Set Registry Weighting Poll

BJ

In the past year, the weighting issue has been raised by several collectors. Initially, we started with a 1-10 scale to distinguish between cards of varying values. For example, the least expensive card in the 1952 Topps set might be a “1” while Mickey Mantle would weigh-in at a “10” based on their market value. Player cards like Duke Snider and Roy Campanella would fall somewhere in between. We knew this wasn't a perfect system, but it did make a difference between common and non-common cards.

Shortly after launching the PSA Set Registry is 2001, we decided to experiment with a more proportionate scale. For example, if a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle is worth much more than 10 times a common, we tried to reflect it in the weighting. However, at that time, it seemed as if most registrants were opposed to the idea and we reverted back to the 1-10 scale. (By the way, there are still many sets in the Registry which are not yet weighted, but we are adding weights to about two sets a day.)

Some time in the future, items in the Registry will be tied to prices and we will be able to electronically weight sets. When that it happens, it would be a great time to change the scale. Therefore, we'd like to poll you now to see how many of you feel it would be more appropriate and fair to modify the way we weight cards and establish a more proportionate scale, not necessarily exact, to more accurately reflect the value of key cards?

Wabittwax

I think the bigger the scale, the better. You will get a more accurate set rating. Especially if a computer will do all the work for you. What would also be nice is to have the system adjust the weighting for low pop commons as compared to easy commons.

kennylow

It sounds like in the future, the set weighting will simply be based on the dollar value of the set based on SMR. If that's the case, then the first step is to make SMR more accurate. In many sets, it is way off. In the vintage sets, it is generally too low, and in the modern (1970 and up), it is generally too high.

I like it the way it is. 1-10 scale. Sure, 10 commons isn't going to match one Mantle rookie, but this is a SET REGISTRY, not a Star registry.

BugOnTheRug

How about weights based on scarcity in grade as well, which always refects in prices paid? It's an everyday occurance with set commons that shouldn't be ignored.

mcholke

I agree the first step is to get the SMR values in line with the market. I am not sure how this weighting will work on the player sets. I understand the math but many of the cards are not included in SMR and would not have a value to draw from.

Griffins

I would've voted to get rid of weighting completely, but it wasn't an option that was offered. If you're working on completing a set the only thing that really matters is how many cards you need.

jradke4

the only problem is that for newer sets the SMR only lists rookie cards. inserts and variations arent included either. i think that for company sets it might be ok, but not for player sets(which is my focus). I think there the collectors opinons are just as important or more important than the SMR. we know how truely hard some cards are to find.

I understand that it would make it easier and faster to get sets out. the people working on the set registry are doing their best and i am sure are overwhelmed by the shear volume of our requests.

i dont like weighting based on pop reports as they can be out of date, inflated (for those the crack and resubmit)(a guy is selling a favre that he has cracked and submitted three times). A 1 of 1 only means that you are the only person so far that has had that card graded, it doesnt mean that it is the only like condition card that really exists.

as for the number scale I dont think it makes that much of a difference if its 1-10 or some other number. if you go 1-50 your 5 just becomes a 25 instead. i just dont think value should be the only factor.

MiniMaster

If value/population was established automatically, ie; electonically. It would not be out of the question to have the population and value's of cards thrown into the mix. Everytime the population or value of a card changed the set rating would change as well. As long as this was properly programed to act on any changes in these area's it would work just fine.

I'm not sure about scaling the weighting 1-25 or even higher, but perhaps 1-15 or 1-20 might be more workable in the current format?
The 1-25 and 1-50 might be a good idea if the populations/values of the cards could somehow be included in the weighting?

Mantlefan

I see no problem with the current weighting scale. The present scale allows for .25, .50 and .75 divisions for each weight point and I think this provides ample variation for almost every set.

Onlypsahockey

I echo Kennylow's post.

The weighing is fine for now. Fix whats broke first like the comical outdated SMR prices or the chaotic method used to decide which submissions get graded first. I can't understand how submissions received on 01/09/06 have grades posted already when there are members still waiting on grades from November/ early December.

I don't get it.

JMO, Bob C.

Vintagegolfcollector

A scarcity/value weight would definitely be nice on older sets. I'm not sure how that would work with modern cards though. There are plenty of modern cards that rarely get graded, if ever, due to lack of interest or value.

