Well, guys....another one bites the dust I guess. I'm selling off my stuff to buy a rental property or two, just getting too cheap here in Vegas. I'm going to keep my set b/c I will definitely be around and start again at some point, maybe when my son gets old enough to enjoy it with me. For now, I'll start by listing here then move to eBay, probably consign some of the bigger ones. I pulled about 30 or so to send in on the review special so I'll post those when they come back. I'll start by posting a few here at a time in chronological order (part of my psychosis of building this set I can't let go), shoot me a PM or email at jasen_cassady@yahoo.com for any you are interested in. Scans of all cards are listed with my set, J's Football HOF Rookie Set:
Jasen.... That stinks to hear. Just when I thought you were going to be passing me soon. Anyway, I'll have to get a list together of cards I'm interested in. I'll get back with you later today or this evening.
Thanks for the kind words, guys. Joe (or as my brother refers to you, Pubes), I see myself being closer to Danny Bigham (still hanging around with some select cards) rather than a Josh or Gabbs (sell off and be done). I've been swamped with inquiries today, so thanks for your patience to those of you who have asked for pricing on specific cards. Here's a little more added to the list (shipping included with all cards)
Does anyone know what was updated in the HOF RC set? Everyone's sets are showing up as updated and My rating went from 6.06 to 6.11 without me adding cards. Did the grade weights get adjusted?
Yes, PSA adjusted the weighting. A few of the weights were off so I e-mailed Gayle to find out how they arrived at some of their numbers and she sent me the chart PSA is now using to determine the weights for the set based on SMR.
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Holy CRAP!!! Those are some MAJOR changes in some of the set weightings! Pretty much lowered across the board except the Nagurski, some of them rather significantly. Of course, when I decide to sell I get bumped up to the doorstep of the top 10. A few more sold today, here's a few more added (shipping included):
Does anybody know if these numbers are used for all psa sets...not just rc fb hofers? For a weighting of 1 on many sets....a value of less than $250 would or could be all of them...yet some are truely much harder and costlier than others.
Collecting PSA... FB,BK,HK,and BB HOF RC sets 1948-76 Topps FB Sets FB & BB HOF Player sets 1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
Each set is different. It works as a sliding scale based on the value of the most valuble card. The Nagurki is a 50K+ card in PSA 8.
Each set will be different based on this. For example, the same cards in the HOF set are used for the all time QB set. A Baugh is weighted an 8 in the QB set and a 5 in the HOF RC set.
Another good example are the Montana and Earl Campbell RCs, which are 10s in the '81 and '79 sets, respectively, but lowly 1s in the HOF set. I believe Payton is now a 1 in this set also, and of course is a 10 in the '76 set. Some of the new 1s are really head-scratchers....I'd surely take one Payton 8 or one of the '55 AA's which are now 1s rather than 10 of the '89 Randall McDaniel or Derrick Thomas.
I'm pissed off about the new value system !!!!! What DA put together a system that a Jim Otto , Billy Shaw has the same value as any 89 score card that you purchase to put in a set or that cards like a 48 Bowman Alex Wojo or Pete Pihos have less value than a Staubach. WTF ?? What they really failed to recognize is the high end collectors who pays big time money for high end vintage cards. So what PSA is telling me is 89 score Bruce Mathews PSA 8 $6.00 has the same value as a 60 Fleer Billy Shaw PSA 8 $450 ++++. Thats not the real kicker in my opion, what really bothers me is that if you bought high grade cards of both of those players Mathews PSA 10 worth $20.00 - Billy Shaw PSA 9 + worth 2,500 to 5K . There both worth 1 Point --- WTF ?
Its called common sense and who ever put these values together didn't use any !! I'm just pissed and really don't know what to do at this point. I just need a little time to cool off and think about my collection, but its a real possibility I will consider crossing my entire collection over to SGC !!!!
<< <i>I'm pissed off about the new value system !!!!! What DA put together a system that a Jim Otto , Billy Shaw has the same value as any 89 score card that you purchase to put in a set or that cards like a 48 Bowman Alex Wojo or Pete Pihos have less value than a Staubach. WTF ?? What they really failed to recognize is the high end collectors who pays big time money for high end vintage cards. So what PSA is telling me is 89 score Bruce Mathews PSA 8 $6.00 has the same value as a 60 Fleer Billy Shaw PSA 8 $450 ++++. Thats not the real kicker in my opion, what really bothers me is that if you bought high grade cards of both of those players Mathews PSA 10 worth $20.00 - Billy Shaw PSA 9 + worth 2,500 to 5K . There both worth 1 Point --- WTF ?
Its called common sense and who ever put these values together didn't use any !! I'm just pissed and really don't know what to do at this point. I just need a little time to cool off and think about my collection, but its a real possibility I will consider crossing my entire collection over to SGC !!!! >>
I'm not a big fan either. I was certainly shocked when I saw the new changes. I e-mailed Gayle right away because they were so night and day vs. what I have been submitting the last few years and grade weighting updates. The biggest headscratcher for me is why they took away all the .5 designations with the exception of the 1.5. I mean isn't that the EXACT opposite of what PSA is pushing with their new grading system???lolol
In the big picture, this really isn't that big of a deal to me. Most likely I will discontinue sending in annual grade weight updates, simply because this will make 2 years in a row that I wasted my time (last year i tried getting the weights according to actual VCP vs. SMR). But for me, it doesn't change my cards or how I value them. I will continue using the Registry for what I mainly use it for which is to #1- track my inventory, and #2, as a place to view my cards from anywhere in the world. I've never been super competitive when it comes to trying to win certificates or where I rank on the sets. I have my specific collecting goals and try to focus on those. I could certainly understand anyone who might care about where they are ranked or who is trying to win a certificate/award comng to the conclusion that it is no longer a battle worth fighting as the Registry seems to change philosophies once or twice a year.
Dan's points are all dead on. And it is something that could have been lessened greatly by simply using all the .5's in between the weights in order to distribute the values better. Before I e-mailed Gayle yesterday, they had the 1933 Red Grange (in PSA 8 mind you) listed with a weight of 3.0...THREE! Crazy...lol
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>The problem is that they go by SMR and not the true value of the cards.
