Poll: Should oddball cards be included in basic player sets?

AlanAllen · July 16, 2006 9:42PM

There have been several posts recently about new cards being added to established basic player sets. These additions have been oddball cards such as Panini Stickers and MSA discs, cards that traditionally have not been included in basic sets because of their non-mainstream issuance. What do you think?

ArnyVee · July 17, 2006 3:10AM

Obviously I feel that they should NOT be included. It's pretty self explanatory, but the 'basic' cards should be those cards which were/are the base cards from the regular set of each of the sport card companies.

Axtell · July 17, 2006 3:22AM

Who is it that's pushing for these oddball cards to be included?

Don't they understand the concept of a master set and a basic set?

tkd7 · July 17, 2006 3:34AM

It sounds like PSA is pushing for these. More cards - more submissions.

AlanAllen · July 17, 2006 3:41AM

They may find that adding oddball cards to basic sets will cause people to stop collecting these sets all together, resulting in fewer submissions. There is anecdotal evidence of that in other threads. Perhaps if we overwhelmingly oppose the change (as it seems those on this board do), they will reevaluate their decision. I collect master and basic sets, but not everyone does, and there is a good reason for the distinction. Let's keep the sets distinct.

Joe

pandrews · July 17, 2006 4:29AM

no, not in basic sets.. but im all for whatever someone wants to put in their master set..

Bighurt4 · July 17, 2006 4:36AM

It's good to see the poll at 25-0 against oddball cards in the Basic sets. I have stopped collecting Master sets except for Bo and Frank. I am seriously considering pulling out of the Big Hurt master. It is such a huge commitment of time and resources of a seemingly impossible task. Collecting should never be a task, only a pleasant diversion. I have also stopped accumulating Roger Clemens cards until that set gets straightened out. Just my 2 cents.

Brent

gregm13 · July 17, 2006 5:03AM

It's definately PSA driving this. I asked for basic and master sets of Bill Buckner to be created and I even sent them the lists of cards to have included in the sets. The basic set I suggested was his Topps card from 1970 to 1980 and his Topps, Donruss, Fleer, Upper Deck and Score cards from 1981 to 1990. When the set was created, there was all kinds of cr*p added, which I argued with BJ about but she said it should stay in there. Go figure.

Greg M.

Bighurt4 · July 17, 2006 5:13AM

PSA is trying to kill the Golden Goose in my opinion. The registry is a key driver of the grading business for all but the premium cards. Master sets are for all of the junk out there, basic sets are for BASIC cards. Providing incentives to get cards graded should be paramount to PSA, frustrating and providing barriers to present and future collectors seems contrary to the business.

Brent

JonB · July 17, 2006 6:17AM

Well, I thought about replying to this thread (after I voted NO) with a few examples of totally rediculous cards that are in basic sets, but I couldn't contain my anger. So I'll just say this... They need to keep basic sets "BASIC" That, and I wouldn't mind seeing a very simple "Topps Basic" set for every player. Somewhat like the Nolan Ryan Topps set, but only 1 (his main card) from each year. I think this would make a lot more people interested in sets like a "Cal Ripken Basic Topps Set" It would have 21 cards, all topps, no traded bs, no refractors, no atomic BS, nothing printed in canada, nothing made of plastic (except the slab), no metal cards... none of that junk, just topps, the good ole standard topps card... what a simple (basic) idea.

Edited: I had to stop before I said something that was going to get me booted from these boards...

envoy98 · July 17, 2006 6:41AM

<< no, not in basic sets.. but im all for whatever someone wants to put in their master set.. >>

I couldn't agree more.

Alfiewt · July 17, 2006 6:57AM

Well its 36 no and 0 yes now. Maybe PSA will listen now. They are killing the basic set idea by including all of the oddball cards.

RedRomad275 · July 18, 2006 1:49AM

My vote just made it 44-0 and I agree with most of what is being said. I have had similar discussions with PSA with the newly created Griffey Sr. and George Foster sets. I collect both basic and master so it doesn't have as much impact on me but my issue is with master sets that don't include basic cards. The Dave Concepcion master is missing several cards that are included in the basic set. Once again I have spoken to PSA and I'm not sure if they are working on it or not. I know it takes a while to get cards added due to the large amount of submissions. I'll check back with them in a month or so. Just my 2 cents.