JusttheFacts

I am in favor of increasing the scale for two reasons. First, in some sets, the key cards are worth more than 10 times the value of a common. Second, this would allow for giving different weights to commons since not all commons are created equal. In addition to tying the weighting to the SMR, I would tie the weighting to the pop report. Low pop commons should be weighted higher than average or high pop commons. However, I would only do this on sets with a "critical mass" of each common graded, say 20-30 of each common. That number should be a sufficient sample size to make sure the low pop actually represents reality rather than the fact that not enough cards have been submitted to determine whether the low pops are really low pop.

Also, if the weighting is tied to the SMR in the future (or the pop report), I would not have the weighting change during the year even if the SMR (or pop report) changes. I would readjust the weights once each year after the Set Registry Awards for the year are determined. It would be unfair for the weighting to change one month (or even 6 months) before the cutoff.



<< <i>It sounds like in the future, the set weighting will simply be based on the dollar value of the set based on SMR. If that's the case, then the first step is to make SMR more accurate. In many sets, it is way off. In the vintage sets, it is generally too low, and in the modern (1970 and up), it is generally too high. >>



Even assuming that the SMR is off on a particular set, I don't know if this would matter for weighting, at least for sets that are actual sets rather than compilations from several sets (such as HOF sets). The weighting system is based upon relative weights within the same set. So if the SMR on a particular set is undervalued or overvalued, every card in the set would be off, but relative to each other, they would still have the correct weights. However, if the SMR is only off on a particular card or cards in the set, then the weighting might be off.

BillsGridironGreats

I think a larger scale would be good, but I think scarcity as well as value should be included. Not all commons are created equal. With a star of 100 times the value of a common, the set sghould reflect that. Maybe hard to get commons should be listed in the guide or at the top of the set with higher values. We are paying more for them.

rvc

i also think first step is to get smr more accurate.

zef204

<< <i>I would've voted to get rid of weighting completely, but it wasn't an option that was offered. If you're working on completing a set the only thing that really matters is how many cards you need. >>




Excellent point.

CollectorChris

BJ, thanks for polling us. It shows that you truly value your customer's opinions. Now, having said that...

I believe that weighting should be abandoned altogether. As Griffins said, if you're working on completing a set, the only thing that really matters is how many cards you need.

The fact that certain cards are worth more than others should not matter in the quality of a set, which is what the Registry is all about. The cards you own times their PSA grades = quality. The grades provide all the weighting that is necessary. The other layer of weighting is totally unnecessary as a multiplier in the equation for a quality set. That a Mickey Mantle costs $500 and a Mickey Stanley costs $5 is a matter of economics, not quality.

Also, I shudder at the idea that every time a card in your set goes up or down in SMR value (which is just an estimate anyway), the weighting will change, and so will the rating of your set!

I voted to keep the 1-10 scale only because (a) it was lesser of two evils and (b) it parallels the 1-10 PSA grading scale.

I recommend that PSA simplify the Registry system by getting rid of the weighting in its entirety rather that making the current system much, much worse.

Chris

Machodoc

Personally I think the current weighting in sets I collect is fine. The problem is that they are predicated upon the SMR values being right, which they are not - and usually not even in the ballpark.

I think your bigger problem is to find a new system on getting SMR values straight, as they have been way out of touch for some years now. I'm not saying this to start an argument, I'm saying this out of personal experience with buying and selling in the vintage card sector.

Here's the quote from the first line of the current edition of SMR for "Prices" (page 39): "The prices listed in SMR represent average dealer selling prices for PSA graded cards". The paragraph goes on the included the usual "less than" and "more than" disclaimer language about being able to buy cards elsewhere.

My problem here is that 10 years ago the majority of cards sold were most definitely through dealers, while today that percentage is far, far less. While I assume you include dealer pricing of their cards sold over eBay (true?), those too are most likely a far fewer percentage of the whole than before. Dealers today are a much smaller percentage of today's card sales, and it's time SMR recognizes that fact and adjusts its sources of prices accordingly.