Dave >>
Very true. In a perfect world the SMR and true values would be one in the same. I tried using VCP actual prices last year and got shot down rather quickly. To PSA's credit, they have been updating the SMR prices quite a bit, at least when it comes to NFL HOF RC's. Quite a few are still way off, but many are now either dead on or at least close. A year or 2 ago, NONE of the cards where anywhere close...
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
The previous Grade Weight System rewarded those collectors that were stacked with high pop, low end, cheap cards (e.g. 1984 Topps in PSA 9). Now that changes have been made, that reward is made even greater. The grade weights are carried out to the hundredth of a point, so then why not weight a 1989 Score Thurman Thomas at a 0.20 rather than 1.00 (or however the math works)? Lower the floor below 1.00.
Of course, having the system based on SMR PSA 8 value is nonsensical because SMR is so inaccurate. However, employing the above tactic would eliminate much of the disparity. Does anyone (Jason P.?) know if PSA will entertain this notion?
I'll be checking on my own SGC Football HOF Rookies Set. If their weightings make more sense, I'll give more registry suggestions to Sean Skeffington at SGC and see how that goes.
<< <i> why not weight a 1989 Score Thurman Thomas at a 0.20 rather than 1.00 (or however the math works)? Lower the floor below 1.00.
However, employing the above tactic would eliminate much of the disparity. Does anyone (Jason P.?) know if PSA will entertain this notion? >>
Based on the fact that they just simplified from having .5's to going all single-digit weightings with the exception of 1.5, I would assume this would not be something PSA would be interested in. But hey, opinions there seem to change pretty often, so give it 6 months and it will probably change again...lol
Certainly makes sense though. To be honest, I was fine with how it was, using the .5's to spread the wealth. Based on the current setup, my opinion is the entire weighting system on this set is now pretty much worthless. So I'm simply not going to spend anymore time trying to make it better by arguing the finer points to the Registry crew at PSA. If someone else wants to have that battle however, you have my full support.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Perhaps we're taking registry weighting a tad too seriously. Of course, I'm way down under 10% complete (though I do have a couple from the '70s arriving shortly and am about to submit an AA).
This new weighting absolutely makes no sense to me. Business must be pretty good for PSA to want to drive customers(us) to SGC, I agree with Yak. How about asking for input from the guys who collect the set or at the very least really researching what these cards sell for!! Have you checked what a Bob Brown 8 goes for these days and they weight it the same as a Bruce Matthews, #@*% crazy!
<< <i>Marcus Allen Rookie PSA 8 - Average Price: $5.20 Weight = 1
Billy Shaw Rookie PSA 8 - Last Price: $787.00 Weight = 1 >>
Perfect example
Ive spoke to both MAD and Yak about this this morning, and I finally had a chance to look at how ridiculous alot of this is
First of all, we're all men, anyone who says there isnt just a bit of competitive nature about this registry is only fooling themselves. I collect because I love football, I love the history of football and the HOF and the cards about it and most of all, I love the friends I have made in this hobby. But, I also enjoy the chase, and the friendly competition of the registry.
I know the weights are supposed to be based on an SMR value of a PSA 8, but sometimes that lags behind the actual value of the card. Kudo's to PSA for catching the SMR values up to actual values in some cases, but in most its not accurate. I think Jasp does a great job of revisiting the weighting of the set every year, and that should have more merit than the SMR/ sliding scale he posted earlier.
Here are a few examples of weighted 1.5's that are a complete and total joke 48 Wojo $1000 50 Perry 50 Fears 52 Millner $821 Lg 63 Lenny Dawson 65 Brown 66 Gayle Sayers.... really, Sayers? $460 68 Griese 71 Bradshaw $500 71 Greene 72 Chaz Joiner
Here are a few weighted 1's that are even worse. In fact, Marc pointed out to me that you dont encounter the first card weighted over 1 unitl the 72 Roger staubach. 54 Atkins 55 freidman 56 Brown 56 George (sorry Dan) 58 Sonny J 59 Sam Huff 60 Ron Mix (pathetic) 61 Don Maynard, this is the biggest joke. Maynard = Thurman thomas 63 Nitschke (again, sorry Dan) 65 Paul krause
A 55 AA should never be on equal terms with an 89 score. I know its impossible to have a sliding scale based on population, or difficulty of a card to obtain, which is all the more why PSA should let Jasp take care of the weighting once a year.
I think it boils down to, yes we are all guests here on the message boards of CU, but where would PSA be without US, the customer participating in the registry. The more they tinker with the system here the more collectors they alienate, the more people who retire sets out of frustration or move on to SGC, the less people who are on here.
I think this is a total joke. PSA requires us to use a poll to determine who is and what card is added to a set (asking the collectors of the set) Then they require us to use cards that Beckett designates as a rookie card and now they change the weighting system that we have been using without any input from the collectors. I am very close to not renewing my membership as I feel I have no voice in a company that I pay for these benefits and services. I also do not plan on sending in any cards for bumps as it will not help my rating as much now. Just another example of a large company not listening to it's customers.
The way I try and look at it (and the way I don't think PSA does) is if I were an outsider thinking of collecting this set. If I am looking at grade weights, I want them to make sense. If I am looking at card selection, I want them to make sense.
Adding the either/or for the 1950 Topps Feltbacks (which are essentially stamps, not cards) to me made zero sense when compared to the rest of the set. Now the weights also look senseless when $1,000 cards are weighted 1.5 or 2...It's silly really. They are basing the entire system off of the Nagurski 8 being valued at 50K, when the fact is, they are so ultra rare and ultra expensive, I doubt we ever see more then 3 of them listed in all of the sets on the HOF RC registry.
