Not the right thread but since I'm living in Oz, Baltimore isn't really my specialty. Where do people recommend staying for the National? Only been to Baltimore once and it was a quick visit.
Collecting HOF RC's in hockey, baseball, football and basketball. A fool's errand some have said.
<< <i>I'm only about 1 1/2 away and planning on making my first trip to nationals. So count me in on the dinner plans . Dan >>
By dinner you guys mean, like, McDonald's right?
Vince, check out the National website, www.nsccshow.com there is a link on the left hand nav bar for travel & hotel. The ones they direct you to are (I believe) all in walking distance.
Anyone interested in a PSA 10 SP Champ Bailey rookie?
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
I just got my grades only took 1.5 days. Not too happy with most of them. Of note I I did have a few HOFers finally have a Hayes and upgraded my Jim Brown to a 6. If anyone needs a 5 I have one available now. Here's my grades. 1 1 16813305 VERY GOOD-EXCELLENT 4 1951 BOWMAN 62 LOU CREEKMUR Card US 2 1 16813306 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1952 BOWMAN SMALL 58 ZOLLIE TOTH Card US 3 1 16813307 EXCELLENT 5 1954 BOWMAN 11 ZEKE BRATKOWSKI Card US 4 1 16813308 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1956 TOPPS 19 BILL HOWTON Card US 5 1 16813309 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1958 TOPPS 62 JIM BROWN Card US 6 1 16813310 NEAR MINT 7 1959 TOPPS 117 KING HILL Card US 7 1 16813311 NEAR MINT 7 1963 TOPPS 71 RICHIE PETITBON Card US 8 1 16813312 EXCELLENT 5 1966 PHILADELPHIA 58 BOB HAYES Card US 9 1 16813313 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1966 PHILADELPHIA 58 BOB HAYES Card US 10 1 16813314 NEAR MINT 7 1970 TOPPS 114 BUBBA SMITH Card US 11 1 16813315 N6: MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT 1971 TOPPS 210 CHARLIE SANDERS Card US 12 1 16813316 N6: MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT 1971 TOPPS 210 CHARLIE SANDERS Card US 13 1 16813317 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1972 TOPPS 200 ROGER STAUBACH Card US 14 1 16813318 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1980 TOPPS 423 NOLAN CROMWELL Card US 15 1 16813319 MINT 9 1996 SP 7 TERRELL OWENS Card US
I am not sure what the deal is with the Charlie Sanders I buy. Aparrently I cannot buy one that is the correct size.
Did every one get an email from PSA about adding Brett Favre to the 90's set. I thought those decade sets were predetermined cards based on the actual players voted to the teams. Wouldn't addind Favre be against the intention of the set?
I did not add it, but he did get screwed by not being on the all decade team. 3 mvp's a Super Bowl????? Elway was the sentimental pick. Favre smoked him in every category.
<< <i>Did every one get an email from PSA about adding Brett Favre to the 90's set. I thought those decade sets were predetermined cards based on the actual players voted to the teams. Wouldn't addind Favre be against the intention of the set? >>
Vince, you are absolutely correct. If anyone thinks Favre should have been the first team QB, take it up with the HOF voters who picked the team. It's one of the most ridiculous things I've seen, and if he somehow gets added, I will request Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb also get added to the set.
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>I did not add it, but he did get screwed by not being on the all decade team. 3 mvp's a Super Bowl????? Elway was the sentimental pick. Favre smoked him in every category. >>
i was shocked to see that email as well. i agree with everything troy wrote. not sure who would have requested this. these sets are for the first teamers only.
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
As long as everyone votes no, we should be fine. I have sent an email with my "NO" vote stating that there should be no changes to these sets. We'll see if it does any good.
<< <i>As long as everyone votes no, we should be fine. I have sent an email with my "NO" vote stating that there should be no changes to these sets. We'll see if it does any good.
Hopefully everyone else here votes no also.
Dave >>
You know I always think that...With some of the polls that have come down recently for some of the All-Time Team Sets..That there's no way a particular guy will get the votes, only a month later seeing an e-mail saying majority voted to add. I wish I was a fly on the wall at PSA for some of these vote counts (kinda like the HOF voting...lol). And would love to debate the pro and con merits of who is or isn't deserving to be added to these various sets. Don't get me wrong, I'm just one guy with one opinion. But sometimes I'd just really like to hear the alternate point of view, if for anything, just to know that whoever is voting differently than me, or has a different opinion than me at the very least is making an informed decision.
In this case, the folks at PSA should have caught this before even sending the poll. I mean if I requested Mickey Mantle be added to the set, would they send out a poll? And if they don't know (which I don't expect them to memorize the context of every set on the Registry), maybe ask someone with that knowledge? Maybe Google it? Something....lol
I'll hope for the best in this case, because a Favre addition would essentially invalidate the set. Unofrtunately, it's only a small handful of us here on the boards who collect these sets and discuss player merits and set compositions and typically make informed decisions. There are certainly others who don't post here, who blindly vote based on the fact that they either own or don't own the particular card being added..Sad but true.
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 added in my vote, that I thought the make up of these all decade sets were based on the first team voting by the HOF panel. maybe that will help out in this case.
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
Though I don't own the '90s set mentioned (wouldn't that topic be more appropriate in a different thread?), I appreciate that there are plenty of collectors whom won't say "yes" to anything and have an awareness for maintaining a coherent set theme; and to a lesser degree - exclusivity.
--------------------------------
I discontinued what was once an empassioned pursuit of the Football HOF Rookie Card Set mainly due to rampant inclusivity. 3+ months ago, I was watching the NFL Network when a bloated class of seven (7) future HOFers were announced including very goods Floyd Little, Dick Lebeau, and Rickey Jackson. At that point it cemented the notion that I wanted to accelerate my sell-off of Football HOF RCs. It appears that the HOF voting process and structure is not expected to change anytime soon.
Of course, one had to laugh to keep from crying when it was announced that a current American Idol judge, "Randy" Jackson, was named a future HOFer in the last class. [For those that weren't watching, they actually announced "Rickey Jackson" as "Randy Jackson".]
A number of football collectors have let me know that they won't start this set either due to the number of cards or mentioning that they don't want to buy a cards of (x,y,z named) Hall Of Famers who doesn't really belong there. It looks like the "vote 'em all" in trend will continue.
Don't get me wrong - the Football HOF Rookies Set still has lots of genuinely great cards within it. I respect it's collectors and even feel that they're the heartbeat of football memorabilia collecting on some levels - some of them collecting this set for 7+ years. Also, I recently became Facebook friends with a regular poster here and I notice that his one and only "Interest" stated on his Profile Page is (paraphrasal) "Collecting Football Hall Of Fame Rookie Cards". Is that dedication or what?
--------------------------------
Earlier I considered discontinuing my All-Time Eagles Set when it was proposed via vote that Timmy Brown and Maxie Baughan be added to the set. Fortunately there were enough "no" votes and they were't added. If players like that are ever added I'll have to break up that one too. I'm afraid that marginal players like this will be added sometime if the PSA voting process and structure stays in place. However, comments from cerebral posters like those above make me feel that these sets can maintain some degree of integrity and exclusivity.
--------------------------------
Then there's that question about the addition of entirely new PSA sets that are based on almost completely esoteric themes of limited interest, but that's a topic for another thread....
Weinhold started the whole "post a card with every post theme" Dont hate the player, hate the game ladies.....
And on that Weinhold, this is called the HOF RC thread. Fav-re is considered by a few select people to be "HOF worthy". Hence, the discussion of his card is totally relevent to this thread. Suck on that Alaska boy. As I previously posted, I belive the jury is still out on this up and coming QB from the south. His story has yet to be written my friend.
I discontinued what was once an empassioned pursuit of the Football HOF Rookie Card Set mainly due to rampant inclusivity. 3+ months ago, I was watching the NFL Network when a bloated class of seven (7) future HOFers were announced including very goods Floyd Little, Dick Lebeau, and Rickey Jackson. At that point it cemented the notion that I wanted to accelerate my sell-off of Football HOF RCs. It appears that the HOF voting process and structure is not expected to change anytime soon.
>>
Keith, I've kicked around the idea of starting a "First Ballot" HOF RC set for quite sometime. Consisting of players who were selected on their first ballot ONLY. You want to know the no brainer HOFers, well those are your guys...I have had the list and the spreadsheet all ready to submit to PSA for quite some time (minus any new first ballot guys the last couple of years). Simply never submitted it, as I still feel as though it's too similar to what we already have. And I'm not a big fan of what has been happening with all of the saturation of the HOF and Key card sets (just my opinion).
If you'd like the spreadsheet, let me know and I can send it to you. While not a registered set, it would give you a focus/list to help maintain only your top end HOFers.
Just a thought, 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>Though I don't own the '90s set mentioned (wouldn't that topic be more appropriate in a different thread?), I appreciate that there are plenty of collectors whom won't say "yes" to anything and have an awareness for maintaining a coherent set theme; and to a lesser degree - exclusivity.
--------------------------------
I discontinued what was once an empassioned pursuit of the Football HOF Rookie Card Set mainly due to rampant inclusivity. 3+ months ago, I was watching the NFL Network when a bloated class of seven (7) future HOFers were announced including very goods Floyd Little, Dick Lebeau, and Rickey Jackson. At that point it cemented the notion that I wanted to accelerate my sell-off of Football HOF RCs. It appears that the HOF voting process and structure is not expected to change anytime soon.
Of course, one had to laugh to keep from crying when it was announced that a current American Idol judge, "Randy" Jackson, was named a future HOFer in the last class. [For those that weren't watching, they actually announced "Rickey Jackson" as "Randy Jackson".]
A number of football collectors have let me know that they won't start this set either due to the number of cards or mentioning that they don't want to buy a cards of (x,y,z named) Hall Of Famers who doesn't really belong there. It looks like the "vote 'em all" in trend will continue.
Don't get me wrong - the Football HOF Rookies Set still has lots of genuinely great cards within it. I respect it's collectors and even feel that they're the heartbeat of football memorabilia collecting on some levels - some of them collecting this set for 7+ years. Also, I recently became Facebook friends with a regular poster here and I notice that his one and only "Interest" stated on his Profile Page is (paraphrasal) "Collecting Football Hall Of Fame Rookie Cards". Is that dedication or what?
--------------------------------
Earlier I considered discontinuing my All-Time Eagles Set when it was proposed via vote that Timmy Brown and Maxie Baughan be added to the set. Fortunately there were enough "no" votes and they were't added. If players like that are ever added I'll have to break up that one too. I'm afraid that marginal players like this will be added sometime if the PSA voting process and structure stays in place. However, comments from cerebral posters like those above make me feel that these sets can maintain some degree of integrity and exclusivity.