Red

Basilone · July 18, 2006 2:21AM

No.....48-0

mikeschmidt · July 18, 2006 2:40AM

<< No.....48-0 >>

I think someone just made it 48-1, simply to be an ass

AlanAllen · July 18, 2006 5:22AM

Well it's 52-1 now, but I appreciate the bump

Joe

tkd7 · July 18, 2006 9:15AM

Maybe that 1 is PSA.

Remobolan · July 18, 2006 9:39AM

Just added my no. It's a no brainer. Why have a seperation if you are going to allow oddball cards in the basis set, just have one set.

TheWoodman · July 18, 2006 9:53AM

At the risk of everybody booing me, I really want to say that I do not think that it is easy to decide what is basic, and what is not. Sure, we all agree that Topps is basic. What about Bowman...what about Bowman Chrome...what about Bowman's Best...and on and on? Rather than just saying how easy, and how stupid it is....please be specific. Someone, earlier in this discussion brought up the Cal Ripken, Jr. Basic Set. Since I don't collect Ripken, I think that I can look at it objectively. OK, somebody, EXACTLY what would you remove from this set? Exactly how, and where, should PSA draw the line. Should the designation of Basic change each year? Fleer was certainly not Basic in 1979. SP was certainly not Basic in 1992. No Heritage cards could be considered Basic in 1999. Was Flair Basic?was Studio Basic? Are they now? Do some Brand names become Basic, and then cease to be Basic? Some of you seem to agree that no Canadian cards should ever be considered Basic. What about the Wayne Gretzky Basic Set? Would you REALLY leave out all of the O-Pee-Chee issues? I can, certainly, see why some people would like to see Topps sets, like the Ryan Topps set. But wouldn't a Topps set of Arod (who didn't sign with Topps his first few years), or Musial, (who almost NEVER signed with Topps)...leave a lot to be desired?

Alfiewt · July 18, 2006 10:30AM

I don’t think it is difficult to determine what belongs in the basic set at all. Before 1981 there was only topps except for Bowman 1948-1955 and Leaf 1948, 1960, simple. From 1981 to 1987 there was only Topps, Fleer and Donruss issuing 1 set a year each. In 1989 Upper joined. It’s not hard to determine what the regular hobby issues of these manufactures are, they are ones sold though regular hobby and retail outlets in pack form. Bowman, Bowman Chrome, Bowman's Best are defiantly regular hobby issues. Cards that were giveaways in food products are not regular hobby issues.

The first basic sets were created by different people independently, and I don’t ever remember there being much trouble determining what should be in the basic set and what belongs in the master sets only.

TheWoodman · July 18, 2006 11:35AM

So, do you feel, strongly, that the following are NEVER Basic:
Finest
Collector's Choice
Stadium Club
Score
Leaf
SP
Ultra
Flair
Pinnacle
Select
SPx
Do you, honestly, believe that an Alex Rodriguez, or Jeter Basic set should not include the SP cards??!!?? Are you saying that the Select and Pinnacle are not Jeter Basic cards? What would be the Alex Rodriguez Basic cards...just the Upper Deck? Would you leave the 1990 Leaf cards out of the Sammy Sosa, and Frank Thomas Basic sets?

By the way...just for the fun of it...What would be Ruth's Basic cards...just one of the 1933 Goudey's?

Bighurt4 · July 18, 2006 11:52AM

The Woodman wrote, "Do you, honestly, believe that an Alex Rodriguez, or Jeter Basic set should not include the SP cards??!!?? Are you saying that the Select and Pinnacle are not Jeter Basic cards? What would be the Alex Rodriguez Basic cards...just the Upper Deck? Would you leave the 1990 Leaf cards out of the Sammy Sosa, and Frank Thomas Basic sets?"

I would say put it up to a vote of the members of the respective sets. The Nolan Ryan Set members voted on the composition of the various sets over a year ago and all was well. A few new members started adding junk cards to the set and CU acts like they never knew about the vote, or at least no longer respects the opinions of the majority of the people that ACTUALLY spend their hard earned, and for the most part limited, resouces on the plastic sealed pieces of cardboard. One qualifier I would add is if 20% or whatever number is agreeable, of that set's membership would like to consider other cards, put it to another vote.

This really doesn't seem like it should be such a problem. Every collector I've dealt with in any of my sets has been exceedingly courteous and interested in conversations about the cards they love so much.