But as with anything these days, hopey-hopey, change-change is the mantra...Just when you get things figured out and life makes sense, all it takes is ONE person with a different opinion to change the world as we know it. I just try and keep my head down and push forward towards my goals. Whatever changes come on the Registry or in the buy/sell market will come and I will adapt my focus accordingly.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
These changes obviously have been made by someone that took a broadstroke approach to the Registry in general. I'm assuming that there is no way that they specifically applied the weight changes to this set after careful review. Anyone with any common sense and utilizing standard logic NEVER would've come to the final weight tallies that have been applied to some of these cards.
There's no need to recite chapter and verse the magnitude of the errors and incongruities within this new scheme. Some glaring examples have already been pointed out, but there are so many, that it defies logic.
As a completist, I'm not so worried about the weighted values and I'm not concerned about ranking, but to those that are, these changes may have a significant impact.
What I find most alarming is the amount of alienation that has been going on lately with regard to the Registry in general. Aside from the previous examples cited, it appears that those that monitor the Registry are more concerned with making their job easier by streamlining the process without putting any significant effort into making it accurate and all the while, ignoring the input of those that have painstakingly put in the hours upon hours to compile the specifics and justification for the weighting values.
Accordingly, I have reached a level of frustration with the 1948 Leaf FB Master Set as I have several specific variations, but since Beckett does not recognize them, PSA will not acknowledge them. Likewise, since Beckett acknowledges the "White Background" variations, they list those and count them in the Master Set even though there is only one graded example. I have always been told that no Registry Set would include an item unless at least 3 examples had been graded. Contradiction? Certainly!
Keep it up PSA, you're making the Registry something to cringe about rather than enjoy!
I think we should start an email campaign to Joe and voice our displeasure with these changes. With 40, 000+ sets on the registry he can't possibly know what is going on with each one. He probably isn't even aware these changes were made, but you know what they say, the squeaky wheel gets the grease! It can't hurt to make some noise.
<< <i>I think we should start an email campaign to Joe and voice our displeasure with these changes. With 40, 000+ sets on the registry he can't possibly know what is going on with each one. He probably isn't even aware these changes were made, but you know what they say, the squeaky wheel gets the grease! It can't hurt to make some noise.
Doc >>
If someone would PM me or post his email address I'll be happy to put my 2 cents in.
I did get an email back from him and played a little phone tag, but his response was " I have no idea what you are talking about "your recent overhaul". " Which I thought was kinda interesting response.
One thing I did notice is the HOF Registry has a every set as updated, but if you check other sets it doesn't seem to be any changes. Could this be a mistake ?
<< <i>One thing I did notice is the HOF Registry has a every set as updated, but if you check other sets it doesn't seem to be any changes. Could this be a mistake ? >>
I checked out the 1977 Topps football set and they changed the weighting on that one.
I have been out for 3 days with vertigo....I c the wheels at psa r spinning as fast as I was. Sorry to c some of the top guys make moves.
Very unfortunate when we have an expert who is willing and able to keep the set rolling smoothly...as in mr peoples.
Dr. joe......if a psa 8 is 50 hirsch is ok 4 ur set I have an extra one. You have a 65 blanda that is so out of place in ur 65 set and just sitting there waiting to go to a much better home....pm me id u r intreseted in a deal.
Collecting PSA... FB,BK,HK,and BB HOF RC sets 1948-76 Topps FB Sets FB & BB HOF Player sets 1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
I have been out for 3 days with vertigo....I c the wheels at psa r spinning as fast as I was. Sorry to c some of the top guys make moves.
Very unfortunate when we have an expert who is willing and able to keep the set rolling smoothly...as in mr peoples.
Dr. joe......if a psa 8 is 50 hirsch is ok 4 ur set I have an extra one. You have a 65 blanda that is so out of place in ur 65 set and just sitting there waiting to go to a much better home....pm me id u r intreseted in a deal. >>
Jay z
are you wearing your respirator when your exterminating bugs out there buddy?
I hate to see my good buddy MAD selling off more of his beloved set. I hope Joey O is reading this and realizes these "minor tweaks" are alienating alot of good collectors.
I did get an email back from him and played a little phone tag, but his response was " I have no idea what you are talking about "your recent overhaul". " Which I thought was kinda interesting response.
One thing I did notice is the HOF Registry has a every set as updated, but if you check other sets it doesn't seem to be any changes. Could this be a mistake ? >>
i like the registry for some things...like what Jason has mentioned...but dislike it for some others. such as this situtation, double listing of some cards in player sets etc. while i am happy psa has this and that the people they have running it do their best, its not shocking that this happened. the ladies there at the registry have no real idea what the hobby is about, or sports for that matter. to me this is the biggest problem. everything they do with the registry has to be from some book as they dont know the details of the hobby. the fact that i think the registry folks arent in CA doesnt help either.
i wont even start in on the spec department at PSA....
Packers Fan for Life Collecting: Brett Favre Master Set Favre Ticket Stubs Favre TD Reciever Autos Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set Football HOF Rc's
Jasp24 has my vote to determine the correct weighting for this set and I'm sure I'm not alone here! If Psa has a e-mail sent to them by most members of this set mentioning that Jason is quite capable of determining the correct weighting PSA will have to atleast take notice.
Mark -------------------------------------------- NFL HOF RC SET
Thanks for the vote(s) of confidence fellas. But nothing special in what I do. Simply take the SMR's values in PSA 8 and apply it in a way that makes (or at least made) sense to me. Tried the VCP realized prices and was shot down quite quickly by (I was told) Joe O. Understandable they want to use SMR. Just a matter of trying to get the SMR corrected.
I used a similar method with the weighting but broke it out a little further:
My reasoning being that if you look at the cards in the set, how many actually fall into the higher categories? Only 9 out of 199 fall into the 7.5 or higher weighting....There are only 24 cards that fall into the 6.0-7.0 range.
So 166 out of the 199 are at 5.5 or lower in the weightings. 128 of the cards are valued under $300 and weighted 3.0 or lower in my system! To me, it always made more sense to adjust the weighting values accordingly so we didn't have $250 cards with the same weight at a $10 card. I guess you could make the agrument that it de-valued or de-weighted some of the super-sized card like Nagurski or Grange to have cards with a much lower value yet have half the grade weighting. But again, look at the numbers on the set and how many lower valued cards their are vs. higher valued cards.