--------------------------------
Then there's that question about the addition of entirely new PSA sets that are based on almost completely esoteric themes of limited interest, but that's a topic for another thread....
>>
I understand the arguments against Grimm, Little, and Lebeau but IMO there should be little refuting Jackson's place. His career is very similar to L.T.'s, especially when looking at their stats. I believe P.King wrote an article about how well the two compared to make a case for Jackson.
Is Baughan not a good fit for the All Time Eagles Set b/c he didn't play the majority of his career w/ them?
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys - Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2 touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL title.
I requested Maxie Baughan for addition to the All-Time Eagles set, it looks like a no brainer to me.
Maxie Baughan had 5 pro-bowl appearences and 1 1st team all-pro with the Eagles.
Those stats are identical to Eric Allen, Pete Retzlaff and Troy Vincent who are in the set.
Let's not forget he had 4 more pro-bowl appearences and 1 more 1st team AP with the Rams. I think if this guy spent his whole career with one of these teams he would probably be in the hall already.
Some other players on the All-Time Eagles set and their stats:
Jerome Brown-2-time Pro Bowler & 2-time First-Team All-Pro Donovan McNabb-5-time Pro Bowler Tommy McDonald-6-time Pro Bowler Brian Westbrook-2-time Pro Bowler & 1-time First-Team All-Pro Harold Carmichael-4-time Pro Bowler Randall Cunningham-4-time Pro Bowler & 1-time First-Team All-Pro Ron Jaworski-1-time Pro Bowler
<< <i>I requested Maxie Baughan for addition to the All-Time Eagles set, it looks like a no brainer to me.
Maxie Baughan had 5 pro-bowl appearences and 1 1st team all-pro with the Eagles.
Those stats are identical to Eric Allen, Pete Retzlaff and Troy Vincent who are in the set.
Let's not forget he had 4 more pro-bowl appearences and 1 more 1st team AP with the Rams. I think if this guy spent his whole career with one of these teams he would probably be in the hall already.
Some other players on the All-Time Eagles set and their stats:
Jerome Brown-2-time Pro Bowler & 2-time First-Team All-Pro Donovan McNabb-5-time Pro Bowler Tommy McDonald-6-time Pro Bowler Brian Westbrook-2-time Pro Bowler & 1-time First-Team All-Pro Harold Carmichael-4-time Pro Bowler Randall Cunningham-4-time Pro Bowler & 1-time First-Team All-Pro Ron Jaworski-1-time Pro Bowler >>
That's what I was thinking about Baughan as well. During his time w/ the Eagles he really excelled and was a stand out at his position.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys - Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2 touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL title.
<< <i>I requested Maxie Baughan for addition to the All-Time Eagles set, it looks like a no brainer to me.
Maxie Baughan had 5 pro-bowl appearences and 1 1st team all-pro with the Eagles.
Those stats are identical to Eric Allen, Pete Retzlaff and Troy Vincent who are in the set.
Let's not forget he had 4 more pro-bowl appearences and 1 more 1st team AP with the Rams. I think if this guy spent his whole career with one of these teams he would probably be in the hall already.
Some other players on the All-Time Eagles set and their stats:
Jerome Brown-2-time Pro Bowler & 2-time First-Team All-Pro Donovan McNabb-5-time Pro Bowler Tommy McDonald-6-time Pro Bowler Brian Westbrook-2-time Pro Bowler & 1-time First-Team All-Pro Harold Carmichael-4-time Pro Bowler Randall Cunningham-4-time Pro Bowler & 1-time First-Team All-Pro Ron Jaworski-1-time Pro Bowler >>
This is a great point and glad you brought it up. What this says to me is that their are ALREADY players on this set that likely shouldn;t be there...
Jerome Brown? Great player for a very short period, sad that he died young but that shouldn't equate to being an All-Time Team selection. Brian Westbrook? Probably added a tad too early, although his yards from scrimmage are probably near the top of the Eagles all-time. Ron Jaworski? Why, because he led them to a Super Bowl loss?
Adding a Maxie Baughn who played a grand total of 6 years with the Eagles, IMO, is a stretch. You should only qualify what the player did as a member of that team, and while 5 Pro Bowls in 6 years is a nice feather, he still only played 6 years with the team. This qualifies him as an All-Time greatest Eagle? To stand alongside Concrete Charlie?
This has been the problem over the past year or so with those team sets. There are no standards anymore. It's based purely on opinions, of which, many collectors seem to have formed opinions without using common sense and/or a complete overview as to what should constitute an ALL TIME great for a particular team.
Tom , my #1 complaint/question would be, why not ask those of us here on the boards FIRST and gauge the interested prior to having PSA send out a poll? Most, if not all, of us who post in this thread are VERY informed (historically speaking) when compared to the average football fan. There are 9 collectors listed on the Eagles set. I'm certain 5 of the 9 post on/read this thread. You could have gotten a fair assessment from the guys you KNOW have knowledge and standards prior to submitting the name to PSA. Instead, you entrusted the outcome to the 4 other collectors who we have no idea if they even know who Maxie Baughn was, how long he played for the Eagles, etc.
I know for me personally, any addition that I have ever requested to a set, I came here first to make sure the MAJORITY of us who post here and discuss historical football issues on a regular basis agree. That allows a debate of the pros and cons of the addition, and in my experience has ALWAYS directed these sets in the right direction. What's the downside to NOT getting our opinions first? To NOT discussing pros and cons first?
Just how I do business, I don;t expect anyone to be my clone. But I think this certainly would have prevented Ron Jaworski from being added. No question. There are MANY others across many other team sets that simply do not belong as an all-time great for that team. I don;t advocate removals, because you end up leaving a guy stuck with a card when you do that, which to me is even more unfair. That's why we have to be as diligent as possible when applying these new addition requests to get the card and the player correct.
The Brett Favre request to the 1990s Decade set is a perfect example. The vote should correct the mistake, but these team sets with 8-9-10 collectors, the margin of voting error is EXTREMELY small. We're in this together fellas. No one (PSA included) cares more about policing these sets as we do. If we don't do it, 5 years from now, the entire registry will be a worthless hodgepodge.
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.
All you have to do is look at the All-Time Packers set.
CLARKE HINKLE TONY CANADEO JIM RINGO DON HUTSON BART STARR PAUL HORNUNG MAX MCGEE JERRY KRAMER JIM TAYLOR FORREST GREGG HENRY JORDAN FUZZY THURSTON WILLIE WOOD RAY NITSCHKE HERB ADDERLEY WILLIE DAVIS VINCE LOMBARDI JAMES LOFTON REGGIE WHITE STERLING SHARPE LEROY BUTLER BRETT FAVRE AHMAN GREEN
Of the 23 players only 7 arent in the HOF. One will be for sure so thats 6. Three are from one of the most dominant teams in the NFL. Sharpe, was one of the dominant WR of his era and if it wasnt for injury might be closer to the HOF. Butler has a shot but safeties are a tough vote. Green well he just has the most rushing yards in team history. However, Jan Stenerud isnt in it, then again he only played for the Packers a handful of years.
Yet there are some that warrant consideration in my mind but not others. Ryan Longwell, the teams all time leading scorer didnt impress people when I had brought that up before. Then again who cares about scoring in the NFL or in the 90 year history of the team. Darren Sharper was brought up as well...but maybe not some might agree to add him since he is now becoming more HOF worthy.
Now lets look at the all time Falcons team set (or you pick from a few others, I am not try to single out this set). There are 21 all time Falcons, yet they having been playing for half the time as the Packers and have 0 Championships to 12. Also, zero HOFers. Deion will probably be the first.
TOMMY NOBIS CLAUDE HUMPHREY GEORGE KUNZ JOHN JAMES JEFF VAN NOTE BILLY JOHNSON WILLIAM ANDREWS MIKE KENN R.C. THIELEMANN GERALD RIGGS CHRIS HINTON MORTEN ANDERSEN BILL FRALIC DEION SANDERS ANDRE RISON JESSIE TUGGLE ELBERT SHELLEY WARRICK DUNN KEITH BROOKING MICHAEL VICK ALGE CRUMPLER
Can one say when you compare the two that there should be that many on the Falcons?
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
Much like the Ravens set and a couple of others, the Falcons set should have never been created. They don't have enough "All-Time Great" players to have an all-time team. Again, it's part of the saturation that has occurred.
But, what's done is done. And who is deserving of placement on the Falcons set does not equate to who is deserving on other team sets like the Packers because the team histories are so different. So now no one knows what the standard is, so since we can't RAISE the bar on a set like the Falcons, we lower the bar on other sets, such as the Packers. You'll end up with a 70 card Packer set. In fact, I'm surprised that hasn't already happened. Some of the recent polls have been requests to add upwards of 8-10 players. The Chiefs set is an example of this.
Luckily for the Packers set, you have an established group of collectors that value the sets exclusivity and enough collectors in that group that you will probably be able to prevent any unwarranted actions. Just imagine if there were only 5-10 collectors of the set and how TOUGH is would be to keep it exclusive when it only takes a few votes to make a change. For example, you have 10 collectors. Only 5 even answer the poll, and of the 5 only 3 vote to ADD a marginal player. It's happening in other sets, just do a quick run through of the all-time teams and count up the guys who are questionable additions.
Sad. And this is something we as a collecting world could have controlled, unlike the REAL HOF... 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>Much like the Ravens set and a couple of others, the Falcons set should have never been created. They don't have enough "All-Time Great" players to have an all-time team. Again, it's part of the saturation that has occurred.
But, what's done is done. And who is deserving of placement on the Falcons set does not equate to who is deserving on other team sets like the Packers because the team histories are so different. So now no one knows what the standard is, so since we can't RAISE the bar on a set like the Falcons, we lower the bar on other sets, such as the Packers. You'll end up with a 70 card Packer set. In fact, I'm surprised that hasn't already happened. Some of the recent polls have been requests to add upwards of 8-10 players. The Chiefs set is an example of this.
Luckily for the Packers set, you have an established group of collectors that value the sets exclusivity and enough collectors in that group that you will probably be able to prevent any unwarranted actions. Just imagine if there were only 5-10 collectors of the set and how TOUGH is would be to keep it exclusive when it only takes a few votes to make a change. For example, you have 10 collectors. Only 5 even answer the poll, and of the 5 only 3 vote to ADD a marginal player. It's happening in other sets, just do a quick run through of the all-time teams and count up the guys who are questionable additions.