I know that SMR is intended only to be a guide. In the absence of a better guide however, it carries as you well know an awful lot of weight for many people. Over time however, and that time is rapidly approaching, if not already here, SMR will lose any remaining shred of credibility unless it changes its way of monitoring the entire market for cards.

My two cents.

SW

Davalillo

Of course the set registry has to be weighted--this isn't even an issue.

Well, I have commented many times in the past that the real issue is that Joe or someone appointed by Joe needs to spend more time on the SMR to try to get things right. It is simply not enough to look at collector or dealer suggestions. There should be someone hired to monitor transactions on ebay, the phone/internet auctions and talking to dealers/collectors about pricing.

PSA also has to realize that pricing based on pop is hear to stay. Low pop commons should be broken out and put in at their real value. Every set has low pops and some can be 5, 10,25,50 even 100 times the value of a common but they are not broken out.

Once this is done accurately, then weightings should be done according to value.

Jim

Southsider

Weighting should be accomplished with a formula that takes into account rarity and that is dynamic to adjust for false rarity.

Say only 5 copies of a card have been submitted. The card would initially have a higher set registry weight. Other collectors would be encouraged to submit their copies with the result that either the card is justified as a rarity, or more submissions will level off the rarity factor. So, if the card is truly rare, only 2 more cards will be submitted. If it's not so rare, then 10, 20, 30+ may be submitted. In the second case, the rarity factor for the card will equalize to a normal weight, whereas in the first instance, the rarity is true and the weight factor remains higher.

Stump

I think wieghting is a must. There has to be some way to get the SMR more accurate. I think there are alot of cards being registered today and maybe there is a way to put a line item into the registry that puts the purchase price in. Now some guys may not want to do this for several reasons that come to mind but if a few do it you could market pricing to follow the registry.I am in no way a computor guru but one would think it could be fed into the SMR some way. Until the SMR is more accurate on low pops and even alot of the stars the system should stay the way it is.

AISAVDBBALLINPHILLY

Dav hit it right on the head. SMR pricing needs to be tied to what cards are getting in auction places and from dealer feedback because that is where the pulse is on the sportscard market.

John

mikeschmidt

I voted for the change. I think for many vintage sets, 1-10 still works, although 1-25 might be better.


But for modern sets, and Player sets, 1-10 is freaking ridiculous. Especially if you are not going for 100% on a Master Set. A Mike Schmidt rookie has a grade of 10. All 12 cards in the 1988 Star Schmidt set have a grade of one. I can pick up the former in PSA 9 for $1,000 or so. I can pick up the latter, raw, for $2-4. It's so not a level playing field, it's ridiculous. And I think that you really need to discount all the extra, low-value cards that are in the Master Player sets if you are going to accurately weight the Registry. Otherwise, just keep everything at one; you either have it or you don't

1420sports

I disagree that SMR needs to reflect low pop prices. How can a price be determined? What would the cutoff be? Less than 10? Less than 25? If a set collector has to have a certain card in PSA 8 and knows it is a tough one to find, then the bids are placed accordingly. If one guy finally wins the tough card, chances are he will not bid on the next one.

Wabittwax

An easy way to make a computer figure out extra weighting for low pop cards is:

-Have the program separate star cards from common cards. This would be easy because it would be any card not listed in the SMR.

-Have the program find the average number of PSA 8's for common cards.

-Have the computer adjust the weights according based on a percentage of PSA 8's below that average

For instance:

If a set has 15,000 PSA 8 common cards graded with say 600 cards that are considered common, then the average population for a PSA 8 common would be 25. So any common with a pop of 25 or higher would have a weighting of 1. Add 1 point for each 10% that a pop is below that average of 25, rounding to the nearest point. So a Pop 20 common would be 3 points. A Pop 10 common would be 7 points. A system like this would work nice on a 1-15, 1-20 or 1-25 scale.

You might have to use PSA 7's or PSA 6's on the older stuff and PSA 9's or 10's on the newer stuff but once programmed, the computer would do all the work for you.

mikeschmidt

Another issue is what do you weight off of.

Historically - PSA's position is that you base the weightings off of PSA 8 value.