If you look at a cross-section of all 94 registered collections, you aren;t going to find many with PSA 8 Nagurski's or 1948 Leaf's. You also won't find many with PSA 8's in 1989 Score or 1984 Topps. Most are similar in that we buy the highest grade we can comfortably afford. For some that is PSA 5's and 6's in the older stuff and 9's in the newer stuff. For others that means PSA 7's or 8's in the vintage and PSA 10's in the modern. The idea that everyone would collect this set in PSA 8 is simply laughable. Anyone who can afford 1935 Chicle or 1948 Leaf PSA 8's is not going to waste $3 on a 1989 Score PSA 8. They will own a 10 of the 1989 Score or 1984 Topps, etc. Based on that common sense factor, wouldn't it be smarter to weigh the lower cards a little heavier since the reality is, most will choose to purchase the $100 PSA 10 over the $5 PSA 8. And vice versa, most can't afford the 50K Nagurski 8, but many can afford the $3,000 Nagurski PSA 2...
I don't know, I always thought our original weighting made perfect sense.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I would like to think that *someone* from PSA reads this thread daily? I mean, all threads need to be monitored so they dont get out of hand, right? Too bad that person doesn't go a step further and report many unhappy customers.
It would be nice if PSA could respond to our concerns......... instead we hear the crickets chirping.....
I did send an email to Joe yesterday and to his credit he replied this morning. I also received a reply from Cosetta(both are below).
I agree with Mark that we should have Jason assign all the weights, if PSA will allow it, as I have complete confidence in him and, after all this set is his baby. I know we all just want this to make sense and be realistic. Jason what do you think?
Thanks, Doc
Dear Joe,
As I am sure you are now aware, the recent weighting changes to the Football HOF Rookie Set has created quite a stir with the collectors of this set. As one of the set members I would ask you to please review these changes and I believe you will see just how little sense they make.
I am all for making changes to the set as the hobby progresses however, these changes also must have logic behind them. You currently have many customers(myself included) who are extremely unhappy with these changes and I would urge you to visit the HOF link read more of what is being said.
Joe, as a business owner myself I have the utmost respect for the position you are in and I've always believed that you run your business with a belief that customer service is important. With that being said the collectors of this set want to feel like they at least will have their voice be heard and that our input is valuable. After all we should know, we collect the set and know exactly what the prices are for these cards.
On behalf of the other set owners, thank you in advance for reviewing this matter.
Sincerely,
Dan Dockry
Hi Dan,
Joe forwarded your email to me so that we could review and make any necessary updates to the recently updated weights for the Pro Football Hall of Fame Rookies set composite. Weights are on a 1-10 scale based on PSA 8 grades in the Sports Market Report. If a set were not listed in the SMR, then we would refer to any legitimate pricing guide. Commons generally would receive 1 point. Star cards would be weighted more according to their PSA 8 market value. Because we, the Set Registry staff, are not experts with regards to the value of a specific card, and collectors opinions tend to vary, we rely mostly on the SMR. Once we have priced a set in its entirety using the abovementioned guidelines, we then make a weight breakdown chart and weight accordingly. Occasionally, a price may differ from the SMR compared to what a collector actually paid for said item. We do make exceptions for such cases. All we ask is something documenting a recent sale showing the price paid and we will update the composite accordingly. We would be happy to review any such documentation that you would like to provide. Here is the current weight breakdown chart that is listed in the composite;
<< <i>Occasionally, a price may differ from the SMR compared to what a collector actually paid for said item. We do make exceptions for such cases. All we ask is something documenting a recent sale showing the price paid and we will update the composite accordingly. Please get back to me at your convenience.
Thank you, Cosetta Robbins Assistant Set Registry Manager >>
Uh, really? Since when??? Isn't the whole problem with SMR and the set weightings the fact that they do NOT take this approach? Since she has offered, seems to me Jason's VCP-based weighting system should be resubmitted along with a copy of this email.
Guys, I'm willing to do whatever is needed minus becoming a thorn in the Registry staff's side. They hear from me QUITE often, and I don't want to turn into the guy who cries wolf over everything. lol...I think we are on the right track with multiple collectors voices their own concerns.
My last VCP weighting spreadsheet was done last year (2008), so I would need a day to re-do that by going into VCP and updating each card's PSA 8 value.
Based on Cosetta's e-mail, I think the target here is fixing the current weight breakdown chart. Reading through I can't tell if that is also negotiable. It seems that they are assuming the complaint is that the weights are off because the SMR is off. While that is an issue, the biggest obstacle I see is that the weight breakdown chart for this set is skewed, specifically on the lower end.
Let me know what you guys find out and what you need me to do with my grade weight spreadsheets (if anything).
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
IMO we should focus on the weight breakdown. It's much more important to point out that a $200 card should not have the same weight as a $5 card, because making a showing that the $200 card sells for an average of $500 is 1) subject to change; 2) goes against their general plan to use SMR (or requires them to put a lot of effort into fixing SMR), 3) is about individual cards rather than the general scheme, and 4) requires far more work. Unless someone else has another proposed weight breakdown, I'd go with JasP's.
I totally agree that the weight breakdown is the major problem and would love to go to Jason's system. Although after reading Doc's email, I would be surprised if they make a changes except to move a couple of cards out the 1 to 250 range. Wow I can finally get that half point for the Shaw
The funny thing about the whole scale that they created Weights 1 thru 5 ----- 195 cards fit into those catigories Weights 6 thru 10 ----- 4 whole cards Namath , Luckman, Bednarik and Nagursk
Comments
Nice to see you finally adding some picks so the rest of us can enjoy your amazing collection.
BTW folks, don't forget to check out the 1948 Leaf PSA 7's of Nomellini and Conerly up on the Bay right now. Bid often, bid mucho and win!
Edit - to remove image...