Sad. And this is something we as a collecting world could have controlled, unlike the REAL HOF... Jason >>
Jason,
You are correct. Its also why we started the Packers HOF set. Even there its out of our hands. There is an independent voting panel that elects members to the Packers HOF, all we have to do is pick the cards. To have geared more for Packer Collectors we decided to use the first Packer card. So its not always a rookie card. For example Lynn Dickey's card isnt his rookie but his 1977 Topps which has him in a GB uniform.
This allows us to separate the really great players but also collect a set that includes players that made Packer history to a lesser extent.
I just noticed that there now is a Saints HOF set as well. I didnt know they had a HOF of the their own.
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
I knew there would be flack when I submitted the Ravens Registry set, but from my perspective, the benefit of having the set on the registry far outweighed the cost of upsetting a couple of people with higher standards for inclusion. More sets with more collectors collecting/submitting more cards would never seem like a bad thing to me.
Also, I've always thought All Time Team registry set composition begged for inclusion of impact players within a given team/franchise. I never thought it should mean All Time NFL Players who played for Team X.
I respect everyone's opinion here, but I'm not sure any over the over-inclusion complaining is justified when less inclusive sets can always be created. The beauty of the registry is that when a set gets too big for your liking, you can continue to compete, opt out, OR you can create a different set with different criteria that makes you feel better about the grouping of cards!! For instance, why not create a HOF Elite set that only includes HOFers who are first ballot guys and All Decade team members? That would eliminate a lot of the HOF riff-raff, right? Plus, it might make you feel like you are collecting a more prestigious set? Not trying to be snarky, I genuinely believe there is room for everyone here.
<< <i>I knew there would be flack when I submitted the Ravens Registry set, but from my perspective, the benefit of having the set on the registry far outweighed the cost of upsetting a couple of people with higher standards for inclusion. More sets with more collectors collecting/submitting more cards would never seem like a bad thing to me.
Also, I've always thought All Time Team registry set composition begged for inclusion of impact players within a given team/franchise. I never thought it should mean All Time NFL Players who played for Team X.
I respect everyone's opinion here, but I'm not sure any over the over-inclusion complaining is justified when less inclusive sets can always be created. The beauty of the registry is that when a set gets too big for your liking, you can continue to compete, opt out, OR you can create a different set with different criteria that makes you feel better about the grouping of cards!! For instance, why not create a HOF Elite set that only includes HOFers who are first ballot guys and All Decade team members? That would eliminate a lot of the HOF riff-raff, right? Plus, it might make you feel like you are collecting a more prestigious set? Not trying to be snarky, I genuinely believe there is room for everyone here. >>
no one here is saying that you can put together your own set or request them. however, many of us would like to see some standards for certain sets. all time team sets being one of them. not every team needs an all time team set based on how all were started. that is why i started along with favrefan the Packers HOF set. what is to stop someone else from creating their own Ravens Team Set when whom they feel deserves to be there isnt in your set. for sets that would get to this level, ie cant really be agreed upon as to whom the all time greats are, they belong in the collectors showcase. there anyone can put their own set together. i have for auto'd cards of players that have caught TD passes from favre. now this set will never get any recognition being on the showcase, nor can i get any "free" grades (which by the way i feel is why many people start some of these other sets).
but again why is one all-time team held to higher standards than others. if so then there needs to be another category for the other sets.
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
<< <i>I knew there would be flack when I submitted the Ravens Registry set, but from my perspective, the benefit of having the set on the registry far outweighed the cost of upsetting a couple of people with higher standards for inclusion. More sets with more collectors collecting/submitting more cards would never seem like a bad thing to me.
Also, I've always thought All Time Team registry set composition begged for inclusion of impact players within a given team/franchise. I never thought it should mean All Time NFL Players who played for Team X.
I respect everyone's opinion here, but I'm not sure any over the over-inclusion complaining is justified when less inclusive sets can always be created. The beauty of the registry is that when a set gets too big for your liking, you can continue to compete, opt out, OR you can create a different set with different criteria that makes you feel better about the grouping of cards!! For instance, why not create a HOF Elite set that only includes HOFers who are first ballot guys and All Decade team members? That would eliminate a lot of the HOF riff-raff, right? Plus, it might make you feel like you are collecting a more prestigious set? Not trying to be snarky, I genuinely believe there is room for everyone here. >>
Good points, and i've never disagreed with this outlook that many here DO share. My point has been that oversaturation of the sets, and the creation of many multiple like/identical sets in the end has a negative impact IMO. It's like having 20 McDonald's joints on the same block. When the menu is the same (or very close to it) then it lessens the "special" factor that an exclusive set brings. I have no conclusive factual data to back this up, although prices of cards in many of the HOF and Key Card sets have dropped since the explosion of overlapping sets, it's impossible to conclude that this was a factor.
But the purpose of collecting Regsitry sets is "supposedly" to complete the sets. So when you have sets in which, no one has completed and no one is really attempting to complete, it begs the question on why they exist. Of course PSA, much like the Pro Football HOF, is going to be all for including as many new sets (players) as possible. As it only helps drive overall interest in their product. But the long term view is that oversaturating a market (take the 1990's card production as an example), only devalues the market over the long term. Eventually, there will be so many choices, with so little difference that the average collector will be turned off by the experience. It happened in the 1990's card market with the values, and it has happened with modern cards with the jersey/insert/auto cards and $20 packs. There were so many choices, collectors stopped choosing, because it was becoming impossible to do so. Which is why you see many card companies going out of business.
Again, this is just my perspective, my preference. Some feel the exact opposite and I'm fine with that. It's nice to have the forum and at LEAST discuss the differences. At worst we are an informed group who can now make fair decisions based on both sides of the debate. That was really my complaint with these new sets and new card additions to sets. Nothing is being discussed. No pros and/or cons are being weighed. Someone sends a new set request or new card request to PSA based on ONE opinion and on ONE point of view.
What jradke and his fellow Packers fans did with the Packers Hall of Fame set should be the STANDARD to which we operate on. They got together here on the boards. Discussued options. Weighed the pros and cons of each and came up with a UNIQUE set that is something more than just one collector would enjoy putting together. The silent assassin stuff that has gone on with some of these requests is the reason for the majority of the complaints.
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>I knew there would be flack when I submitted the Ravens Registry set, but from my perspective, the benefit of having the set on the registry far outweighed the cost of upsetting a couple of people with higher standards for inclusion. More sets with more collectors collecting/submitting more cards would never seem like a bad thing to me.
Also, I've always thought All Time Team registry set composition begged for inclusion of impact players within a given team/franchise. I never thought it should mean All Time NFL Players who played for Team X.
I respect everyone's opinion here, but I'm not sure any over the over-inclusion complaining is justified when less inclusive sets can always be created. The beauty of the registry is that when a set gets too big for your liking, you can continue to compete, opt out, OR you can create a different set with different criteria that makes you feel better about the grouping of cards!! For instance, why not create a HOF Elite set that only includes HOFers who are first ballot guys and All Decade team members? That would eliminate a lot of the HOF riff-raff, right? Plus, it might make you feel like you are collecting a more prestigious set? Not trying to be snarky, I genuinely believe there is room for everyone here. >>
Good points, and i've never disagreed with this outlook that many here DO share. My point has been that oversaturation of the sets, and the creation of many multiple like/identical sets in the end has a negative impact IMO. It's like having 20 McDonald's joints on the same block. When the menu is the same (or very close to it) then it lessens the "special" factor that an exclusive set brings. I have no conclusive factual data to back this up, although prices of cards in many of the HOF and Key Card sets have dropped since the explosion of overlapping sets, it's impossible to conclude that this was a factor.
But the purpose of collecting Regsitry sets is "supposedly" to complete the sets. So when you have sets in which, no one has completed and no one is really attempting to complete, it begs the question on why they exist. Of course PSA, much like the Pro Football HOF, is going to be all for including as many new sets (players) as possible. As it only helps drive overall interest in their product. But the long term view is that oversaturating a market (take the 1990's card production as an example), only devalues the market over the long term. Eventually, there will be so many choices, with so little difference that the average collector will be turned off by the experience. It happened in the 1990's card market with the values, and it has happened with modern cards with the jersey/insert/auto cards and $20 packs. There were so many choices, collectors stopped choosing, because it was becoming impossible to do so. Which is why you see many card companies going out of business.
Again, this is just my perspective, my preference. Some feel the exact opposite and I'm fine with that. It's nice to have the forum and at LEAST discuss the differences. At worst we are an informed group who can now make fair decisions based on both sides of the debate. That was really my complaint with these new sets and new card additions to sets. Nothing is being discussed. No pros and/or cons are being weighed. Someone sends a new set request or new card request to PSA based on ONE opinion and on ONE point of view.
What jradke and his fellow Packers fans did with the Packers Hall of Fame set should be the STANDARD to which we operate on. They got together here on the boards. Discussued options. Weighed the pros and cons of each and came up with a UNIQUE set that is something more than just one collector would enjoy putting together. The silent assassin stuff that has gone on with some of these requests is the reason for the majority of the complaints.
Jason >>
Jason,
Thanks for the compliments. Before we started the Packer HOF set, I started a thread about Players that I thought may warrant inclusion in the All-Time Packer Set. We had some healthy discussion. Myself and FavreFan came to the conclusion to avoid requesting additions to the All Time Packer Set, that non-diehard fans might understand, but others might have a hard time agreeing with that we would create another set. In addition we did it in such a way that the players chosen were not decided by any collector (unless they happen to have a vote on the Packer HOF committee) only the card to be used. Again, this might not work with some teams, as they either dont have their own HOF and/or dont have the history yet to have as strong (or as large) of an All-Time Team Set. In the end we agreed with Jason's POV. There needs to be some set of standards that apply to these Key Card Sets. Otherwise its just a free for all with a large pool of diluted sets. In the end, where it hurts is in the recongition of some of these sets for end of the year awards such as speciality set of the year. These awards not only acknowledge the individual collector, but also open some peoples eyes to other great sets out there to collect.
In all honesty the biggest problem with many of the All-Time team sets is the urge to add current players well before their additions maybe fully warranted. Is Mike Vick really a member of the All-Time Falcon Team? We could go through and add more but I think we get the point just from that one alone.
Just my two cents.
Jay
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
We also (as a group) discuss each and every possible card/player addition to the Future HOFer sets (both modern and senior), as well as the All-Time QB, RB, WR, Defense sets that are what I would consider the LEGACY sets of the HOF and Key Card categories.
The HOF RC set which most(if not all) of us here collect and which this thread is based was created after a very thorough discussion right here on the boards. I just feel like sets and the card additions that you come up with after hearing pro/con discussions and then conducting an unofficial poll here are 99.99999% the right call. The anonymous requests which take place without a shred of reasoning and are done based solely on the individual requestors preference are what currently clogs and in some cases de-values many of the sets and set categories.