I think that is great for vintage sets

However, with modern sets, modern player sets, etc. - I think that is somewhat ludicrous, as PSA 9s and PSA 10s, especially of the lesser cards, are the only ones that even hope to have a value exceeding the PSA grading fee. It also has the benefit of drawing out those cards that may be easy in PSA 8 - but not so easy in PSA 9 or PSA 10 [like a 1980 Burger King Schmidt, for example]

tennesseebanker

It would be good for older sets to have the new designation because there are cards in those sets which merit a 25x or more weighting. But to assign this to modern sets would be a waste of time until several years down the road. Psa should speak with people in the registry and ask them about the more difficult commons and maybe get a consensus as to which ones would be worthy of higher weights. The people who put these sets together know them better than anyone.

Griffins

<< <i>Historically - PSA's position is that you base the weightings off of PSA 8 value.
I think that is great for vintage sets >>



But this comes back to Jim's point that SMR is so far off, making weighting erroneous, at best.
Take the T200 Fatima set, for instance. 16 cards total, and they were recently weighted. But the weight was based on a PSA 8 value, which is impossible to calculate because there has only been 1 PSA 8 ever graded. And there are only 4 7's.
The SMR value for the Cleveland 8 is 6000. It sold last spring for 15K, with at least 3 bidders over 12K. I suspect it would sell for the same if offered again, if not higher. 7's are between 800 and 2500, but you won't find one under 4K. The last 2 have sold for about 5K each. Better not to weight a set this small, but if you do, base it on the pops that actually exist.
I believe weighting (if sets are to be weighted at all) should be based on scarcity more than value. This would recognize low pops as being tougher to find. In a lot of issues it's often not a matter of money that slows someones progress to complete as set as much as just not being able to find the cards necessary, and it's often the same card that everyone is looking for. The weight of a '62 Landrum should be more than that of a '62 Drysdale.

jradke4

mike,

i think you are right. for player sets weighting is important as some cards are harder, more important, tougher condition etc. however for a 1985 topps football set, the only difference is the price of the card. they were all printed in the same quantities, all have the same condition issuses. for company issuse sets for modern cards the weight isnt as important as getting all the cards. however for sets that have sp's then thats another issuse.

it all comes down to someone has to make some type of rule. you cant please all the people all the time.

so i would say they weighting system needs to stay in place if only one system is to be implemented for all set types.

Dhjacks

Many of the toughest Master Player Set cards are not tracked in the SMR. You could just assign them a 1, but that wouldn't be necessarily accurate if it is truely rare and sought after.

Buccaneer

Because of the inherent problems of the weighting scheme and always-inaccuracy of the SMR, my vote would be very strongly towards making all weights = 1.

ArtRossLives

My vote is to leave as is - 1 to 10 weightings.

MorrellMan

The inaccuracy of the current system would only get worse with an expanded matrix. There is not enough of a data base to truly weight sets.

VMFA115

I like the idea of more accurate weighting (to reflext the actual demand/availibility of individual cards) BUT I agree with most of the other comments that this is secondary to fixing the SMR. Ideally access to ebay and auction sales results would allow the SMR to be much more accurate. If automated access to this data (without, of course, any buyer/seller information to keep private information private) then the SMR could be more real-time and reflect more rapidly changes in the market. In any case, fix the SMR first, please.
Dave C.

liffeystynx

Things I don't often find myself saying (or even thinking): I agree with Davalillo!

A new, dynamic weighting system reflecting population & price differential is the ideal ... and fixing SMR, regarding both star cards (overpriced) and scarce commons (way underpriced) should go hand in hand. The point about dealer prices being increasingly irrelevant is key here. A "Market Report" worthy of the name should track eBay and auction-house prices. I know most collectors do that themselves for their own sets but a central source for all that information would be invaluable. It doesn't need to be a glossy magazine - an online version would be preferable. I'd subscribe to it, Joe!

In the meantime, I vote for change to a wider scale.

Jonathan

A761506

I believe weighting is a necessity, however, I do not believe a computer is capable of properly weighting a set. No computer can factor in how difficult certain cards are to acquire, even though they may not be as valuable as another card in the set. SMR does not even account for tons of card issues that are included in registry sets. Heck, nearly every vintage master player set has OPC and Venezuelan counterparts, yet these are always messed up in the weighting. For some reason, the standard Topps issue is always weighted higher than both the OPC or Venezuelan when in fact, the Topps card is the easiest to acquire, and realistically, the OPC and Venezuelan card, if they could even be found in the equivalent grade of the standard Topps card would absolutely crush the standard card in sales price.