Brent

HoofHearted · July 18, 2006 12:03PM

<< So, do you feel, strongly, that the following are NEVER Basic:
Finest
Collector's Choice
Stadium Club
Score
Leaf
SP
Ultra
Flair
Pinnacle
Select
SPx
Do you, honestly, believe that an Alex Rodriguez, or Jeter Basic set should not include the SP cards??!!?? Are you saying that the Select and Pinnacle are not Jeter Basic cards? What would be the Alex Rodriguez Basic cards...just the Upper Deck? Would you leave the 1990 Leaf cards out of the Sammy Sosa, and Frank Thomas Basic sets?

By the way...just for the fun of it...What would be Ruth's Basic cards...just one of the 1933 Goudey's? >>

Kirby Puckett's RCs (depending on who you ask) is the 1983 Fritsch minor league or the '84F Update, which aren't included in his base set. That's the way it should be. I'd like to see the OPC cards taken out, too, as they're just variations of the Topps base set.

I was going to start focusing on just completing the Puckett Base set, but not if it's going to keep growing over the years. That's what the Master set is for.

Just my opinion...

Alfiewt · July 18, 2006 12:11PM

Woodman,

All of those cards belong in the basic sets. They are different brands of the major manufacturers and regular hobby issue cards. Leaf from 1990 to present is a brand name of Donruss that was a regular hobby issue. The 1985-1988 Leaf cards are just the Canadian version of the regular Donruss set, like O-Pee-Chee is the Canadian version of the regular Topps sets.

As for the Ruth cards, all of the 1933 Goudey cards should be included in the basic set.

TheWoodman · July 18, 2006 12:13PM

So if we decided to let all collectors who have cards listed on a Registry Set vote each time a new card is added...(1) Would we have to re-vote each time a new person "joins" the Registry Set? Or could the first one, or two collectors really make all of the decisions before anyone else could "join"? (2) If a person posts one card, would their vote be equal to the #1 collector? (3) Wouldn't it take an unbelievably incredible amount of time for PSA to oversee all of these votes? (4) What if some collectors who couldn't afford the 1994 Arod SP card just simply voted for it to not be included? Would that be fair? Would PSA have to step in and "overrule wrong votes"? (5) Exactly how would this voting work?

Also, seriously, what cards WOULD you remove from the Cal Ripken, Jr. Set? Becuse this seemed to be a problem...earlier.

Also, seriously, would you REALLY not include O-Pee-Chee cards in Gretzky's Basic Set? What if the Gretzky collectors decided that O-Pee-Chees ARE Basic...but Topps are NOT Basic...would that make it true?

Alfiewt · July 18, 2006 12:25PM

The only cards that I see that should be elimited from the Ripken set are the O-Pee-Chees and the early Leaf cards. I though it was agreed that the O-Pee-Chee should be included in hockey because there is a huge Canadian market for hockey, compared to only a tiny baseball market in Canada.

TheWoodman · July 18, 2006 12:28PM

Alfiewt, Thanks for the answer! OK, now we're getting somewhere. I assume that we all agree (or, at least, you agree) that Basic cards include, at least:
Bowman
Bowman Chrome
Bowman's Best
Collector's Choice
Donruss
Flair
Fleer
Leaf
Pinnacle
Score
Select
SP
SPx
Topps
Upper Deck

Now....What about SP Authentic? I really feel that it is Basic. What about Topps Heritage? I think that the 2001 Topps Heritage cards might even become "modern classics"! If we have 3 different "Bowman's", can't we, at least have 3 different "Topps", or 3 different "Fleers"? EXACTLY where should PSA draw the line? I still contend that this is not easy...but let's (at least) continue to come up with an absolutely definitive list of "Basic cards". Otherwise....if we can't do it, why should we expect PSA to be able to do it?

Also, What else would be in Babe's Basic set? Surely not one of those disgusting "food issues"!! Maybe just Goudys and Exhibits...that's it! What do you think?

HoopsGuru · July 18, 2006 12:28PM

Let's hope this thread and the others like it makes it to the people overseeing the registry at PSA.

I scanned quite a few basic player sets tonight and it's so out of whack across the board that it's startling. The more I look the more I strongly consider staying away from the basic player sets and sticking to regular sets.

Alfiewt · July 18, 2006 12:33PM

The first basic sets listed on the registry were all very consistant in what they include. It is the new sets listed that are inconsistant because they are allowing the addion of so many more types of cards.