I'd love to hear a reason given as to why NOT come here first and discuss possible new sets and/or new card additions prior to sending the request to PSA? Get a consensus from here and go with it. Do you think I agree with every single unofficial vote we do here on the Future HOF sets? Absolutely not. But I make the annual request based on what the majority of the INFORMED group here decides. Because I know the opinions that are formed have at least heard both sides of the argument.
Is it really too much to ask for those who POST here and are aware of the boards to get opinions first before blindly coming up with some new fangled set or card addition? Aren't 10 opinions better than 1?
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>I requested Maxie Baughan for addition to the All-Time Eagles set, it looks like a no brainer to me.
Maxie Baughan had 5 pro-bowl appearences and 1 1st team all-pro with the Eagles.
Those stats are identical to Eric Allen, Pete Retzlaff and Troy Vincent who are in the set.
Let's not forget he had 4 more pro-bowl appearences and 1 more 1st team AP with the Rams. I think if this guy spent his whole career with one of these teams he would probably be in the hall already.
Some other players on the All-Time Eagles set and their stats:
Jerome Brown-2-time Pro Bowler & 2-time First-Team All-Pro Donovan McNabb-5-time Pro Bowler Tommy McDonald-6-time Pro Bowler Brian Westbrook-2-time Pro Bowler & 1-time First-Team All-Pro Harold Carmichael-4-time Pro Bowler Randall Cunningham-4-time Pro Bowler & 1-time First-Team All-Pro Ron Jaworski-1-time Pro Bowler >>
This is a great point and glad you brought it up. What this says to me is that their are ALREADY players on this set that likely shouldn;t be there...
Jerome Brown? Great player for a very short period, sad that he died young but that shouldn't equate to being an All-Time Team selection. Brian Westbrook? Probably added a tad too early, although his yards from scrimmage are probably near the top of the Eagles all-time. Ron Jaworski? Why, because he led them to a Super Bowl loss?
Adding a Maxie Baughn who played a grand total of 6 years with the Eagles, IMO, is a stretch. You should only qualify what the player did as a member of that team, and while 5 Pro Bowls in 6 years is a nice feather, he still only played 6 years with the team. This qualifies him as an All-Time greatest Eagle? To stand alongside Concrete Charlie?
This has been the problem over the past year or so with those team sets. There are no standards anymore. It's based purely on opinions, of which, many collectors seem to have formed opinions without using common sense and/or a complete overview as to what should constitute an ALL TIME great for a particular team.
Tom , my #1 complaint/question would be, why not ask those of us here on the boards FIRST and gauge the interested prior to having PSA send out a poll? Most, if not all, of us who post in this thread are VERY informed (historically speaking) when compared to the average football fan. There are 9 collectors listed on the Eagles set. I'm certain 5 of the 9 post on/read this thread. You could have gotten a fair assessment from the guys you KNOW have knowledge and standards prior to submitting the name to PSA. Instead, you entrusted the outcome to the 4 other collectors who we have no idea if they even know who Maxie Baughn was, how long he played for the Eagles, etc.
I know for me personally, any addition that I have ever requested to a set, I came here first to make sure the MAJORITY of us who post here and discuss historical football issues on a regular basis agree. That allows a debate of the pros and cons of the addition, and in my experience has ALWAYS directed these sets in the right direction. What's the downside to NOT getting our opinions first? To NOT discussing pros and cons first?
Just how I do business, I don;t expect anyone to be my clone. But I think this certainly would have prevented Ron Jaworski from being added. No question. There are MANY others across many other team sets that simply do not belong as an all-time great for that team. I don;t advocate removals, because you end up leaving a guy stuck with a card when you do that, which to me is even more unfair. That's why we have to be as diligent as possible when applying these new addition requests to get the card and the player correct.
The Brett Favre request to the 1990s Decade set is a perfect example. The vote should correct the mistake, but these team sets with 8-9-10 collectors, the margin of voting error is EXTREMELY small. We're in this together fellas. No one (PSA included) cares more about policing these sets as we do. If we don't do it, 5 years from now, the entire registry will be a worthless hodgepodge.
Jason >>
To go along w/ the Pro Bowls he was also a member of their Championship team. I would think Eagles fans would have a place for him b/c of those accomplishments.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys - Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2 touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL title.
To go along w/ the Pro Bowls he was also a member of their Championship team. I would think Eagles fans would have a place for him b/c of those accomplishments. >>
He still only played SIX seasons for the Eagles...Is that really enough, even if he went to 6 Pro Bowls and won 3 titles??? He also went to 4 Pro Bowls in 5 years with the Rams. I guess he should also be added to the All-Time Rams? Had he stayed with one team his entire career, then sure he'd be deserving...But he didn't, and deciding which players were the best to ever don that franchise uniform should not factor what he did for another team...That makes no sense...lol
Also, the Pro Bowl selections from the years he played with the Eagles (60-65) are VERY diluted, and considered all but meaningless by the HOF committee. Take 1963 as an example...
The were 8 NFL Pro Bowl LBs named, and only 14 NFL Teams...To equate that to todays game, it would be like having 18 LB's named to the 2010 Pro Bowl...
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 really appreciate all the debate over the All-Time sets and I agree with Jason that posting thoughts for additions prior to sending to PSA is a good idea. The one thing I really don't like is adding current players to these sets...what's the hurry! I'm still irked over having Culpepper in the All-Time Vikings Set! I heard he is tearing up the B-squad now after failing with every team without Moss to throw to. The other thing that bugs me is when there is a glut of no-names up for vote just prior to the deadline..this year, three cards came up for vote and two of them I had to look up to see who the hell they were, and I fancy myself a HUGE Vikings fan. All in all, I keep the set because of my love for the team, but I did submit the Vikings Ring of Honor Set because I know Culpepper would never make the cut
<< <i>I really appreciate all the debate over the All-Time sets and I agree with Jason that posting thoughts for additions prior to sending to PSA is a good idea. The one thing I really don't like is adding current players to these sets...what's the hurry! I'm still irked over having Culpepper in the All-Time Vikings Set! I heard he is tearing up the B-squad now after failing with every team without Moss to throw to. The other thing that bugs me is when there is a glut of no-names up for vote just prior to the deadline..this year, three cards came up for vote and two of them I had to look up to see who the hell they were, and I fancy myself a HUGE Vikings fan. All in all, I keep the set because of my love for the team, but I did submit the Vikings Ring of Honor Set because I know Culpepper would never make the cut >>
I like the Ring of Honor/ Team HOF/Wall of fame sets, I think they are a great idea. The opinion part (on the collectors part at least) is taken out of the equation. The only thing I don't like is that each team has different standards and many of them elect guys based on sentimental value rather than how good they were on the field...Example being guys who died or were killed during their days as an active player...
I agree, additions to sets should cease 90 days prior to the deadline. It's shady stuff for those who are competing because 99% of the time, the guys being requested are cards the requester just so happens to already own. It's funny, when I see these polls come down with what I consider undeserving and/or semi-obscure players I always know which collector made the request. Because if/when these players get added to the sets, magically they just so happened to already own that card prior to it's addition. Coincidence? Think again...Hey I collect cards not in any sets yet too. Preemptive strikes so to speak. But I've never made a request or based a vote on if I owned the card or not. It should be if the guy is deserving of addition PERIOD. Voting with your wallet only hurts your wallet in the long term.
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.
nice job. i could use one for my 58 set as well. one day i will pull the trigger but that day will have to wait until i get my starr and hornung RC's first.
jay
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
Thanks Dave. I will never be able to truly compete on this set but just completing it would be one heck of an accomplishment. What I think is gonna kill many of the small timers like myself is spending over a grand on a modern card like Brady, Manning or Tomlinson. Don't get me wrong, I will buy these guys but I would rather drop a $1500 on a PSA 8 Bart Starr than a PSA 10 Peyton Manning.
<< <i>Thanks Dave. I will never be able to truly compete on this set but just completing it would be one heck of an accomplishment. What I think is gonna kill many of the small timers like myself is spending over a grand on a modern card like Brady, Manning or Tomlinson. Don't get me wrong, I will buy these guys but I would rather drop a $1500 on a PSA 8 Bart Starr than a PSA 10 Peyton Manning. >>
amen brother but you know your preaching to the crowd here. in more ways than one.
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
Now for getting the Registry set fixed....I'm going to propose they change the current set to MASTER set or something, and then create the new set that matches with all the others, which is FIRST TEAM only. I could care less about a guy who got one or two votes. I want the best of the best.
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 hate that they have two MLB's. One of those positions should be Ware's.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys - Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2 touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL title.
<< <i>Thanks Dave. I will never be able to truly compete on this set but just completing it would be one heck of an accomplishment. What I think is gonna kill many of the small timers like myself is spending over a grand on a modern card like Brady, Manning or Tomlinson. Don't get me wrong, I will buy these guys but I would rather drop a $1500 on a PSA 8 Bart Starr than a PSA 10 Peyton Manning. >>
amen brother but you know your preaching to the crowd here. in more ways than one. >>
I 100% agree. The prices for Manning and Brady are ridiculous for modern cards. I believe another board member posted a while back the comparision between a high grade Brown rc and a Manning PSA 9 rc. Manning's a great player but his rookie isn't 50 years old.lol I understand supply and demand but I don't know if I can ever see myself paying over $1,000 for rookies of Brady and Manning.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys - Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2 touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL title.
Here is what the new 2000s Decade set should look like:
Card # Weight 1993 ULTRA MICHAEL STRAHAN 331 1 1994 BOWMAN KEVIN MAWAE 135 1 1995 SP WARREN SAPP 99 1 1995 SP DERRICK BROOKS 103 1 1996 BOWMAN'S BEST RAY LEWIS 164 2 1996 FINEST BRIAN DAWKINS B344 1 1996 SP JONATHAN OGDEN 4 1 1996 SP MARVIN HARRISON 18 2 1997 PACIFIC PHILADELPHIA ADAM VINATIERI 199 1 1997 SP AUTHENTIC WALTER JONES 6 1 1997 SP AUTHENTIC TONY GONZALEZ 11 1 1998 SP AUTHENTIC RANDY MOSS 18 5 1998 SP AUTHENTIC CHARLES WOODSON 23 3 1999 SP AUTHENTIC EDGERRIN JAMES 94 3 1999 SP AUTHENTIC CHAMP BAILEY 111 2 2000 FLEER TRADITION SHANE LECHLER 356 1 2000 SP AUTHENTIC TOM BRADY 118 10 2000 SP AUTHENTIC BRIAN URLACHER 122 3 2001 CROWN ROYALE STEVE HUTCHINSON 185 1 2001 TOPPS CHROME LADAINIAN TOMLINSON 221 5 2001 TOPPS CHROME RICHARD SEYMOUR 282 2 2002 TOPPS CHROME DWIGHT FREENEY 171 1 2002 TOPPS CHROME ED REED 208 1 2002 UPPER DECK XL ALAN FANECA 362 1
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>I hate that they have two MLB's. One of those positions should be Ware's. >>
Personally, I'm glad they did not select a guy as FIRST TEAM who played only 5 seasons of the decade....In fact, no first team selection played less than SEVEN seasons (sorry, not counting Cribbs KR/PR don't even equate). It's an All-Decade team--2000-2009. You should have to play most if not all of the decade to even be in the debate. Half a decade is a very incomplete picture. If they were to make a 2005-2015 team, then I'd be all for D. Ware.