I have a much better solution to the weighting issue... just e-mail your spreadsheets to any set participants who have at least 15% of any set and ask that they fill in the weights as they think they should be weighted, using a 1-10 scale. There is no reason 1-10 needs to be expanded, especially with the use of half and quarter points. You set a deadline for the spreadsheets to be returned to you, then just average the weights, with the weight offered by the top set being counted in twice. For example, Person A (Registry leader) weights Card XYZ as a 6. Person B weights the same card as a 7, Person C weights it an 8, and Person D weights it a 5, so you take 6 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 5 = 32 divided by 5 = 6.4. I think you would get tremendous results this way, as registry participants would most likely enjoy having the opportunity to contribute to the weighting of their own set. Tthe whole idea of weighting based on PSA 8 value needs to be thrown out the window however, weighting should be based on true value of the cards, the significance of the card to a particular set, as well as scarcity, and only the people who collect the cards truly know these things.

SOM

FIX THE SMR, JOE

rbdjr1

<< <i>Of course the set registry has to be weighted--this isn't even an issue.

Well, I have commented many times in the past that the real issue is that Joe or someone appointed by Joe needs to spend more time on the SMR to try to get things right. It is simply not enough to look at collector or dealer suggestions. There should be someone hired to monitor transactions on ebay, the phone/internet auctions and talking to dealers/collectors about pricing.

PSA also has to realize that pricing based on pop is hear to stay. Low pop commons should be broken out and put in at their real value. Every set has low pops and some can be 5, 10,25,50 even 100 times the value of a common but they are not broken out.

Once this is done accurately, then weightings should be done according to value.

Jim >>



To be honest, there may be only a handful of individuals on the planet that are as qualified as Davalillo is, when it comes to knowing which PSA commons are "not so common" after all, in those PSA sets. So the point should be: Is the weighting based on "the player" or is the weighting based on the "population scarcity" of the card, or should it be based on card value? Or all of the above? Well, in sets where thousands of cards in a paticular series have been "PSA graded", maybe one should use "PSA pop reports" as a major factor in weighting. How about a card having "tons of PSA 7's and PSA 8's" but only one PSA 9? Well for most of the existing sets, that does not figure into the weighting at all! If my example has was a common it would still have a rating of 1, but if it were a hall of famer, of course it would have a higher rating.

Anyone who has built a high end PSA "mainstream" set (in PSA 8's, PSA 9's and PSA 10's!), knows first hand just how unfair the weighting is when it comes to those "uncommon commons" LOL!

rbd

edit: I noticed the vote on this poll is "pretty much a coin flip", so the correct answer is????????? (...to be continued)

Aaronman

BJ,

I have weighted several sets for PSA and have several sets listed of my own with many more to follow. Below are some thoughts I have on the topic you brought up.

1.) The weighting needs to be expanded beyond 1-10. I think 1-20 would suffice. There are too many sets out there that are completely dominated by the value of 1 card. The 66 Topps hockey (Bobby Orr rookie) set comes to mind. Since the current weighting is roughly tied to SMR PSA 8 values the Orr card dominates, which it should. The problem occurs when you weight the rest of the set. The Gordie Howe and Bobby Hull cards are worth a fraction of the Orr but many times more than a common. Should they be weighted a 1 because they are 1/10 of the Orr price or should they be weighted a 5 because they are 5 times (or more) the common price. This set is a pretty good example but the issue occurs frequently in others

2.) I think the final weighting should be comprised of three parts.
a.) a subjective weighting. I would start with what's currently in place now although I would like to see it go to 1-20
b.) SMR value
c.) Pop report
Each part would represent a third of a cards final weighting. Parts b & c would be dynamic and could be recalculated on a weekly or monthly or quarterly basis. I realize this would make the final weighting dynamic (i.e. people's sets could change on a weekly or monthly basis) and I think that's a good thing because value and pop are dynamic elements in this piece of the hobby.