TheWoodman · July 18, 2006 12:53PM

You know, I had never, before tonight, even looked at the Babe Ruth Basic Set. It DOES include a disgusting "food issue"...the 1932 U S Caramel!!! Would anybody on this board vote to include Milk Dud cards, or Moo Town Snackers in Basic Sets? Probably not...but time does have a way of changing things....vintage "caramel" cards are actually quite popular....and even included in Basic Sets!! Maybe, over time some of our opinions will change.....you think?

Bighurt4 · July 18, 2006 1:04PM

Good luck guys, I'm done beating this dead horse.

Brent

sixdart · July 18, 2006 3:09PM

I always wondered why Starting Line Up cards were listed in "basic" Player sets - they were packaged w/ action figures. It fact, having these type of cards in "basic" Player sets have prevented my from starting several of them.

jimtb · July 18, 2006 9:51PM

Someone added 7-11 coins to the Trammell basic set. I'm done collecting player sets. I'll keep the cards that are important to me ans sell the rest.

tkd7 · July 18, 2006 11:33PM

Seems to me that the composition of the basic set list should be decided by year and sport. If a player has a card in that issue, its included. Now it seems like the tail is wagging the dog. If a player has a card in a set, find a way to put it in the basic set.

To me, the basic set composition for Kirby Puckett or Dave Winfield or Cal Ripken should pretty similar for each year. It shouldn't be too hard. Sure, there may be some hair splitting, but not that much.

AlanAllen · July 19, 2006 12:27AM

The definition of oddball is blurry for pre-war cards, but it's clear for post-war. Sets like Bowman Chrome and Topps Heritage are distributed in packs through normal retail and hobby distribution channels, thus clearly are mainstream. 7-11 discs were issues as premiums when one bought a slurpee, thus clearly are oddball. Red Man was issued with chewing tobacco and Hires was issued with Root Beer, thus clearly are oddball. Stancraft playing cards were issued in playing card deck form, thus clearly are oddball.

A convenient definition of the ideal composition of basic sets is a paraphrase of Beckett's rookie card criteria: A base set card (not league leader or another subset card) from a regularly issued set.

Regardless of technical definitions, it'c clear that the vast majority of registrants agree on the type of cards that should be included in basic sets, and PSA's vision is divergent. I don't know if those that run the registry simply don't know the difference in distribution between 7-11 discs and Topps, or thought registrants would prefer expanded basic sets, or (I hope not) are just trying to squeeze a few more $5 bills from its devotees. But clearly there is a disconnect.

Joe

FavreFan1971 · July 19, 2006 6:10AM

Ok, being only a football card collector it is a little easier on me. But I am just as annoyed with this as you are.

I think the BASE card is considered the BASIC card for the registry. This is my list up to about 1996. I spent my lunch hour doing this so I need to get back to work. But I am looking to have these sets as the only sets available for basic sets. To the best of my knowledge these were available in packs or readily available in factory sets. That is my take, a basic card has to be the BASE card from a set that can be purchase via packs or by the set.

1992 Skybox Primetime
1935-1935 Chicle
1948-1949 Leaf
1948-1955 Bowman
1955-Present Topps
1960-1963 Fleer
1964-1967 Philly
1984-1985 Topps USFL
1989-1990 ProSet
1989-Present Score
1990-1991 Fleer
1990-1997 Action Packed
1991-1992 Pro Set Platinum
1991-1992 Proline Portraits
1991-1993 Wild Card
1991-1996 Upper Deck
1991-1997 Pinnacle
1991-2000 Stadium Club
1991-2002 Pacific
1991-Present Ultra
1991-Present Bowman
1992- Gameday
1992- Playoff
1992- Pro Set Power
1992- Skybox Impact
1992- Topps Gold
1992-1996 Collector's Edge
1992-Current Finest
1993- Select
1993- Skybox
1993- SP-Present
1993-1996 Action Packed Monday Night
1994- Fleer
1994- Pacific Prisims
1994- Playoff Contenders
1994- Proline Live
1994- Sportflics
1994-1994 Pacific Crown
1994-Current UD Collector's Choice
1995- Metal
1995- Pacific Crown Royale
1995- Pacific Grid Iron
1995- Palyoff Prime
1995- Pinnacle Club Collection
1995- Playoff Absolute
1995- Select Certified
1995- Summitt
1995- Zenith
1995-1996 Action Packed Rookies and Stars
1995-1996 Flair
1995-1997 Collector's Edge Excalibur
1996- Fleer Goudy
1996- Leaf
1996- Pacific Dynagon
1996- Pacific Invinceble
1996- Pacific Litho-Cell
1996- Playoff Illusions
1996- Playoff Prime
1996- Playoff Trophy
1996- Press Pass
1996- Score Board Lasers
1996- Topps Laser
1996- Topps Chrome
1996- Ultra Sensations
1996-1998 Donruss
1996-Current Bowman's Best
1997-1997 Collector's Edge eExtrmeme