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>I hate that they have two MLB's. One of those positions should be Ware's. >>
Personally, I'm glad they did not select a guy as FIRST TEAM who played only 5 seasons of the decade....In fact, no first team selection played less than SEVEN seasons (sorry, not counting Cribbs KR/PR don't even equate). It's an All-Decade team--2000-2009. You should have to play most if not all of the decade to even be in the debate. Half a decade is a very incomplete picture. If they were to make a 2005-2015 team, then I'd be all for D. Ware.
Jason >>
That could hurt guys that start their careers in the middle of a decade. Payton would not be the first team back for the 70's then.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys - Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2 touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL title.
Comments
<< <i>I'm only about 1 1/2 away and planning on making my first trip to nationals. So count me in on the dinner plans .
Dan >>
By dinner you guys mean, like, McDonald's right?
Vince, check out the National website, www.nsccshow.com there is a link on the left hand nav bar for travel & hotel. The ones they direct you to are (I believe) all in walking distance.
J
1 1 16813305 VERY GOOD-EXCELLENT 4 1951 BOWMAN 62 LOU CREEKMUR Card US
2 1 16813306 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1952 BOWMAN SMALL 58 ZOLLIE TOTH Card US
3 1 16813307 EXCELLENT 5 1954 BOWMAN 11 ZEKE BRATKOWSKI Card US
4 1 16813308 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1956 TOPPS 19 BILL HOWTON Card US
5 1 16813309 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1958 TOPPS 62 JIM BROWN Card US
6 1 16813310 NEAR MINT 7 1959 TOPPS 117 KING HILL Card US
7 1 16813311 NEAR MINT 7 1963 TOPPS 71 RICHIE PETITBON Card US
8 1 16813312 EXCELLENT 5 1966 PHILADELPHIA 58 BOB HAYES Card US
9 1 16813313 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1966 PHILADELPHIA 58 BOB HAYES Card US
10 1 16813314 NEAR MINT 7 1970 TOPPS 114 BUBBA SMITH Card US
11 1 16813315 N6: MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT 1971 TOPPS 210 CHARLIE SANDERS Card US
12 1 16813316 N6: MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT 1971 TOPPS 210 CHARLIE SANDERS Card US
13 1 16813317 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1972 TOPPS 200 ROGER STAUBACH Card US
14 1 16813318 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1980 TOPPS 423 NOLAN CROMWELL Card US
15 1 16813319 MINT 9 1996 SP 7 TERRELL OWENS Card US
I am not sure what the deal is with the Charlie Sanders I buy. Aparrently I cannot buy one that is the correct size.
<< <i>Did every one get an email from PSA about adding Brett Favre to the 90's set. I thought those decade sets were predetermined cards based on the actual players voted to the teams. Wouldn't addind Favre be against the intention of the set? >>
Vince, you are absolutely correct. If anyone thinks Favre should have been the first team QB, take it up with the HOF voters who picked the team. It's one of the most ridiculous things I've seen, and if he somehow gets added, I will request Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb also get added to the set.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>I did not add it, but he did get screwed by not being on the all decade team. 3 mvp's a Super Bowl????? Elway was the sentimental pick. Favre smoked him in every category. >>
i was shocked to see that email as well. i agree with everything troy wrote. not sure who would have requested this. these sets are for the first teamers only.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
Hopefully everyone else here votes no also.
Dave
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>As long as everyone votes no, we should be fine. I have sent an email with my "NO" vote stating that there should be no changes to these sets. We'll see if it does any good.
Hopefully everyone else here votes no also.
Dave >>
You know I always think that...With some of the polls that have come down recently for some of the All-Time Team Sets..That there's no way a particular guy will get the votes, only a month later seeing an e-mail saying majority voted to add. I wish I was a fly on the wall at PSA for some of these vote counts (kinda like the HOF voting...lol). And would love to debate the pro and con merits of who is or isn't deserving to be added to these various sets. Don't get me wrong, I'm just one guy with one opinion. But sometimes I'd just really like to hear the alternate point of view, if for anything, just to know that whoever is voting differently than me, or has a different opinion than me at the very least is making an informed decision.
In this case, the folks at PSA should have caught this before even sending the poll. I mean if I requested Mickey Mantle be added to the set, would they send out a poll? And if they don't know (which I don't expect them to memorize the context of every set on the Registry), maybe ask someone with that knowledge? Maybe Google it? Something....lol
I'll hope for the best in this case, because a Favre addition would essentially invalidate the set. Unofrtunately, it's only a small handful of us here on the boards who collect these sets and discuss player merits and set compositions and typically make informed decisions. There are certainly others who don't post here, who blindly vote based on the fact that they either own or don't own the particular card being added..Sad but true.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
ditto
--------------------------------
I discontinued what was once an empassioned pursuit of the Football HOF Rookie Card Set mainly due to rampant inclusivity. 3+ months ago, I was watching the NFL Network when a bloated class of seven (7) future HOFers were announced including very goods Floyd Little, Dick Lebeau, and Rickey Jackson. At that point it cemented the notion that I wanted to accelerate my sell-off of Football HOF RCs. It appears that the HOF voting process and structure is not expected to change anytime soon.
Of course, one had to laugh to keep from crying when it was announced that a current American Idol judge, "Randy" Jackson, was named a future HOFer in the last class. [For those that weren't watching, they actually announced "Rickey Jackson" as "Randy Jackson".]
A number of football collectors have let me know that they won't start this set either due to the number of cards or mentioning that they don't want to buy a cards of (x,y,z named) Hall Of Famers who doesn't really belong there. It looks like the "vote 'em all" in trend will continue.
Don't get me wrong - the Football HOF Rookies Set still has lots of genuinely great cards within it. I respect it's collectors and even feel that they're the heartbeat of football memorabilia collecting on some levels - some of them collecting this set for 7+ years. Also, I recently became Facebook friends with a regular poster here and I notice that his one and only "Interest" stated on his Profile Page is (paraphrasal) "Collecting Football Hall Of Fame Rookie Cards". Is that dedication or what?
--------------------------------
Earlier I considered discontinuing my All-Time Eagles Set when it was proposed via vote that Timmy Brown and Maxie Baughan be added to the set. Fortunately there were enough "no" votes and they were't added. If players like that are ever added I'll have to break up that one too. I'm afraid that marginal players like this will be added sometime if the PSA voting process and structure stays in place. However, comments from cerebral posters like those above make me feel that these sets can maintain some degree of integrity and exclusivity.
--------------------------------
Then there's that question about the addition of entirely new PSA sets that are based on almost completely esoteric themes of limited interest, but that's a topic for another thread....
<< <i>show-off
ditto
Weinhold started the whole "post a card with every post theme" Dont hate the player, hate the game ladies.....
And on that Weinhold, this is called the HOF RC thread. Fav-re is considered by a few select people to be "HOF worthy". Hence, the discussion of his card is totally relevent to this thread. Suck on that Alaska boy. As I previously posted, I belive the jury is still out on this up and coming QB from the south. His story has yet to be written my friend.
<< <i>
I discontinued what was once an empassioned pursuit of the Football HOF Rookie Card Set mainly due to rampant inclusivity. 3+ months ago, I was watching the NFL Network when a bloated class of seven (7) future HOFers were announced including very goods Floyd Little, Dick Lebeau, and Rickey Jackson. At that point it cemented the notion that I wanted to accelerate my sell-off of Football HOF RCs. It appears that the HOF voting process and structure is not expected to change anytime soon.
>>
Keith, I've kicked around the idea of starting a "First Ballot" HOF RC set for quite sometime. Consisting of players who were selected on their first ballot ONLY. You want to know the no brainer HOFers, well those are your guys...I have had the list and the spreadsheet all ready to submit to PSA for quite some time (minus any new first ballot guys the last couple of years). Simply never submitted it, as I still feel as though it's too similar to what we already have. And I'm not a big fan of what has been happening with all of the saturation of the HOF and Key card sets (just my opinion).
If you'd like the spreadsheet, let me know and I can send it to you. While not a registered set, it would give you a focus/list to help maintain only your top end HOFers.
Just a thought,
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Though I don't own the '90s set mentioned (wouldn't that topic be more appropriate in a different thread?), I appreciate that there are plenty of collectors whom won't say "yes" to anything and have an awareness for maintaining a coherent set theme; and to a lesser degree - exclusivity.
--------------------------------
I discontinued what was once an empassioned pursuit of the Football HOF Rookie Card Set mainly due to rampant inclusivity. 3+ months ago, I was watching the NFL Network when a bloated class of seven (7) future HOFers were announced including very goods Floyd Little, Dick Lebeau, and Rickey Jackson. At that point it cemented the notion that I wanted to accelerate my sell-off of Football HOF RCs. It appears that the HOF voting process and structure is not expected to change anytime soon.
Of course, one had to laugh to keep from crying when it was announced that a current American Idol judge, "Randy" Jackson, was named a future HOFer in the last class. [For those that weren't watching, they actually announced "Rickey Jackson" as "Randy Jackson".]
A number of football collectors have let me know that they won't start this set either due to the number of cards or mentioning that they don't want to buy a cards of (x,y,z named) Hall Of Famers who doesn't really belong there. It looks like the "vote 'em all" in trend will continue.
Don't get me wrong - the Football HOF Rookies Set still has lots of genuinely great cards within it. I respect it's collectors and even feel that they're the heartbeat of football memorabilia collecting on some levels - some of them collecting this set for 7+ years. Also, I recently became Facebook friends with a regular poster here and I notice that his one and only "Interest" stated on his Profile Page is (paraphrasal) "Collecting Football Hall Of Fame Rookie Cards". Is that dedication or what?
--------------------------------
Earlier I considered discontinuing my All-Time Eagles Set when it was proposed via vote that Timmy Brown and Maxie Baughan be added to the set. Fortunately there were enough "no" votes and they were't added. If players like that are ever added I'll have to break up that one too. I'm afraid that marginal players like this will be added sometime if the PSA voting process and structure stays in place. However, comments from cerebral posters like those above make me feel that these sets can maintain some degree of integrity and exclusivity.