3.) I think PSA should create an advisory board of collectors/dealers (I would volunteer or be happy to serve if asked) and use the board to come up with a plan to make the SMR more accurate and to help define a strategy for the set weighting if it indeed is going to change.

My $.02,

Doug Rivard
drivard@optonline.net

fsjeter

I think the current scale is adequate. You are already using .5 points when weighting some of the cards so in essence, you could say there is a 19 point scale. Maybe the key is to use more .5 points when weighting some of the short print, tough, or higher value cards in the set.

Scott

ArmourGuy

I think setting weighting by computer knowledge of value is the best way. However this does mean there should be some way of gathering all EBay sales and directly logging these into the computer. EBay must be able to do this directly . Getting your hands on that data is what you need to do.

phreakydancin

BJ, with all due respect, people are still waiting for their November specials to be graded, SMR prices are years out of date, and I've been waiting months to have cards added to the Bossy master set. It's clear that PSA has a problem with staffing, so why on earth would you be contemplating re-weighting every set in the registry? This is a mammoth task, and there doesn't seem to be enough human resources to go around. My vote is to stay with the 1-10 scale so that PSA can get the rest of their house in order.

Carew29

"phreaky", after reading almost all of these post on this---you win hands down!!!!

divecchia

<< <i>BJ, with all due respect, people are still waiting for their November specials to be graded, SMR prices are years out of date, and I've been waiting months to have cards added to the Bossy master set. It's clear that PSA has a problem with staffing, so why on earth would you be contemplating re-weighting every set in the registry? This is a mammoth task, and there doesn't seem to be enough human resources to go around. My vote is to stay with the 1-10 scale so that PSA can get the rest of their house in order. >>





Donato

jradke4

i have to agree with phreaky

RG58

I also agree with Phreaky! Nicely stated.

Onlypsahockey

I also agreed with phreakys post.....5 days before he said it!

See my post on page 1.

Bob C.

Griffins

17 days into the new year and already Phreaky has the post of the year.

Carew29

Not true--onlypsahockey did say it before phreaky-- phreaky get's runner up award

JusttheFacts

Getting the grading done quicker requires more graders. Making the SMR more accurate requires a few new staff to be dedicated to monitoring the market. Adding cards to sets requires staff time to verify the cards and to add them to the sets.

Changing the weighting scale will require a simple change in the program. As for creating the new weights, that will not be done by staff, but by the participants in the Set Registry (for free). Therefore, it does not require the staffing resources as do the other requests.

Thus, it's not like there is a choice between: (1) faster grading; (2) making the SMR more accurate; (3) adding cards to player sets quicker; or (4) revising the Set Registry weights. (4) will clearly require less PSA staff time than the other suggestions (although it will take a tremendous amount of collector time in revising all of the weights).

Eventually, if they tie the weights to a combination of the SMR and the Pop Report, it will all be automatic, requiring no staff time at all. Once the formula is programmed, the computer will do the rest.

I'm not arguing against the other requested changes, I just think those require more staff time than changing the Set Registry weighting.

John

BearCollector

After reading through and contemplating all ideas, I would suggest incremental change as follows:

1. Keep the 1-10 (essentially 1-20 with 0.5 increments) scale in place for now.
2. Take advantage of collector passion/knowledge of sets by doing the suggested polling of those with the highest weighted sets as to proposed new scale. Implement the new scale after the next awards period ends to make current efforts valid, and leaving a full year or so to refocus set goals if necessary.
3. After SMR adjustments are made, re-examine the weighting process at that point. Changes in rarity status could be addressed by perhaps an annual audit by set collectors on their own accord once the new set scale is established, perhaps 3 months ahead of the next round of awards.

This would seem to be workable staffwise, allowing PSA to concentrate on areas they need to address, while involving us collectors in the process. A win-win??

Carew29

I would like to offer a test to what has been posted thus far.

1969 TOPPS # 510 ROD CAREW PSA 9-----POP 22 9'S of 565 total graded and no 10's= 0.0389% SMR $300

1975 TOPPS #600 ROD CAREW PSA 9-----POP 16 9'S of 325 total graded and no 10's=0.04% SMR $300

So which card should rate higher than the other? Are you solely going to base it on the year, high #, pop, value?
Not to mention the fact that PSA has yet to recognize OPC, value wise.