Alfiewt · July 19, 2006 6:59AM

Woodman,

SP Authentic and Topps Heritage were issued in packs so they should be in the basic sets. I don't think the Babe Ruth set should be changed at all, althogh I do like the Exhibit cards. Prewar cards are very different then modern cards. What should be in the prewar basic sets should be dictated by what cards have the most hobby exceptance.

FavreFan,

Overall a good list of sets, but I don't think that cards from sets only available as complete sets should be in the basic sets. Fleer had like a 100 baseball card sets only available as complete sets in the 1980s & 1990s, and I don't think most people would want those cards in the basic sets. Plus there were the Topps Tiffany, Fleer Glossy, Score Glossy and all of the traded and update sets. Also, the Tiffany and Glossy sets are parallels of the regular issue. I don't know the fooball sets too well, I would have to do a little bit of research on them to know what to elimate from your list but I suspect it would be too much. I don't hink it would be too hard to come up with lists for each sport for which cards should be in the basic sets. Maybe different sports should have different rules, considering how many more baseball sets there were.

I think I will try to put to gether a list of baseball sets (at least the 1980s & 1990s issues) that should be included in the basic sets. I we want to argue over a few sets to include or not to include we can do that, but a least we will have a list so that all of the sets will be standardized.

FavreFan1971 · July 19, 2006 7:23AM

Agreed, the sets idea was a bit crackheaded on my part. For a card to be in a basic set it must be available in a pack. And it must be a base card. I will update my list and work on it and see what we all have to say. I would think the Baseball would be similar.

Alfiewt · July 19, 2006 8:52AM

Ok here is the list from 1981-1999.
1981 Donruss
1981 Fleer
1981 Topps
1982 Donruss
1982 Fleer
1982 Topps
1983 Donruss
1983 Fleer
1983 Topps
1984 Donruss
1984 Fleer
1984 Topps
1985 Donruss
1985 Fleer
1985 Topps
1986 Donruss
1986 Fleer
1986 Sportflics
1986 Topps
1987 Donruss
1987 Fleer
1987 Sportflics
1987 Topps
1988 Donruss
1988 Fleer
1988 Score
1988 Sportflics
1988 Topps
1989 Bowman
1989 Donruss
1989 Fleer
1989 Score
1989 Sportflics
1989 Topps
1989 Upper Deck
1990 Bowman
1990 Donruss
1990 Fleer
1990 Leaf
1990 Score
1990 Sportflics
1990 Topps
1990 Upper Deck
1991 Bowman
1991 Donruss
1991 Fleer
1991 O-Pee-Chee
1991 Score
1991 Stadium Club
1991 Studio
1991 Topps
1991 Ultra
1991 Upper Deck
1992 Bowman
1992 Donruss
1992 Fleer
1992 Leaf
1992 Pinnacle
1992 Score
1992 Stadium Club
1992 Studio
1992 Triple Play
1992 Ultra
1992 Upper Deck
1993 Bowman
1993 Donruss
1993 Finest
1993 Flair
1993 Fleer
1993 Leaf
1993 Pinnacle
1993 Score
1993 Select
1993 SP
1993 Stadium Club
1993 Studio
1993 Topps
1993 Triple Play
1993 Ultra
1993 Upper Deck
1994 Bowman
1994 Bowman's Best
1994 Collector's Choice
1994 Donruss
1994 Finest
1994 Flair
1994 Fleer
1994 Leaf
1994 Leaf Limited
1994 Leaf Limited Rookies
1994 Pacific
1994 Pinnacle
1994 Score
1994 Select
1994 SP
1994 Sportflics
1994 Stadium Club
1994 Studio
1994 Topps
1994 Triple Play
1994 Ultra
1994 Upper Deck
1995 Bowman
1995 Bowman's Best
1995 Collector's Choice
1995 Donruss
1995 Emotion
1995 Finest
1995 Flair
1995 Fleer
1995 Leaf
1995 Leaf Limited
1995 Pacific
1995 Pinnacle
1995 Score
1995 Select
1995 Select Certified
1995 SP
1995 SP Championship
1995 Sportflix
1995 Stadium Club
1995 Studio
1995 Summit
1995 Topps
1995 Topps D3
1995 Topps Embossed
1995 UC3
1995 Ultra
1995 Upper Deck
1995 Zenith
1996 Bowman
1996 Bowman's Best
1996 Circa
1996 Collector's Choice
1996 Donruss
1996 Emotion-XL
1996 Excel
1996 Finest
1996 Flair
1996 Fleer
1996 Leaf
1996 Leaf Limited
1996 Metal Universe
1996 Pacific
1996 Pacific Prisms
1996 Pinnacle
1996 Score
1996 Select
1996 Select Certified
1996 SP
1996 Sportflix
1996 SPx
1996 Stadium Club
1996 Studio
1996 Summit
1996 Topps
1996 Topps Chrome
1996 Topps Gallery
1996 Topps Laser
1996 Ultra
1996 Upper Deck
1996 Zenith
1997 Bowman
1997 Bowman Chrome
1997 Bowman's Best
1997 Circa
1997 Donruss
1997 Donruss Elite
1997 Donruss Limited
1997 Donruss Preferred
1997 Donruss Signature
1997 Finest
1997 Flair Showcase Row 2
1997 Fleer
1997 Leaf
1997 Metal Universe
1997 Pacific
1997 Pacific Prisms
1997 Pinnacle
1997 Pinnacle Certified
1997 Pinnacle Inside
1997 Pinnacle Totally Certified Platinum Red
1997 Pinnacle X-Press
1997 Score
1997 Select
1997 Skybox E-X2000
1997 SP
1997 Sports Illustrated
1997 SPx
1997 Stadium Club
1997 Studio
1997 Topps
1997 Topps Chrome
1997 Topps Gallery
1997 Topps Stars
1997 UD3
1997 Ultra
1997 Upper Deck
1997 Zenith
1998 Bowman
1998 Bowman Chrome
1998 Bowman's Best
1998 Circa Thunder
1998 Collector's Choice
1998 Donruss Collections
1998 Donruss Elite
1998 Donruss Preferred
1998 Donruss Signature
1998 Finest
1998 Flair Showcase Row 3
1998 Leaf
1998 Leaf Fractal Foundations
1998 Leaf Rookies and Stars
1998 Metal Universe
1998 Pacific
1998 Paramount
1998 Pinnacle
1998 Pinnacle Inside
1998 Pinnacle Performers
1998 Pinnacle Plus
1998 Revolution
1998 Score
1998 Skybox E-X2001
1998 SP Authentic
1998 Sports Illustrated
1998 SPx Finite
1998 Stadium Club
1998 Studio
1998 Topps
1998 Topps Chrome
1998 Topps Gallery
1998 Topps Gold Label Class 1
1998 Topps Stars
1998 Topps Stars 'N Steel
1998 Topps Tek
1998 UD3
1998 Ultra
1998 Upper Deck
1998 Upper Deck Retro
1998 Zenith
1999 Bowman
1999 Bowman Chrome
1999 Bowman's Best
1999 E-X Century
1999 Finest
1999 Flair Showcase Row 3
1999 Fleer Brilliants
1999 Fleer Mystique
1999 Fleer Tradition
1999 Metal Universe
1999 PacificAurora
1999 Pacific Crown Collection
1999 Pacific Crown Royale
1999 Pacific Invincible
1999 Pacific Omega
1999 Pacific Prism
1999 Paramount
1999 Revolution
1999 SkyBox Molten Metal
1999 SkyBox Premium
1999 SkyBox Thunder
1999 SP Authentic
1999 SP Signature
1999 Sports Illustrated
1999 SPx
1999 Stadium Club
1999 Topps
1999 Topps Chrome
1999 Topps Gallery
1999 Topps Stars
1999 Topps Stars 'N Steel
1999 Topps Tek
1999 UD Choice
1999 UD Ionix
1999 Ultra
1999 Upper Deck
1999 Upper Deck Black Diamond
1999 Upper Deck Century Legends
1999 Upper Deck Challengers for 70
1999 Upper Deck Encore
1999 Upper Deck HoloGrFX
1999 Upper Deck MVP
1999 Upper Deck Ovation
1999 Upper Deck PowerDeck
1999 Upper Deck Retro
1999 Upper Deck Ultimate Victory
1999 Upper Deck Victory