--------------------------------
Then there's that question about the addition of entirely new PSA sets that are based on almost completely esoteric themes of limited interest, but that's a topic for another thread....
I understand the arguments against Grimm, Little, and Lebeau but IMO there should be little refuting Jackson's place. His career is very similar to L.T.'s, especially when looking at their stats. I believe P.King wrote an article about how well the two compared to make a case for Jackson.
Is Baughan not a good fit for the All Time Eagles Set b/c he didn't play the majority of his career w/ them?
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
Maxie Baughan had 5 pro-bowl appearences and 1 1st team all-pro with the Eagles.
Those stats are identical to Eric Allen, Pete Retzlaff and Troy Vincent who are in the set.
Let's not forget he had 4 more pro-bowl appearences and 1 more 1st team AP with the Rams. I think if this guy spent his whole career with one of these teams he would probably be in the hall already.
Some other players on the All-Time Eagles set and their stats:
Jerome Brown-2-time Pro Bowler & 2-time First-Team All-Pro
Donovan McNabb-5-time Pro Bowler
Tommy McDonald-6-time Pro Bowler
Brian Westbrook-2-time Pro Bowler & 1-time First-Team All-Pro
Harold Carmichael-4-time Pro Bowler
Randall Cunningham-4-time Pro Bowler & 1-time First-Team All-Pro
Ron Jaworski-1-time Pro Bowler
<< <i>I requested Maxie Baughan for addition to the All-Time Eagles set, it looks like a no brainer to me.
Maxie Baughan had 5 pro-bowl appearences and 1 1st team all-pro with the Eagles.
Those stats are identical to Eric Allen, Pete Retzlaff and Troy Vincent who are in the set.
Let's not forget he had 4 more pro-bowl appearences and 1 more 1st team AP with the Rams. I think if this guy spent his whole career with one of these teams he would probably be in the hall already.
Some other players on the All-Time Eagles set and their stats:
Jerome Brown-2-time Pro Bowler & 2-time First-Team All-Pro
Donovan McNabb-5-time Pro Bowler
Tommy McDonald-6-time Pro Bowler
Brian Westbrook-2-time Pro Bowler & 1-time First-Team All-Pro
Harold Carmichael-4-time Pro Bowler
Randall Cunningham-4-time Pro Bowler & 1-time First-Team All-Pro
Ron Jaworski-1-time Pro Bowler >>
That's what I was thinking about Baughan as well. During his time w/ the Eagles he really excelled and was a stand out at his position.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
<< <i>I requested Maxie Baughan for addition to the All-Time Eagles set, it looks like a no brainer to me.
Maxie Baughan had 5 pro-bowl appearences and 1 1st team all-pro with the Eagles.
Those stats are identical to Eric Allen, Pete Retzlaff and Troy Vincent who are in the set.
Let's not forget he had 4 more pro-bowl appearences and 1 more 1st team AP with the Rams. I think if this guy spent his whole career with one of these teams he would probably be in the hall already.
Some other players on the All-Time Eagles set and their stats:
Jerome Brown-2-time Pro Bowler & 2-time First-Team All-Pro
Donovan McNabb-5-time Pro Bowler
Tommy McDonald-6-time Pro Bowler
Brian Westbrook-2-time Pro Bowler & 1-time First-Team All-Pro
Harold Carmichael-4-time Pro Bowler
Randall Cunningham-4-time Pro Bowler & 1-time First-Team All-Pro
Ron Jaworski-1-time Pro Bowler >>
This is a great point and glad you brought it up. What this says to me is that their are ALREADY players on this set that likely shouldn;t be there...
Jerome Brown? Great player for a very short period, sad that he died young but that shouldn't equate to being an All-Time Team selection.
Brian Westbrook? Probably added a tad too early, although his yards from scrimmage are probably near the top of the Eagles all-time.
Ron Jaworski? Why, because he led them to a Super Bowl loss?
Adding a Maxie Baughn who played a grand total of 6 years with the Eagles, IMO, is a stretch. You should only qualify what the player did as a member of that team, and while 5 Pro Bowls in 6 years is a nice feather, he still only played 6 years with the team. This qualifies him as an All-Time greatest Eagle? To stand alongside Concrete Charlie?
This has been the problem over the past year or so with those team sets. There are no standards anymore. It's based purely on opinions, of which, many collectors seem to have formed opinions without using common sense and/or a complete overview as to what should constitute an ALL TIME great for a particular team.
Tom , my #1 complaint/question would be, why not ask those of us here on the boards FIRST and gauge the interested prior to having PSA send out a poll? Most, if not all, of us who post in this thread are VERY informed (historically speaking) when compared to the average football fan. There are 9 collectors listed on the Eagles set. I'm certain 5 of the 9 post on/read this thread. You could have gotten a fair assessment from the guys you KNOW have knowledge and standards prior to submitting the name to PSA. Instead, you entrusted the outcome to the 4 other collectors who we have no idea if they even know who Maxie Baughn was, how long he played for the Eagles, etc.
I know for me personally, any addition that I have ever requested to a set, I came here first to make sure the MAJORITY of us who post here and discuss historical football issues on a regular basis agree. That allows a debate of the pros and cons of the addition, and in my experience has ALWAYS directed these sets in the right direction. What's the downside to NOT getting our opinions first? To NOT discussing pros and cons first?
Just how I do business, I don;t expect anyone to be my clone. But I think this certainly would have prevented Ron Jaworski from being added. No question. There are MANY others across many other team sets that simply do not belong as an all-time great for that team. I don;t advocate removals, because you end up leaving a guy stuck with a card when you do that, which to me is even more unfair. That's why we have to be as diligent as possible when applying these new addition requests to get the card and the player correct.
The Brett Favre request to the 1990s Decade set is a perfect example. The vote should correct the mistake, but these team sets with 8-9-10 collectors, the margin of voting error is EXTREMELY small. We're in this together fellas. No one (PSA included) cares more about policing these sets as we do. If we don't do it, 5 years from now, the entire registry will be a worthless hodgepodge.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
CLARKE HINKLE
TONY CANADEO
JIM RINGO
DON HUTSON
BART STARR
PAUL HORNUNG
MAX MCGEE
JERRY KRAMER
JIM TAYLOR
FORREST GREGG
HENRY JORDAN
FUZZY THURSTON
WILLIE WOOD
RAY NITSCHKE
HERB ADDERLEY
WILLIE DAVIS
VINCE LOMBARDI
JAMES LOFTON
REGGIE WHITE
STERLING SHARPE
LEROY BUTLER
BRETT FAVRE
AHMAN GREEN
Of the 23 players only 7 arent in the HOF. One will be for sure so thats 6. Three are from one of the most dominant teams in the NFL. Sharpe, was one of the dominant WR of his era and if it wasnt for injury might be closer to the HOF. Butler has a shot but safeties are a tough vote. Green well he just has the most rushing yards in team history. However, Jan Stenerud isnt in it, then again he only played for the Packers a handful of years.
Yet there are some that warrant consideration in my mind but not others. Ryan Longwell, the teams all time leading scorer didnt impress people when I had brought that up before. Then again who cares about scoring in the NFL or in the 90 year history of the team. Darren Sharper was brought up as well...but maybe not some might agree to add him since he is now becoming more HOF worthy.
Now lets look at the all time Falcons team set (or you pick from a few others, I am not try to single out this set). There are 21 all time Falcons, yet they having been playing for half the time as the Packers and have 0 Championships to 12. Also, zero HOFers. Deion will probably be the first.
TOMMY NOBIS
CLAUDE HUMPHREY
GEORGE KUNZ
JOHN JAMES
JEFF VAN NOTE
BILLY JOHNSON
WILLIAM ANDREWS
MIKE KENN
R.C. THIELEMANN
GERALD RIGGS
CHRIS HINTON
MORTEN ANDERSEN
BILL FRALIC
DEION SANDERS
ANDRE RISON
JESSIE TUGGLE
ELBERT SHELLEY
WARRICK DUNN
KEITH BROOKING
MICHAEL VICK
ALGE CRUMPLER
Can one say when you compare the two that there should be that many on the Falcons?
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
But, what's done is done. And who is deserving of placement on the Falcons set does not equate to who is deserving on other team sets like the Packers because the team histories are so different. So now no one knows what the standard is, so since we can't RAISE the bar on a set like the Falcons, we lower the bar on other sets, such as the Packers. You'll end up with a 70 card Packer set. In fact, I'm surprised that hasn't already happened. Some of the recent polls have been requests to add upwards of 8-10 players. The Chiefs set is an example of this.
Luckily for the Packers set, you have an established group of collectors that value the sets exclusivity and enough collectors in that group that you will probably be able to prevent any unwarranted actions. Just imagine if there were only 5-10 collectors of the set and how TOUGH is would be to keep it exclusive when it only takes a few votes to make a change. For example, you have 10 collectors. Only 5 even answer the poll, and of the 5 only 3 vote to ADD a marginal player. It's happening in other sets, just do a quick run through of the all-time teams and count up the guys who are questionable additions.
Sad. And this is something we as a collecting world could have controlled, unlike the REAL HOF...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Much like the Ravens set and a couple of others, the Falcons set should have never been created. They don't have enough "All-Time Great" players to have an all-time team. Again, it's part of the saturation that has occurred.
But, what's done is done. And who is deserving of placement on the Falcons set does not equate to who is deserving on other team sets like the Packers because the team histories are so different. So now no one knows what the standard is, so since we can't RAISE the bar on a set like the Falcons, we lower the bar on other sets, such as the Packers. You'll end up with a 70 card Packer set. In fact, I'm surprised that hasn't already happened. Some of the recent polls have been requests to add upwards of 8-10 players. The Chiefs set is an example of this.
Luckily for the Packers set, you have an established group of collectors that value the sets exclusivity and enough collectors in that group that you will probably be able to prevent any unwarranted actions. Just imagine if there were only 5-10 collectors of the set and how TOUGH is would be to keep it exclusive when it only takes a few votes to make a change. For example, you have 10 collectors. Only 5 even answer the poll, and of the 5 only 3 vote to ADD a marginal player. It's happening in other sets, just do a quick run through of the all-time teams and count up the guys who are questionable additions.
Sad. And this is something we as a collecting world could have controlled, unlike the REAL HOF...
Jason >>
Jason,
You are correct. Its also why we started the Packers HOF set. Even there its out of our hands. There is an independent voting panel that elects members to the Packers HOF, all we have to do is pick the cards. To have geared more for Packer Collectors we decided to use the first Packer card. So its not always a rookie card. For example Lynn Dickey's card isnt his rookie but his 1977 Topps which has him in a GB uniform.