'33 Grange 5 $ 650
'33 Thorpe 5 1,100
'35 Clark 5 500
'35 Strong 5 300
'35 Battles 5 325
'35 Edwards 5 350
'35 Hinkle 5 500
Will post more tomorrow, but feel free to PM or email if you are interested in any particular card.
Jasen
That stinks to hear. Just when I thought you were going to be passing me soon. Anyway, I'll have to get a list together of cards I'm interested in. I'll get back with you later today or this evening.
Dave
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
Dont be a stranger around here with no HOF set, we all know what happened to envoy
Joe
'33 Grange 5 $650
'33 Thorpe 5 $1,100
'35 Clark 5 $500
'35 Strong 5 $300
'35 Battles 5 $325
'35 Edwards 5 $350
'35 Hinkle 5 $500
'48 Turner 6 $280
'48 Wojciechowicz 6 $75
'48 Pihos 6 $300
'48 Luckman 6 $1200
'48 Van Buren 6 $255
'48 Dudley 6 $135
'48 Connor 6 $135
Let me know, guys. I will respond as promptly as possible, thanks.
Jasen
Dave
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
Mark
--------------------------------------------
NFL HOF RC SET
WEIGHT BREAKDOWN
10 49,000+
9 48,999-30,000
8 29,999-15,000
7 14,999-9,000
6 8,999-4,001
5 4,000-2,599
4 2,500-1,000
3 999-750
2 749-500
1.5 499-250
1 <250
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
'33 Grange 5 $650
'33 Thorpe 5 $1,100
'35 Clark 5 $500
'35 Strong 5 $300
'35 Battles 5 $325
'35 Edwards 5 $350
'35 Hinkle 5 $500
'48 Turner 6 $280 SOLD
'48 Wojciechowicz 6 $75
'48 Pihos 6 $300
'48 Luckman 6 $1200
'48 Van Buren 6 $255
'48 Dudley 6 $135 SOLD
'48 Connor 6 $135 SOLD
'50 Tittle 7 $350
'50 Canadeo 7 $300
'50 Perry 7 $195
'50 Fears 7 $140
'50 Hirsch 7 $190
'50 Lavelli 7 $120
'51 Van Brocklin 7 $350
'51 Weinmeister 7 $160
'51 Creekmur 7 $100
'51 Tunnell 7 $145
'51 Stautner 7 $95
I think I got back to everyone today, but if I missed you, shoot me an email or PM, thanks.
Jasen
For a weighting of 1 on many sets....a value of less than $250 would or could be all of them...yet some are truely much harder and costlier than others.
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
Each set will be different based on this. For example, the same cards in the HOF set are used for the all time QB set. A Baugh is weighted an 8 in the QB set and a 5 in the HOF RC set.
Dave
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
Jasen
What DA put together a system that a Jim Otto , Billy Shaw has the same value as any 89 score card that you purchase to put in a set or that cards like a 48 Bowman Alex Wojo or Pete Pihos have less value than a Staubach. WTF ??
What they really failed to recognize is the high end collectors who pays big time money for high end vintage cards.
So what PSA is telling me is 89 score Bruce Mathews PSA 8 $6.00 has the same value as a 60 Fleer Billy Shaw PSA 8 $450 ++++. Thats not the real kicker in my opion, what really bothers me is that if you bought high grade cards of both of those players Mathews PSA 10 worth $20.00 - Billy Shaw PSA 9 + worth 2,500 to 5K . There both worth 1 Point --- WTF ?
Its called common sense and who ever put these values together didn't use any !!
I'm just pissed and really don't know what to do at this point. I just need a little time to cool off and think about my collection, but its a real possibility I will consider crossing my entire collection over to SGC !!!!
I'll be posting a list of cards for sale.
MAD
------------
BOBBY ORR
THE BEST THERE WAS!
THE BEST THERE EVER WILL BE!
------------
<< <i>I'm pissed off about the new value system !!!!!
What DA put together a system that a Jim Otto , Billy Shaw has the same value as any 89 score card that you purchase to put in a set or that cards like a 48 Bowman Alex Wojo or Pete Pihos have less value than a Staubach. WTF ??
What they really failed to recognize is the high end collectors who pays big time money for high end vintage cards.
So what PSA is telling me is 89 score Bruce Mathews PSA 8 $6.00 has the same value as a 60 Fleer Billy Shaw PSA 8 $450 ++++. Thats not the real kicker in my opion, what really bothers me is that if you bought high grade cards of both of those players Mathews PSA 10 worth $20.00 - Billy Shaw PSA 9 + worth 2,500 to 5K . There both worth 1 Point --- WTF ?
Its called common sense and who ever put these values together didn't use any !!
I'm just pissed and really don't know what to do at this point. I just need a little time to cool off and think about my collection, but its a real possibility I will consider crossing my entire collection over to SGC !!!! >>
I'm not a big fan either. I was certainly shocked when I saw the new changes. I e-mailed Gayle right away because they were so night and day vs. what I have been submitting the last few years and grade weighting updates. The biggest headscratcher for me is why they took away all the .5 designations with the exception of the 1.5. I mean isn't that the EXACT opposite of what PSA is pushing with their new grading system???lolol
In the big picture, this really isn't that big of a deal to me. Most likely I will discontinue sending in annual grade weight updates, simply because this will make 2 years in a row that I wasted my time (last year i tried getting the weights according to actual VCP vs. SMR). But for me, it doesn't change my cards or how I value them. I will continue using the Registry for what I mainly use it for which is to #1- track my inventory, and #2, as a place to view my cards from anywhere in the world. I've never been super competitive when it comes to trying to win certificates or where I rank on the sets. I have my specific collecting goals and try to focus on those. I could certainly understand anyone who might care about where they are ranked or who is trying to win a certificate/award comng to the conclusion that it is no longer a battle worth fighting as the Registry seems to change philosophies once or twice a year.
Dan's points are all dead on. And it is something that could have been lessened greatly by simply using all the .5's in between the weights in order to distribute the values better. Before I e-mailed Gayle yesterday, they had the 1933 Red Grange (in PSA 8 mind you) listed with a weight of 3.0...THREE! Crazy...lol
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Dave
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
<< <i>In the big picture, this really isn't that big of a deal to me. >>
Ditto that for me..