I included Sportflics, Triple Play and Studio even though some people don’t think they should be in the basic set. I also wasn’t sure about the following sets:

1991 O-Pee-Chee Premier
1992 O-Pee-Chee Premier
1993 O-Pee-Chee Premier
1993 Upper Deck Fun Pack
1994 Upper Deck Fun Pack
1997 Topps Treasury

Did I miss any sets, does any disagree with the inclusion of any of the sets?

fandango · July 19, 2006 8:59AM

This is the exact reason i think FIXED, DEFINED, NEVER INCREASING Registries, such as rookie registries, were/are needed and I believe they will prove to be practical and attainable, especially for the years 2001-2005....

JonB · July 19, 2006 9:15AM

I agree with Alfiewt up until about 93 or 94 (which is good because thats the year the Ryan set ends)... I don't think any "basic" set needs 12 different Upper Deck cards from the 1999 year in it. If Upper Deck, or Fleer wants to produce 20 different brands of their cards, there is still only 1 "basic" Upper Deck card, and 1 "basic" fleer card.

FavreFan1971 · July 20, 2006 12:29AM

<< I agree with Alfiewt up until about 93 or 94 (which is good because thats the year the Ryan set ends)... I don't think any "basic" set needs 12 different Upper Deck cards from the 1999 year in it. If Upper Deck, or Fleer wants to produce 20 different brands of their cards, there is still only 1 "basic" Upper Deck card, and 1 "basic" fleer card. >>

I totally disagree here. There are many different Upper Deck brands. Each of those should be represented. Same with Fleer topps etc.

So Jon you are saying in the Marshall Faulk Basic Set you would prefer the cheap UD card and not the SP Foil? And for Ricky Williams you would want the cheap Topps card and not the Topps Chrome. So you are looking for a basis set of say on Topps, Fleer, Donruss and Upper Deck card. A forty card set for a guy that plays 10 years. I don't like your option.

Just my 2cents

Axtell · July 20, 2006 2:46AM

<< 
So Jon you are saying in the Marshall Faulk Basic Set you would prefer the cheap UD card and not the SP Foil?
>>

Absolutely. The basic set is just that - basic.

<< And for Ricky Williams you would want the cheap Topps card and not the Topps Chrome. >>

See above...basic sets should be the BASIC. If you want all the flavors and variants, go for a master set. Don't spoil the basic set ideology with a bunch of crap.

<< So you are looking for a basis set of say on Topps, Fleer, Donruss and Upper Deck card. A forty card set for a guy that plays 10 years. I don't like your option.

Just my 2cents >>

If you want to have so many different flavors, collect a master set. A basic set should encompass a player's career - not how many different ways the card companies tried to cash in on him.

JonB · July 20, 2006 3:01AM

Axtell could not have said it better... its stupid to think of paying for 20 different fleer cards from the same year. If its a more modern player, I rather collect 40 cards spanning 10 years than 100 different fleer cards alone spanning 4 or 5 years... thats what the master set is for.

FavreFan1971 · July 20, 2006 4:56AM

Again I think Axtel and Jon B have missed the boat, just like Boggs missed his ring with the Red Sox and how Montana missed getting hammered in the playoffs vs. the Bears. That SNL episode with Sweetness and Montana was great, Montana not remembering anything. LOL!!

The master set is for ODD BALL refractor, stickers and parrallel cards, we all agree on that. The base card from each set should be included for the basic set is where we disagree. Who in their right mind is going to collect 1996 Topps Eddie Geogre for their basic set instead of the Topps Chrome? No one, unless you like cheap rookies. That is why I say, if it came in a pack and is not a refractor, sticker, parrallel or insert it is in, period. Basic to me is more of the word Base. So when I say Basic set I mean Base card set. Hope that cleans up any misconceptions.

Axtel I see you created the Montana Topps Basic set. If that is what you like, then collect that. I don't see you on the basic sets for him. So, why put up all the fuss? I also looked up the basic set for Montana and see ONE card that don't belong.
1989 TV-4NFL JOE MONTANA QUARTERBACKS. What are you complaining about in that set? The guy played 15 years or so so that is 4 cards per year, not a bad looking set in my mind.

"Don't spoil the basic set ideology with a bunch of crap." So explain to me what you ideology is. How do you go about picking one card from each producer? Please enlighten me.

Enough of me getting pissed off now. Sorry if I sound b1tchy, bad day at work.

JonB · July 20, 2006 6:06AM

For example, judging by what you think should be in the basic sets, the 68 OPC Ryan rookie, and the 68 Venezuelan Ryan rookie should also be in the Ryan basic set because they came in packs and were distributed in their respective countries??? (the Ryan basic set falls under the "modern" player set due to Ryan playing more years after 1972 based on what PSA uses as its guidelines) The Topps rookie is the cheapest (but without a doubt that is his most recognized rookie card). If the Venezuelan Topps rookie was in the basic set, only about 3 or 4 people would ever be able to complete the set... I just don't get that... I think many of us would quickly stop collecting player sets for the registry if we had to search for many many years just to find a very low grade card to complete our "basic" set that has a GPA of over 9, or in some cases has a GPA of 10.

I think PSA needs to start reading this thread, take 10 minutes to put out a list of every card that will be allowed in basic sets. It wouldn't take that long at all... someone on here already made a list up to 1999 (although I don't agree with someone of the sets on it).

They (PSA) simply need a list of each set from each year that will be allowed to have 1 card in each player's basic set... its really as simple as that.

And while I don't agree with what some people want in their basic sets, PSA needs to spend just 5 minutes and standardize it for all basic sets. There is no reason a 1995 plastic metal whatever type "mainstream" card should be allowed in the Palmiero basic set and not in the Ripken basic set.

FavreFan1971 · July 20, 2006 6:13AM

<< 

I think PSA needs to start reading this thread, take 10 minutes to put out a list of every card that will be allowed in basic sets. It wouldn't take that long at all... someone on here already made a list up to 1999 (although I don't agree with someone of the sets on it).

They (PSA) simply need a list of each set from each year that will be allowed to have 1 card in each player's basic set... its really as simple as that.

I agree with you on 99% of this. You took my "Available in Packs" too extreme. No I don't want OPChee or Ven. cards. Available in packs to the general USA public. Again this is for football for me. I can't say for baseball.

And while I don't agree with what some people want in their basic sets, PSA needs to spend just 5 minutes and standardize it for all basic sets. There is no reason a 1995 plastic metal whatever type "mainstream" card should be allowed in the Palmiero basic set and not in the Ripken basic set. >>

Axtell · July 20, 2006 6:56AM

You pick the montana topps basic set as a player set. If you would see, its also a gift I am putting together.

I also have a wade boggs basic set...there was a very active discussion a few months back. I just don't see the point in including multiple numbers of the same year of card, when a basic card will do.

I think that a basic set should be just that - basic. If you want to get into chromes, refractors, other stuff, put it in the master set. If you want to pursue those sets, feel free. But I think a lot of people want to forget what the premise of the basic set should be in order to skewer it to fit what *they* want, instead of sticking to the spirit of a 'basic' set.

Alfiewt · July 20, 2006 8:03AM

When the player registries were first started, they were not split into basic/master set form. What were listed were "player sets" that were created by PSA. They didn't include all cards of a player, and there didn't seem any rules for how it was decided what cards were included. I was one of the first to push the basic/master set concept. The original idea of the basic set was to have the base card of each set from all brands of the major manufacturers. I really think that most people who are going to collect the cards of the different manufacturers don’t one the sets limited to just one brand of each manufacture.

joelsabi · January 15, 2009 11:44AM

right now Bowman Chrome is not considered a basic card but dont most rookies have their best card from this set in recents years?

MintMoondog · January 15, 2009 10:17PM

There has to be a middle ground answer here, the problem with accepting Axtell's elegant argument to its extreme is that you will have basic collections of most recent players that you can pick up in one drunken sitting Friday night on ebay. Who would take the time to register a set that everyone and their brother can collect easily? Certainly, the collectors and PSA can figure out the more important cards in any given year. Perhaps 10 of the 20 UD or Fleer cards can be noted as basic issues etc...

Poll: Should oddball cards be included in basic player sets?

Comments