This allows us to separate the really great players but also collect a set that includes players that made Packer history to a lesser extent.
I just noticed that there now is a Saints HOF set as well. I didnt know they had a HOF of the their own.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
Also, I've always thought All Time Team registry set composition begged for inclusion of impact players within a given team/franchise. I never thought it should mean All Time NFL Players who played for Team X.
I respect everyone's opinion here, but I'm not sure any over the over-inclusion complaining is justified when less inclusive sets can always be created. The beauty of the registry is that when a set gets too big for your liking, you can continue to compete, opt out, OR you can create a different set with different criteria that makes you feel better about the grouping of cards!! For instance, why not create a HOF Elite set that only includes HOFers who are first ballot guys and All Decade team members? That would eliminate a lot of the HOF riff-raff, right? Plus, it might make you feel like you are collecting a more prestigious set? Not trying to be snarky, I genuinely believe there is room for everyone here.
<< <i>I knew there would be flack when I submitted the Ravens Registry set, but from my perspective, the benefit of having the set on the registry far outweighed the cost of upsetting a couple of people with higher standards for inclusion. More sets with more collectors collecting/submitting more cards would never seem like a bad thing to me.
Also, I've always thought All Time Team registry set composition begged for inclusion of impact players within a given team/franchise. I never thought it should mean All Time NFL Players who played for Team X.
I respect everyone's opinion here, but I'm not sure any over the over-inclusion complaining is justified when less inclusive sets can always be created. The beauty of the registry is that when a set gets too big for your liking, you can continue to compete, opt out, OR you can create a different set with different criteria that makes you feel better about the grouping of cards!! For instance, why not create a HOF Elite set that only includes HOFers who are first ballot guys and All Decade team members? That would eliminate a lot of the HOF riff-raff, right? Plus, it might make you feel like you are collecting a more prestigious set? Not trying to be snarky, I genuinely believe there is room for everyone here. >>
no one here is saying that you can put together your own set or request them. however, many of us would like to see some standards for certain sets. all time team sets being one of them. not every team needs an all time team set based on how all were started. that is why i started along with favrefan the Packers HOF set. what is to stop someone else from creating their own Ravens Team Set when whom they feel deserves to be there isnt in your set. for sets that would get to this level, ie cant really be agreed upon as to whom the all time greats are, they belong in the collectors showcase. there anyone can put their own set together. i have for auto'd cards of players that have caught TD passes from favre. now this set will never get any recognition being on the showcase, nor can i get any "free" grades (which by the way i feel is why many people start some of these other sets).
but again why is one all-time team held to higher standards than others. if so then there needs to be another category for the other sets.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>I knew there would be flack when I submitted the Ravens Registry set, but from my perspective, the benefit of having the set on the registry far outweighed the cost of upsetting a couple of people with higher standards for inclusion. More sets with more collectors collecting/submitting more cards would never seem like a bad thing to me.
Also, I've always thought All Time Team registry set composition begged for inclusion of impact players within a given team/franchise. I never thought it should mean All Time NFL Players who played for Team X.
I respect everyone's opinion here, but I'm not sure any over the over-inclusion complaining is justified when less inclusive sets can always be created. The beauty of the registry is that when a set gets too big for your liking, you can continue to compete, opt out, OR you can create a different set with different criteria that makes you feel better about the grouping of cards!! For instance, why not create a HOF Elite set that only includes HOFers who are first ballot guys and All Decade team members? That would eliminate a lot of the HOF riff-raff, right? Plus, it might make you feel like you are collecting a more prestigious set? Not trying to be snarky, I genuinely believe there is room for everyone here. >>
Good points, and i've never disagreed with this outlook that many here DO share. My point has been that oversaturation of the sets, and the creation of many multiple like/identical sets in the end has a negative impact IMO. It's like having 20 McDonald's joints on the same block. When the menu is the same (or very close to it) then it lessens the "special" factor that an exclusive set brings. I have no conclusive factual data to back this up, although prices of cards in many of the HOF and Key Card sets have dropped since the explosion of overlapping sets, it's impossible to conclude that this was a factor.
But the purpose of collecting Regsitry sets is "supposedly" to complete the sets. So when you have sets in which, no one has completed and no one is really attempting to complete, it begs the question on why they exist. Of course PSA, much like the Pro Football HOF, is going to be all for including as many new sets (players) as possible. As it only helps drive overall interest in their product. But the long term view is that oversaturating a market (take the 1990's card production as an example), only devalues the market over the long term. Eventually, there will be so many choices, with so little difference that the average collector will be turned off by the experience. It happened in the 1990's card market with the values, and it has happened with modern cards with the jersey/insert/auto cards and $20 packs. There were so many choices, collectors stopped choosing, because it was becoming impossible to do so. Which is why you see many card companies going out of business.
Again, this is just my perspective, my preference. Some feel the exact opposite and I'm fine with that. It's nice to have the forum and at LEAST discuss the differences. At worst we are an informed group who can now make fair decisions based on both sides of the debate. That was really my complaint with these new sets and new card additions to sets. Nothing is being discussed. No pros and/or cons are being weighed. Someone sends a new set request or new card request to PSA based on ONE opinion and on ONE point of view.
What jradke and his fellow Packers fans did with the Packers Hall of Fame set should be the STANDARD to which we operate on. They got together here on the boards. Discussued options. Weighed the pros and cons of each and came up with a UNIQUE set that is something more than just one collector would enjoy putting together. The silent assassin stuff that has gone on with some of these requests is the reason for the majority of the complaints.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>I knew there would be flack when I submitted the Ravens Registry set, but from my perspective, the benefit of having the set on the registry far outweighed the cost of upsetting a couple of people with higher standards for inclusion. More sets with more collectors collecting/submitting more cards would never seem like a bad thing to me.
Also, I've always thought All Time Team registry set composition begged for inclusion of impact players within a given team/franchise. I never thought it should mean All Time NFL Players who played for Team X.
I respect everyone's opinion here, but I'm not sure any over the over-inclusion complaining is justified when less inclusive sets can always be created. The beauty of the registry is that when a set gets too big for your liking, you can continue to compete, opt out, OR you can create a different set with different criteria that makes you feel better about the grouping of cards!! For instance, why not create a HOF Elite set that only includes HOFers who are first ballot guys and All Decade team members? That would eliminate a lot of the HOF riff-raff, right? Plus, it might make you feel like you are collecting a more prestigious set? Not trying to be snarky, I genuinely believe there is room for everyone here. >>
Good points, and i've never disagreed with this outlook that many here DO share. My point has been that oversaturation of the sets, and the creation of many multiple like/identical sets in the end has a negative impact IMO. It's like having 20 McDonald's joints on the same block. When the menu is the same (or very close to it) then it lessens the "special" factor that an exclusive set brings. I have no conclusive factual data to back this up, although prices of cards in many of the HOF and Key Card sets have dropped since the explosion of overlapping sets, it's impossible to conclude that this was a factor.
But the purpose of collecting Regsitry sets is "supposedly" to complete the sets. So when you have sets in which, no one has completed and no one is really attempting to complete, it begs the question on why they exist. Of course PSA, much like the Pro Football HOF, is going to be all for including as many new sets (players) as possible. As it only helps drive overall interest in their product. But the long term view is that oversaturating a market (take the 1990's card production as an example), only devalues the market over the long term. Eventually, there will be so many choices, with so little difference that the average collector will be turned off by the experience. It happened in the 1990's card market with the values, and it has happened with modern cards with the jersey/insert/auto cards and $20 packs. There were so many choices, collectors stopped choosing, because it was becoming impossible to do so. Which is why you see many card companies going out of business.
Again, this is just my perspective, my preference. Some feel the exact opposite and I'm fine with that. It's nice to have the forum and at LEAST discuss the differences. At worst we are an informed group who can now make fair decisions based on both sides of the debate. That was really my complaint with these new sets and new card additions to sets. Nothing is being discussed. No pros and/or cons are being weighed. Someone sends a new set request or new card request to PSA based on ONE opinion and on ONE point of view.
What jradke and his fellow Packers fans did with the Packers Hall of Fame set should be the STANDARD to which we operate on. They got together here on the boards. Discussued options. Weighed the pros and cons of each and came up with a UNIQUE set that is something more than just one collector would enjoy putting together. The silent assassin stuff that has gone on with some of these requests is the reason for the majority of the complaints.
Jason >>
Jason,
Thanks for the compliments. Before we started the Packer HOF set, I started a thread about Players that I thought may warrant inclusion in the All-Time Packer Set. We had some healthy discussion. Myself and FavreFan came to the conclusion to avoid requesting additions to the All Time Packer Set, that non-diehard fans might understand, but others might have a hard time agreeing with that we would create another set. In addition we did it in such a way that the players chosen were not decided by any collector (unless they happen to have a vote on the Packer HOF committee) only the card to be used. Again, this might not work with some teams, as they either dont have their own HOF and/or dont have the history yet to have as strong (or as large) of an All-Time Team Set. In the end we agreed with Jason's POV. There needs to be some set of standards that apply to these Key Card Sets. Otherwise its just a free for all with a large pool of diluted sets. In the end, where it hurts is in the recongition of some of these sets for end of the year awards such as speciality set of the year. These awards not only acknowledge the individual collector, but also open some peoples eyes to other great sets out there to collect.
In all honesty the biggest problem with many of the All-Time team sets is the urge to add current players well before their additions maybe fully warranted. Is Mike Vick really a member of the All-Time Falcon Team? We could go through and add more but I think we get the point just from that one alone.
Just my two cents.
Jay
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
The HOF RC set which most(if not all) of us here collect and which this thread is based was created after a very thorough discussion right here on the boards. I just feel like sets and the card additions that you come up with after hearing pro/con discussions and then conducting an unofficial poll here are 99.99999% the right call. The anonymous requests which take place without a shred of reasoning and are done based solely on the individual requestors preference are what currently clogs and in some cases de-values many of the sets and set categories.
I'd love to hear a reason given as to why NOT come here first and discuss possible new sets and/or new card additions prior to sending the request to PSA? Get a consensus from here and go with it. Do you think I agree with every single unofficial vote we do here on the Future HOF sets? Absolutely not. But I make the annual request based on what the majority of the INFORMED group here decides. Because I know the opinions that are formed have at least heard both sides of the argument.
Is it really too much to ask for those who POST here and are aware of the boards to get opinions first before blindly coming up with some new fangled set or card addition? Aren't 10 opinions better than 1?
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>I requested Maxie Baughan for addition to the All-Time Eagles set, it looks like a no brainer to me.