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
<< <i>The problem is that they go by SMR and not the true value of the cards.
Dave >>
Very true. In a perfect world the SMR and true values would be one in the same. I tried using VCP actual prices last year and got shot down rather quickly. To PSA's credit, they have been updating the SMR prices quite a bit, at least when it comes to NFL HOF RC's. Quite a few are still way off, but many are now either dead on or at least close. A year or 2 ago, NONE of the cards where anywhere close...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Of course, having the system based on SMR PSA 8 value is nonsensical because SMR is so inaccurate. However, employing the above tactic would eliminate much of the disparity. Does anyone (Jason P.?) know if PSA will entertain this notion?
I'll be checking on my own SGC Football HOF Rookies Set. If their weightings make more sense, I'll give more registry suggestions to Sean Skeffington at SGC and see how that goes.
<< <i> why not weight a 1989 Score Thurman Thomas at a 0.20 rather than 1.00 (or however the math works)? Lower the floor below 1.00.
However, employing the above tactic would eliminate much of the disparity. Does anyone (Jason P.?) know if PSA will entertain this notion?
>>
Based on the fact that they just simplified from having .5's to going all single-digit weightings with the exception of 1.5, I would assume this would not be something PSA would be interested in. But hey, opinions there seem to change pretty often, so give it 6 months and it will probably change again...lol
Certainly makes sense though. To be honest, I was fine with how it was, using the .5's to spread the wealth. Based on the current setup, my opinion is the entire weighting system on this set is now pretty much worthless. So I'm simply not going to spend anymore time trying to make it better by arguing the finer points to the Registry crew at PSA. If someone else wants to have that battle however, you have my full support.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Of course, I'm way down under 10% complete (though I do have a couple from the '70s arriving shortly and am about to submit an AA).
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
Doc
PSA 8 - Average Price: $5.20
Weight = 1
Billy Shaw Rookie
PSA 8 - Last Price: $787.00
Weight = 1
Mark
--------------------------------------------
NFL HOF RC SET
I'll let you know what I find out.
<< <i>Marcus Allen Rookie
PSA 8 - Average Price: $5.20
Weight = 1
Billy Shaw Rookie
PSA 8 - Last Price: $787.00
Weight = 1 >>
Perfect example
Ive spoke to both MAD and Yak about this this morning, and I finally had a chance to look at how ridiculous alot of this is
First of all, we're all men, anyone who says there isnt just a bit of competitive nature about this registry is only fooling themselves. I collect because I love football, I love the history of football and the HOF and the cards about it and most of all, I love the friends I have made in this hobby. But, I also enjoy the chase, and the friendly competition of the registry.
I know the weights are supposed to be based on an SMR value of a PSA 8, but sometimes that lags behind the actual value of the card. Kudo's to PSA for catching the SMR values up to actual values in some cases, but in most its not accurate. I think Jasp does a great job of revisiting the weighting of the set every year, and that should have more merit than the SMR/ sliding scale he posted earlier.
Here are a few examples of weighted 1.5's that are a complete and total joke
48 Wojo $1000
50 Perry
50 Fears
52 Millner $821 Lg
63 Lenny Dawson
65 Brown
66 Gayle Sayers.... really, Sayers? $460
68 Griese
71 Bradshaw $500
71 Greene
72 Chaz Joiner
Here are a few weighted 1's that are even worse. In fact, Marc pointed out to me that you dont encounter the first card weighted over 1 unitl the 72 Roger staubach.
54 Atkins
55 freidman
56 Brown
56 George (sorry Dan)
58 Sonny J
59 Sam Huff
60 Ron Mix (pathetic)
61 Don Maynard, this is the biggest joke. Maynard = Thurman thomas
63 Nitschke (again, sorry Dan)
65 Paul krause
A 55 AA should never be on equal terms with an 89 score. I know its impossible to have a sliding scale based on population, or difficulty of a card to obtain, which is all the more why PSA should let Jasp take care of the weighting once a year.
I think it boils down to, yes we are all guests here on the message boards of CU, but where would PSA be without US, the customer participating in the registry. The more they tinker with the system here the more collectors they alienate, the more people who retire sets out of frustration or move on to SGC, the less people who are on here.
venting, sorry fellas
joe
Doc
Just another example of a large company not listening to it's customers.
Adding the either/or for the 1950 Topps Feltbacks (which are essentially stamps, not cards) to me made zero sense when compared to the rest of the set. Now the weights also look senseless when $1,000 cards are weighted 1.5 or 2...It's silly really. They are basing the entire system off of the Nagurski 8 being valued at 50K, when the fact is, they are so ultra rare and ultra expensive, I doubt we ever see more then 3 of them listed in all of the sets on the HOF RC registry.
But as with anything these days, hopey-hopey, change-change is the mantra...Just when you get things figured out and life makes sense, all it takes is ONE person with a different opinion to change the world as we know it. I just try and keep my head down and push forward towards my goals. Whatever changes come on the Registry or in the buy/sell market will come and I will adapt my focus accordingly.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
There's no need to recite chapter and verse the magnitude of the errors and incongruities within this new scheme. Some glaring examples have already been pointed out, but there are so many, that it defies logic.
As a completist, I'm not so worried about the weighted values and I'm not concerned about ranking, but to those that are, these changes may have a significant impact.
What I find most alarming is the amount of alienation that has been going on lately with regard to the Registry in general. Aside from the previous examples cited, it appears that those that monitor the Registry are more concerned with making their job easier by streamlining the process without putting any significant effort into making it accurate and all the while, ignoring the input of those that have painstakingly put in the hours upon hours to compile the specifics and justification for the weighting values.
Accordingly, I have reached a level of frustration with the 1948 Leaf FB Master Set as I have several specific variations, but since Beckett does not recognize them, PSA will not acknowledge them. Likewise, since Beckett acknowledges the "White Background" variations, they list those and count them in the Master Set even though there is only one graded example. I have always been told that no Registry Set would include an item unless at least 3 examples had been graded. Contradiction? Certainly!
Keep it up PSA, you're making the Registry something to cringe about rather than enjoy!
Doc
<< <i>I think we should start an email campaign to Joe and voice our displeasure with these changes. With 40, 000+ sets on the registry he can't possibly know what is going on with each one. He probably isn't even aware these changes were made, but you know what they say, the squeaky wheel gets the grease! It can't hurt to make some noise.
Doc >>
If someone would PM me or post his email address I'll be happy to put my 2 cents in.
Jasen
I did get an email back from him and played a little phone tag, but his response was " I have no idea what you are talking about "your recent overhaul". "
Which I thought was kinda interesting response.
One thing I did notice is the HOF Registry has a every set as updated, but if you check other sets it doesn't seem to be any changes. Could this be a mistake ?
<< <i>One thing I did notice is the HOF Registry has a every set as updated, but if you check other sets it doesn't seem to be any changes. Could this be a mistake ? >>
I checked out the 1977 Topps football set and they changed the weighting on that one.
I am offering cards here first.
Please email reasonable offers to madmandreamer@aol.com.
I will respond to all emails and scans will be provided to those that make serious offers.
I will also be posting lists of both non-HOF rookies and non-RC HOF cards on the B-S-T board.
Here is my sale list of HOF Rookies:
These are all NQ (No Qualifiers)
1950 Bowman # 35 Joe Perry PSA 9
1950 Bowman # 51 Tom Fears PSA 9
1952 Bowman Large # 57 Wayne Millner PSA 8
1954 Bowman # 23 George Blanda PSA 9
1955 Bowman # 2 Mike McCormack PSA 9
1955 Bowman # 119 Frank Gatski PSA 9
1957 Topps # 151 Paul Hornung PSA 8
1960 Fleer # 118 Ron Mix PSA 9
1964 Philadelphia # 3 John Mackey PSA 9
1964 Philadelphia # 161 Jim Johnson PSA 9
1964 Topps # 90 Bobby Bell PSA 9
1965 Philadelphia # 41 Paul Warfield PSA 9
1965 Philadelphia # 189 Paul Krause PSA 9
1965 Philadelphia # 195 Charley Taylor PSA 9
1966 Phialdelphia # 38 Gale Sayers PSA 9
1966 Philadelphia # 45 Gene Hickerson PSA 9
1969 Topps # 120 Larry Csonka PSA 9
1989 Pro Set # 235 Randall McDaniel PSA 9
1989 Score # 78 Rod Woodson PSA 10
1989 Score # 211 Thurman Thomas PSA 10
Thanks,
MAD
------------
BOBBY ORR
THE BEST THERE WAS!
THE BEST THERE EVER WILL BE!
------------
I am an active buyer of such items. Thanks, Keith
Thanks for the interest. I'll get you pics of the Fears, Perry, Blanda and Sayers.
Also, I don't have a Hirsch PSA 7!
Thanks,
MAD
------------
BOBBY ORR
THE BEST THERE WAS!
THE BEST THERE EVER WILL BE!
------------
I have been out for 3 days with vertigo....I c the wheels at psa r spinning as fast as I was. Sorry to c some of the top guys make moves.
Very unfortunate when we have an expert who is willing and able to keep the set rolling smoothly...as in mr peoples.
Dr. joe......if a psa 8 is 50 hirsch is ok 4 ur set I have an extra one. You have a 65 blanda that is so out of place in ur 65 set and just sitting there waiting to go to a much better home....pm me id u r intreseted in a deal.
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
<< <i>gees marc u have some killer cards.
I have been out for 3 days with vertigo....I c the wheels at psa r spinning as fast as I was. Sorry to c some of the top guys make moves.
Very unfortunate when we have an expert who is willing and able to keep the set rolling smoothly...as in mr peoples.
Dr. joe......if a psa 8 is 50 hirsch is ok 4 ur set I have an extra one. You have a 65 blanda that is so out of place in ur 65 set and just sitting there waiting to go to a much better home....pm me id u r intreseted in a deal. >>
Jay z
are you wearing your respirator when your exterminating bugs out there buddy?
I hate to see my good buddy MAD selling off more of his beloved set. I hope Joey O is reading this and realizes these "minor tweaks" are alienating alot of good collectors.
<< <i>Joe's email is JOrlando@collectors.com
I did get an email back from him and played a little phone tag, but his response was " I have no idea what you are talking about "your recent overhaul". "
Which I thought was kinda interesting response.
One thing I did notice is the HOF Registry has a every set as updated, but if you check other sets it doesn't seem to be any changes. Could this be a mistake ? >>
i like the registry for some things...like what Jason has mentioned...but dislike it for some others. such as this situtation, double listing of some cards in player sets etc. while i am happy psa has this and that the people they have running it do their best, its not shocking that this happened. the ladies there at the registry have no real idea what the hobby is about, or sports for that matter. to me this is the biggest problem. everything they do with the registry has to be from some book as they dont know the details of the hobby. the fact that i think the registry folks arent in CA doesnt help either.
i wont even start in on the spec department at PSA....
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
If Psa has a e-mail sent to them by most members of this set mentioning that Jason is quite capable of determining the correct weighting PSA will have to atleast take notice.
Mark
--------------------------------------------
NFL HOF RC SET
I used a similar method with the weighting but broke it out a little further:
10.0-$25,000+
9.5-$12,000-$24,999
9.0-$7,000-$11,999
8.5-$4,500-$6,999
8.0-$3,500-$4,499
7.5-$2,500-$3,499
7.0-$1,500-$2,499
6.5-$1,100-$1,499
6.0-$900-$1099
5.5-$700-$899
5.0-$575-$699
4.5-$475-$574
4.0-$375-$474
3.5-$300-$374
3.0-$225-$299
2.5-$150-$224
2.0-$100-$149
1.5-$50-$99
1.0-$1-$49
My reasoning being that if you look at the cards in the set, how many actually fall into the higher categories? Only 9 out of 199 fall into the 7.5 or higher weighting....There are only 24 cards that fall into the 6.0-7.0 range.
So 166 out of the 199 are at 5.5 or lower in the weightings. 128 of the cards are valued under $300 and weighted 3.0 or lower in my system! To me, it always made more sense to adjust the weighting values accordingly so we didn't have $250 cards with the same weight at a $10 card. I guess you could make the agrument that it de-valued or de-weighted some of the super-sized card like Nagurski or Grange to have cards with a much lower value yet have half the grade weighting. But again, look at the numbers on the set and how many lower valued cards their are vs. higher valued cards.
If you look at a cross-section of all 94 registered collections, you aren;t going to find many with PSA 8 Nagurski's or 1948 Leaf's. You also won't find many with PSA 8's in 1989 Score or 1984 Topps. Most are similar in that we buy the highest grade we can comfortably afford. For some that is PSA 5's and 6's in the older stuff and 9's in the newer stuff. For others that means PSA 7's or 8's in the vintage and PSA 10's in the modern. The idea that everyone would collect this set in PSA 8 is simply laughable. Anyone who can afford 1935 Chicle or 1948 Leaf PSA 8's is not going to waste $3 on a 1989 Score PSA 8. They will own a 10 of the 1989 Score or 1984 Topps, etc. Based on that common sense factor, wouldn't it be smarter to weigh the lower cards a little heavier since the reality is, most will choose to purchase the $100 PSA 10 over the $5 PSA 8. And vice versa, most can't afford the 50K Nagurski 8, but many can afford the $3,000 Nagurski PSA 2...
I don't know, I always thought our original weighting made perfect sense.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
It would be nice if PSA could respond to our concerns......... instead we hear the crickets chirping.....
Dave
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
(Someone from the Registry is going to call you. They made changes but are still open to suggestions (the changes are never set in stone).
Your input is important to them so please let them know of your concerns and weight suggestions.
Take care,
Joe)
I still haven't heard from the Registry, but I will let you know when I hear something.
I totally agree with the Jason's value scale and would have no problem with any of those values.
I did send an email to Joe yesterday and to his credit he replied this morning. I also received a reply from Cosetta(both are below).
I agree with Mark that we should have Jason assign all the weights, if PSA will allow it, as I have complete confidence in him and, after all this set is his baby. I know we all just want this to make sense and be realistic. Jason what do you think?
Thanks,
Doc
Dear Joe,
As I am sure you are now aware, the recent weighting changes to the
Football HOF Rookie Set has created quite a stir with the collectors
of this set. As one of the set members I would ask you to please
review these changes and I believe you will see just how little sense
they make.
I am all for making changes to the set as the hobby progresses
however, these changes also must have logic behind them. You
currently have many customers(myself included) who are extremely
unhappy with these changes and I would urge you to visit the HOF link
read more of what is being said.
http://64.94.212.253/messageview.cfm?catid=37&threadid=557010&STARTPAGE=280
Joe, as a business owner myself I have the utmost respect for the
position you are in and I've always believed that you run your
business with a belief that customer service is important. With that
being said the collectors of this set want to feel like they at least
will have their voice be heard and that our input is valuable. After
all we should know, we collect the set and know exactly what the
prices are for these cards.
On behalf of the other set owners, thank you in advance for reviewing
this matter.
Sincerely,
Dan Dockry
Hi Dan,
Joe forwarded your email to me so that we could review and make any necessary updates to the recently updated weights for the Pro Football Hall of Fame Rookies set composite.
Weights are on a 1-10 scale based on PSA 8 grades in the Sports Market Report. If a set were not listed in the SMR, then we would refer to any legitimate pricing guide. Commons generally would receive 1 point. Star cards would be weighted more according to their PSA 8 market value. Because we, the Set Registry staff, are not experts with regards to the value of a specific card, and collectors opinions tend to vary, we rely mostly on the SMR. Once we have priced a set in its entirety using the abovementioned guidelines, we then make a weight breakdown chart and weight accordingly. Occasionally, a price may differ from the SMR compared to what a collector actually paid for said item. We do make exceptions for such cases. All we ask is something documenting a recent sale showing the price paid and we will update the composite accordingly.
We would be happy to review any such documentation that you would like to provide. Here is the current weight breakdown chart that is listed in the composite;
10
49,000+
9
48,999-30,000
8
29,999-15,000
7
14,999-9,000
6
8,999-4,001
5
4,000-2,599
4
2,500-1,000
3
999-750
2
749-500
1.5
499-250
1
<250
Please get back to me at your convenience.
Thank you,
Cosetta Robbins
Assistant Set Registry Manager
<< <i>Occasionally, a price may differ from the SMR compared to what a collector actually paid for said item. We do make exceptions for such cases. All we ask is something documenting a recent sale showing the price paid and we will update the composite accordingly.
Please get back to me at your convenience.
Thank you,
Cosetta Robbins
Assistant Set Registry Manager >>
Uh, really? Since when??? Isn't the whole problem with SMR and the set weightings the fact that they do NOT take this approach? Since she has offered, seems to me Jason's VCP-based weighting system should be resubmitted along with a copy of this email.
Jasen
My last VCP weighting spreadsheet was done last year (2008), so I would need a day to re-do that by going into VCP and updating each card's PSA 8 value.
Based on Cosetta's e-mail, I think the target here is fixing the current weight breakdown chart. Reading through I can't tell if that is also negotiable. It seems that they are assuming the complaint is that the weights are off because the SMR is off. While that is an issue, the biggest obstacle I see is that the weight breakdown chart for this set is skewed, specifically on the lower end.
Let me know what you guys find out and what you need me to do with my grade weight spreadsheets (if anything).
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Unless someone else has another proposed weight breakdown, I'd go with JasP's.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
The funny thing about the whole scale that they created
Weights 1 thru 5 ----- 195 cards fit into those catigories
Weights 6 thru 10 ----- 4 whole cards Namath , Luckman, Bednarik and Nagursk