and I left rather than continuing to deal with it and ruffling feathers when I didn’t and decided to say what needed to be said.

There are one comment you made that I found interesting. First you mentioned, “Have we become that sensitive about our pieces of cardboard.” Too that, I would respond that some of us have. Some people tend to use the registry as an ego driven competition mechanism and take awards, recognition, and ranking very seriously. I have had several people tell me that they are only building their set to be #1 and others have told me that they are only working on their sets to win the “best of” award. So to those people, I would respond that the answer is probably yes. This is a hobby and should be fun. If you don’t enjoy the friends you make along the way and the such little things as the memories the cards bring back, the smell of the cardboard when it comes straight out of the pack, the crispness of a razor-sharp card, the joy of finding a card that is dripping with color and gloss with no fish-eyes, or don’t hear angels singing and harps playing when you find that tough card that you have been looking for, you may be doing this for the wrong reasons.

Just my 2 cents.

Frank

WinPitcher

I would like to add a cent or two myself.

First off, like the cards we buy, the process for choosing these awards is subjective.

Secondly, I would also like to commend and congratulate all those that are not in first place in their respective sets. Without them (in most cases) some of the first place sets would not be as appealing to own.

Steve

FB

Ya know...

It sounds like we have enough opinions on this thread to possibly create some sort of Set Registry BCS. Sure - it will be as ridiculous as the real one, but it might be fun to see what we can come up with! I'm going to start another thread for it and see where you can all take it!

Frank

SOM

Frank...

I think you forgot to consider strength of schedule in your rankings. How can you not incorporate those wannabe 1-AA sets from...

oops...

wait a minute...

I think I'm on the wrong message board...

Nick

FB

T. Allen,

Don't take the second guessing personally. It happens every year - and mostly over the Modern Set of the Year. Pretty soon, people will be accusing you of "roiding up" with Lance and Barry and you'll spend all of your time defending your reputation. Pretty much comes with the territory.

It can be lonely at the top!!!! But again, congrats!!!

Frank

downgoesfrazier

<< <i>First you mentioned, “Have we become that sensitive about our pieces of cardboard.” Too that, I would respond that some of us have. Some people tend to use the registry as an ego driven competition mechanism and take awards, recognition, and ranking very seriously. I have had several people tell me that they are only building their set to be #1 and others have told me that they are only working on their sets to win the “best of” award. So to those people, I would respond that the answer is probably yes. >>



Well said. You know, this starts to remind me of that awesome SNL sketch, "Mr. Belvidere"...
"I SHOULD enjoy watching new episodes and appreciate the writing and comedic timing"...
"I SHOULD NOT strive to put Mr. Belvidere in a jar, store him in my basement, and spoon feed him erotic fruits in my underwear."

I would have posted this elsewhere, but I don't have a password Yeah, we probably do get a little too wound up with this stuff as a whole.
For the record, Frank should not have won the set of the year as everybody knows he prints and cuts his own cards in his basement.
I think my "Big-Ass Afro-wearing outfielders" set was overlooked as well.

dgf

MiniMaster

Frank,

What a wonderful sense of humor! And your absolutely correct it is best to leave the dogs barking.......eventually they will get tired of listening to themselves.......by then the 2006 awards will be anounced and the hounds will be released once more


dgf,

Just have to tell you......everytime my kids fall down (and don't get hurt....lol) I yell out "Down Goes Frazier"......perhaps you won't find that as funny as I do.......of course I think your call name is great!

downgoesfrazier

<< <i>everytime my kids fall down (and don't get hurt....lol) I yell out "Down Goes Frazier >>



That's how I came to use the tag-line. We do the same thing around here. The funny thing is, my 4 and 3 year-old say it when one of my twins falls down...absolutely hysterical. Of course, we learn that humor will keep the little ones from crying. When we had our first, everytime he would bump or jostle himself I was like "Oh, little pumpkin. Daddy kiss boo-boo?" By the time the fourth one comes it's like "DOWN-GOES_FRAZIA! DOWN-GOES-FRAZIA! Dude, nice wipe-out...blood?...No?...You're fine...c'mon...awwww...c'mon....pumpkin, that's enough--you're OK."
I wonder who the line-backer will be?


dgf


P.S. I wonder if PSA even considered my "1970's Jewish players with bad perms" master set this year for modern. Probably not. Sonzabeetches!

jackstraw

My response is usually "SAFE" with a loud voice and the arms in movement or "First Down" in the same loud voice but only one arm moving.

downgoesfrazier

The following sets, I felt, deserved special attention and were COMPLETELY ignored by PSA...

1. "Great Afros' of the 70's...and 80's???" Phil Apostle
2. Frank's "Miscut 78 vending box"
3. Castaldi's "bullet-holes & fish-eyes--the Topps years"
4. "excessive chest hair"--basic & master - by Mudflap
5. "That uniform is too freakin' tight" Frank Bakka's tribute to the polyester pullover jersey.
6. "Players that ate some bad sausage" - rbdjr
7. Minimaster's "The Wilbur Howard Collection" Master set, of course.
8. "pitchers holding bats cards are gay" - Sinibob cards
9. "Players who look like Adam Sandler featuring Brent Strom" - Knuckles
10. "Gaylord Perry--The Mariners years" - by Frank Smith

These are just a few of the wonderful compilations that got jobbed and I think PSA had better start doing their homework when awarding a set such an honor. You should have seen the trouble Jr. went through to add Ron Karkovice to his "Bad sausage" set. He was dilligent.
I can still remember the excitement when Mudflap pulled that 1988 Topps Jay Baller card for his "chest hair" master. And who can forget my fantastic pull last July when that 1981 Donruss Dave Rosello became a reality for my "'Fro Collection". Yes, it's been a wonderful year and as we reflect on all of the great finds and excitement, I can't help but think PSA missed the boat.
Just my .07 cents.


dgf

MiniMaster

dgf.........Your special attention list.......Now that's worth some sort of an award.......

Your association with the DOWN GOES FRAZIA ......Classic!!!
Nice descriptive on the reality of the 1st and 2nd child and in your case 3rd/4th (twins!) wow, congrats on
the nice family!

downgoesfrazier

master,

Thanks for the congrats. Here's a linky to the posse...just click on a gallery and the images will come up. Click again and they get larger...oooh....ahhhh...





The Gang


My three year-old Clay just had his invoice pop...he got hosed! That "Wiggles 3D Test issue" is really tough...


dgf

NickM

How about these specialty sets:

Best Porn 'Staches of the 1970s
Enzo Hernandez Master Set
Players Named in the Pittsburgh Cocaine Trial
Players Who Hit Less Than Mario Mendoza
Anthony Young Master Set
Players Who Could Hide in Oscar Gamble's Hair
Guys with Open Zippers
Best Porn 'Staches of the 1980s
Hensley Meulens Master Set
Teammates of Jesse Orosco
Really Embarrassing Career Highlights in the Comic Art
Joe Charbonneau Master Set
2003 Topps Detroit Tigers
Pitchers Who Gave Up Walkoff Home Runs in the Playoffs
Players Jose Canseco Injected with Roids
Best Porn 'Staches of the 1990s
David Nied Master Set
Teammates of Rickey Henderson
Sam Horn Master Set
Best Porn 'Staches of the 2000s
Teammates of Mike Morgan
Players Who Hit Home Runs off of Bert Blyleven
Cards Where Tim Raines Goes by His Nickname Rock
Pete Rose Jr. Master Set.
Players Who Outweigh Cecil Fielder
Players Suspected of Being Gay
John Rocker Master Set
Buddy Biancalana Master Set
Players Who Served Time in Federal Prison
Mitch Williams Master Set
Ty Griffin Master Set


Nick