Maxie Baughan had 5 pro-bowl appearences and 1 1st team all-pro with the Eagles.
Those stats are identical to Eric Allen, Pete Retzlaff and Troy Vincent who are in the set.
Let's not forget he had 4 more pro-bowl appearences and 1 more 1st team AP with the Rams. I think if this guy spent his whole career with one of these teams he would probably be in the hall already.
Some other players on the All-Time Eagles set and their stats:
Jerome Brown-2-time Pro Bowler & 2-time First-Team All-Pro
Donovan McNabb-5-time Pro Bowler
Tommy McDonald-6-time Pro Bowler
Brian Westbrook-2-time Pro Bowler & 1-time First-Team All-Pro
Harold Carmichael-4-time Pro Bowler
Randall Cunningham-4-time Pro Bowler & 1-time First-Team All-Pro
Ron Jaworski-1-time Pro Bowler >>
This is a great point and glad you brought it up. What this says to me is that their are ALREADY players on this set that likely shouldn;t be there...
Jerome Brown? Great player for a very short period, sad that he died young but that shouldn't equate to being an All-Time Team selection.
Brian Westbrook? Probably added a tad too early, although his yards from scrimmage are probably near the top of the Eagles all-time.
Ron Jaworski? Why, because he led them to a Super Bowl loss?
Adding a Maxie Baughn who played a grand total of 6 years with the Eagles, IMO, is a stretch. You should only qualify what the player did as a member of that team, and while 5 Pro Bowls in 6 years is a nice feather, he still only played 6 years with the team. This qualifies him as an All-Time greatest Eagle? To stand alongside Concrete Charlie?
This has been the problem over the past year or so with those team sets. There are no standards anymore. It's based purely on opinions, of which, many collectors seem to have formed opinions without using common sense and/or a complete overview as to what should constitute an ALL TIME great for a particular team.
Tom , my #1 complaint/question would be, why not ask those of us here on the boards FIRST and gauge the interested prior to having PSA send out a poll? Most, if not all, of us who post in this thread are VERY informed (historically speaking) when compared to the average football fan. There are 9 collectors listed on the Eagles set. I'm certain 5 of the 9 post on/read this thread. You could have gotten a fair assessment from the guys you KNOW have knowledge and standards prior to submitting the name to PSA. Instead, you entrusted the outcome to the 4 other collectors who we have no idea if they even know who Maxie Baughn was, how long he played for the Eagles, etc.
I know for me personally, any addition that I have ever requested to a set, I came here first to make sure the MAJORITY of us who post here and discuss historical football issues on a regular basis agree. That allows a debate of the pros and cons of the addition, and in my experience has ALWAYS directed these sets in the right direction. What's the downside to NOT getting our opinions first? To NOT discussing pros and cons first?
Just how I do business, I don;t expect anyone to be my clone. But I think this certainly would have prevented Ron Jaworski from being added. No question. There are MANY others across many other team sets that simply do not belong as an all-time great for that team. I don;t advocate removals, because you end up leaving a guy stuck with a card when you do that, which to me is even more unfair. That's why we have to be as diligent as possible when applying these new addition requests to get the card and the player correct.
The Brett Favre request to the 1990s Decade set is a perfect example. The vote should correct the mistake, but these team sets with 8-9-10 collectors, the margin of voting error is EXTREMELY small. We're in this together fellas. No one (PSA included) cares more about policing these sets as we do. If we don't do it, 5 years from now, the entire registry will be a worthless hodgepodge.
Jason >>
To go along w/ the Pro Bowls he was also a member of their Championship team. I would think Eagles fans would have a place for him b/c of those accomplishments.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
<< <i>
To go along w/ the Pro Bowls he was also a member of their Championship team. I would think Eagles fans would have a place for him b/c of those accomplishments. >>
He still only played SIX seasons for the Eagles...Is that really enough, even if he went to 6 Pro Bowls and won 3 titles??? He also went to 4 Pro Bowls in 5 years with the Rams. I guess he should also be added to the All-Time Rams? Had he stayed with one team his entire career, then sure he'd be deserving...But he didn't, and deciding which players were the best to ever don that franchise uniform should not factor what he did for another team...That makes no sense...lol
Also, the Pro Bowl selections from the years he played with the Eagles (60-65) are VERY diluted, and considered all but meaningless by the HOF committee. Take 1963 as an example...
The were 8 NFL Pro Bowl LBs named, and only 14 NFL Teams...To equate that to todays game, it would be like having 18 LB's named to the 2010 Pro Bowl...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>I really appreciate all the debate over the All-Time sets and I agree with Jason that posting thoughts for additions prior to sending to PSA is a good idea. The one thing I really don't like is adding current players to these sets...what's the hurry! I'm still irked over having Culpepper in the All-Time Vikings Set! I heard he is tearing up the B-squad now after failing with every team without Moss to throw to. The other thing that bugs me is when there is a glut of no-names up for vote just prior to the deadline..this year, three cards came up for vote and two of them I had to look up to see who the hell they were, and I fancy myself a HUGE Vikings fan. All in all, I keep the set because of my love for the team, but I did submit the Vikings Ring of Honor Set because I know Culpepper would never make the cut
I like the Ring of Honor/ Team HOF/Wall of fame sets, I think they are a great idea. The opinion part (on the collectors part at least) is taken out of the equation. The only thing I don't like is that each team has different standards and many of them elect guys based on sentimental value rather than how good they were on the field...Example being guys who died or were killed during their days as an active player...
I agree, additions to sets should cease 90 days prior to the deadline. It's shady stuff for those who are competing because 99% of the time, the guys being requested are cards the requester just so happens to already own. It's funny, when I see these polls come down with what I consider undeserving and/or semi-obscure players I always know which collector made the request. Because if/when these players get added to the sets, magically they just so happened to already own that card prior to it's addition. Coincidence? Think again...Hey I collect cards not in any sets yet too. Preemptive strikes so to speak. But I've never made a request or based a vote on if I owned the card or not. It should be if the guy is deserving of addition PERIOD. Voting with your wallet only hurts your wallet in the long term.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I spend most of my money on Packer cards so spending this much on a non Packer card was a change for me.
Next up, mid grade Johnny Unitas.
Dave
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
nice job. i could use one for my 58 set as well. one day i will pull the trigger but that day will have to wait until i get my starr and hornung RC's first.
jay
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>Thanks Dave. I will never be able to truly compete on this set but just completing it would be one heck of an accomplishment. What I think is gonna kill many of the small timers like myself is spending over a grand on a modern card like Brady, Manning or Tomlinson. Don't get me wrong, I will buy these guys but I would rather drop a $1500 on a PSA 8 Bart Starr than a PSA 10 Peyton Manning. >>
amen brother but you know your preaching to the crowd here. in more ways than one.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
I would also much rather put it in vintage.
Dave
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
http://www.profootballhof.com/history/2010/2/15/nfls-all-decade-team-of-the-2000s---offense/
http://www.profootballhof.com/history/2010/2/16/nfls-all-decade-team-of-the-2000s---defense/
Now for getting the Registry set fixed....I'm going to propose they change the current set to MASTER set or something, and then create the new set that matches with all the others, which is FIRST TEAM only. I could care less about a guy who got one or two votes. I want the best of the best.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
<< <i>
<< <i>Thanks Dave. I will never be able to truly compete on this set but just completing it would be one heck of an accomplishment. What I think is gonna kill many of the small timers like myself is spending over a grand on a modern card like Brady, Manning or Tomlinson. Don't get me wrong, I will buy these guys but I would rather drop a $1500 on a PSA 8 Bart Starr than a PSA 10 Peyton Manning. >>
amen brother but you know your preaching to the crowd here. in more ways than one. >>
I 100% agree. The prices for Manning and Brady are ridiculous for modern cards. I believe another board member posted a while back the comparision between a high grade Brown rc and a Manning PSA 9 rc. Manning's a great player but his rookie isn't 50 years old.lol I understand supply and demand but I don't know if I can ever see myself paying over $1,000 for rookies of Brady and Manning.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
Card # Weight
1993 ULTRA MICHAEL STRAHAN 331 1
1994 BOWMAN KEVIN MAWAE 135 1
1995 SP WARREN SAPP 99 1
1995 SP DERRICK BROOKS 103 1
1996 BOWMAN'S BEST RAY LEWIS 164 2
1996 FINEST BRIAN DAWKINS B344 1
1996 SP JONATHAN OGDEN 4 1
1996 SP MARVIN HARRISON 18 2
1997 PACIFIC PHILADELPHIA ADAM VINATIERI 199 1
1997 SP AUTHENTIC WALTER JONES 6 1
1997 SP AUTHENTIC TONY GONZALEZ 11 1
1998 SP AUTHENTIC RANDY MOSS 18 5
1998 SP AUTHENTIC CHARLES WOODSON 23 3
1999 SP AUTHENTIC EDGERRIN JAMES 94 3
1999 SP AUTHENTIC CHAMP BAILEY 111 2
2000 FLEER TRADITION SHANE LECHLER 356 1
2000 SP AUTHENTIC TOM BRADY 118 10
2000 SP AUTHENTIC BRIAN URLACHER 122 3
2001 CROWN ROYALE STEVE HUTCHINSON 185 1
2001 TOPPS CHROME LADAINIAN TOMLINSON 221 5
2001 TOPPS CHROME RICHARD SEYMOUR 282 2
2002 TOPPS CHROME DWIGHT FREENEY 171 1
2002 TOPPS CHROME ED REED 208 1
2002 UPPER DECK XL ALAN FANECA 362 1
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>I hate that they have two MLB's. One of those positions should be Ware's. >>
Personally, I'm glad they did not select a guy as FIRST TEAM who played only 5 seasons of the decade....In fact, no first team selection played less than SEVEN seasons (sorry, not counting Cribbs KR/PR don't even equate). It's an All-Decade team--2000-2009. You should have to play most if not all of the decade to even be in the debate. Half a decade is a very incomplete picture. If they were to make a 2005-2015 team, then I'd be all for D. Ware.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>I hate that they have two MLB's. One of those positions should be Ware's. >>
Personally, I'm glad they did not select a guy as FIRST TEAM who played only 5 seasons of the decade....In fact, no first team selection played less than SEVEN seasons (sorry, not counting Cribbs KR/PR don't even equate). It's an All-Decade team--2000-2009. You should have to play most if not all of the decade to even be in the debate. Half a decade is a very incomplete picture. If they were to make a 2005-2015 team, then I'd be all for D. Ware.
Jason >>
That could hurt guys that start their careers in the middle of a decade. Payton would not be the first team back for the 70's then.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
Can't justify the cost when I can get vintage for that same $
Some even though modern are really hard to get.....faneca. hutch
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets