<< <i>On a completely unrelated note, I am curious as this thread is so long and the search feature here leaves much to be desired, but what would be Ladanian Tomlinson's RC for the HoF set likely be? >>
2001 Topps Chrome
"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> I don't think Tiki every had a real shot at the hall. >>
Absolutely correct...You can talk "per game" or "per start" all you want, but Tiki didn't do it long enough...HOF player in my eyes has a combination of dominance and longevity.
Best comparison for Tiki Barber is Ricky Watters..Although Watters was chosen to more Pro Bowls and had the Championship that Tiki didn't have..Thier stats and style of play was very similar and they affected their teams (positive and negative) in similar ways. Watters wasn't know as a fumbler like Tiki, but did have the alligator arms reputation.
Tiki played in 10 more career games than Watters did.. Tiki-15,631 yards from scrimmage, 67 TDs, 3 Pro Bowls Watters-14,891 Yards from scrimmage, 91 TDs, 5 Pro Bowls
Watters hasn't even come close to the SEMI-finals yet, and honestly I'd be surprised to see Tiki ever get that far. With so many better RBs from this era (Faulk, Martin, Bettis, Terrell Davis, Edgerrin James, Tomlinson)..Tiki is going to be compared to those guys and he's going to come up short every time...
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.
Ricky Watters definitely deserves at least some consideration for the HOF. I'm not saying he's a Hall of Famer, but he did help to revolutionize the position with his receiving skills. I think the voters place too much emphasis on total rushing yards and not enough on yards from scrimmage. To me, it's all about yards from scrimmage. Doesn't matter how you get there as long as you do.
If Tiki had played 2 or 3 more years, and at least 2 of them at or near the same high level, I think his HOF chances would have been excellent. He finished top 5 in yards from scrimmage 5 out of 6 years, which is pretty darn dominant. But, sadly, it's all "ifs" because he didn't play long enough.
Anyway, my whole point is that Tiki has become a real a-hole over the past year. And I never saw it coming.
"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."
Watters has been nominated, but to say he is one of the top 25 modern candidates out there right now would be crazy. And that is why he can't crack the top 25...He might slip in the semi-finals one of these years, but he'll never get in the HOF. I don't think revolutionized the RB position, thats giving him WAY too much credit.
Lenny Moore was the original "swing back" and that's why he's in the HOF. Yards from scrimmage.
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 don't think revolutionized the RB position, thats giving him WAY too much credit. >>
I said he helped revolutionize the position, and I believe that. He helped pave the way for versatile receiving backs like Faulk, Tiki and LT2. Again, I don't think Watters is a HOF'er, but I don't think he should just be dismissed by the voters because of his low rushing total. His yards from scrimmage total is very good.
If he wasn't such a malcontent, and if he was the go to man on some of those amazing 49ers teams when Montana, Rice, and Young got all the acclaim, he'd no doubt get more consideration. His numbers compare quite favorably with some HOF and future HOF (Bettis) backs:
Watters 144 Games 14,891 YFS Riggins 175 Games 13,442 YFS Simpson 135 Games 13,378 YFS Bettis 192 Games 15,111 YFS
"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."
Well, like I always say, stats aren't everything..And quite often they do not tell the entire story.
Watters was a T.O. type player, in that he did as much bad for his teams as he did good. This is why he turned into a journeyman type player..No one (including the 49ers) thought he was worth the troubles he caused. Anyone remember the "For What?" response he gave when queried about why he was short arming passes? He was a guy who cared more about himself than his team. Really, the only reason he won a ring was BECAUSE of Young and Rice..
Still don't even understand how he "helped" revolutionize anything..He was a good receiver out of the backfield..So what..Ask any 49ers fan and they will tell you Roger Craig is the guy who made the swingback a needed position in that 49ers West Coast Offense. Watters was a guy who fit into a system that was already in place. This makes him a HOFer? Over a guy like Roger Craig? Not in 1,000,000 years..Not to anyone who watched both of those guys play...
Here the list of RBs with more receiving yards than Watters:
Marshall Faulk 6,875 Larry Centers 6,797 Ronnie Harmon 6,065 Lenny Moore 6,039 Keith Byars 5,651 Frank Gifford 5,434 Marcus Allen 5,411 Tiki Barber 5,183 Joe Morrison 4,993 Roger Craig 4,911 Hershel Walker 4,859 John L. Williams 4,656 Ernest Byner 4,605 Walter Payton 4,538 Thurman Thomas 4,458 Ricky Watters 4,248
Alot of those came BEFORE Watters or played during the same time frame when short dumpoffs to the RB became popular because of that West Coast Offense.
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>On a completely unrelated note, I am curious as this thread is so long and the search feature here leaves much to be desired, but what would be Ladanian Tomlinson's RC for the HoF set likely be? >>
Does anyone have any good ideas for an automatic inclusion stat or stats for the All-Time QB's set? The roadblock I keep running into is that if you go with career yardage and/or TD's, you have to include stiffs like Testaverde and Bledsoe. I am inclined at this point to keep the status quo, but it does seem strange that there is no automatic inclusion stat(s). Then again, I'm thinking maybe that's a good thing.
"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 don't particularly like the fact that the RB and WR sets have automatic numbers. Why not just run a poll for EVERY card addition? If you want an automatic number for QBs make it 50,000 yards and 400 TDs...That'll keep out the riff-raff...
Its funny, it seems like almost monthly we have these posts from collectors wanting fundamental changes to Key card and/or HOF sets... If you're bored, find a new set to start.
Can we just accept what we have on the current registry and stop trying to re-invent the wheel? If there is something you don't like, e-mail PSA about it. If PSA doesnt want to change it, stop collecting the set. Its all about choice/preference isn't it? Its supposed to be a fun hobby right, not a chore or a nuisance... I guess I just get tired of guys getting wild hairs up their you know what and decide to try and force the rest of us to collect something we shouldn't have to.
The Bill Willis, 1991 Enor addition to the HOF Browns set is just a perfect example. No poll was sent. Card does not belong as it wasn't a mainstream issue and isn't even a rookie card. But, some collector spent $5 for one and since he owns it, might as well make everyone else have to buy it to complete the set as well...Ridiculous.
Only future changes to any of the Key Card or HOF sets should be done by poll vote only...Not only that, but PSA needs to require 51% or more of the collectors of that set reply with a YES to add a card. If ther are 20 collectors, but only 5 of them vote, and only 3 of those vote YES, Im sorry but that is not a valid addition. 20 collectors of the set means you should need 11 YES votes to add..Lack of response should equal a NO vote...All of us don't get or have daily access to e-mail and internet.
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>Its funny, it seems like almost monthly we have these posts from collectors wanting fundamental changes to Key card and/or HOF sets... If you're bored, find a new set to start. >>
Dude, I asked a simple question soliciting some opinions from fellow collectors of the All-Time QB's set. That's all. I have no intentions of requesting any new additions or changes. I think it's cool that we know once a running back hits 10,000 yards and once a WR hits 800/12,000, that he'a automatically included in the set.
From what I can see though, there is no good automatic stat for QB's that wouldn't exclude undeserving guys such as Testaverde and Bledsoe. I just wanted to know what everybody else thought. If anyone else who can respond in a calm, rational manner would like to weigh in, please feel free.
"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."
Jason's a great guy and knows his football. but on some of these sets he really only wants things his way. it appears that he is pretty protective of some of the sets that he started. Awhile ago I had a thread about some players that might warrant addition to the all time packer set. namely Darren Sharper and Ryan Longwell. yes longwell is a kicker but is also the all time leading scorer in packer history. i mean that must count for something given the team is older than the NFL. but he feels that only HOF caliber players should be in all time team sets. so what FavreFan and I did was start a set for members of the Packer HOF. and to top it off not all the cards are rookies. many are but the cards must be the players first in a packer uniform for players not drafted or signed by the team out of college. so for example reggie white's card is a 93 SP not an 86 Topps or 84 USFL. what we wanted is a set that is more geared to fans of the team not just the same people on the HOF RC set, who put the same cards in multiple sets. we figured it was easier this way than having to put some of the players to a vote.
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'm not taking sides or blasting anyone, just seemed like a lot more response than was warranted.
Any card added should be put to a vote. I always vote on cards when presented the opportunity and when I've wanted a card voted on, I've asked that it be polled. I believe that is how it should be and have no disagreement with that at all. I hated that the Enor cards were in the Player/Coach/Admin HOF set and that you could put anything you wanted in there. I stopped collecting it. I stopped collecting most of the team sets, for various reasons, that was my choice.
PSA owns the sets, no one else. I think majority vote over a two week period or something like that should be sufficient to add/drop any players in a set. Internet bravery abounds
<< <i>Wow. Seems a bit of a diatribe for what appeared to be a pretty simple, innocent question. >>
I agree.
I have always been curious as to what the criteria for a QB in the set were. When Ken Stabler is in there, I would imagine the bar is low. Glad I didnt ask
<< <i> Wow. Seems a bit of a diatribe for what appeared to be a pretty simple, innocent question. >>
Yeah probably so...I've been holding my tongue on the issue and after a long day of finding out one of my best friends lost his legs in Iraq I probably shouldn't have posted.
I really wasn't aiming at anyone in particular. I took the opportunity to expound on the innocent question after I gave the innocent answer. Sorry if feelings got hurt.
<< <i> Jason's a great guy and knows his football. but on some of these sets he really only wants things his way. it appears that he is pretty protective of some of the sets that he started. Awhile ago I had a thread about some players that might warrant addition to the all time packer set. namely Darren Sharper and Ryan Longwell. yes longwell is a kicker but is also the all time leading scorer in packer history. i mean that must count for something given the team is older than the NFL. but he feels that only HOF caliber players should be in all time team sets. >>
I take exception to this though. Not ONCE have I ever done anything in regards to the Registry that served MY best interests. Any sets that I started or helped put together I added or voted here in the forum for the players who I thought were TRULY worthy based on their merits. Not just because I own the card or don't own it. I have voted NO on player additions in the past even though I owned the card and it would likely further me in the set. To me, that is a selfish way to do business. These sets are supposed to be for everyone to enjoy. Secondly, if an opinion is asked for I have no problem giving it. I didn't think Sharper and/or Longwell were good enough to be considered "All-Time Packer Greats". This was MY PERSONAL OPINION. Anyone can request an addition, my problem is when PSA doesn't send out a poll...I also don't think a guy needs to be a HOFer to be included in the Team sets. I did help put together many (not all) of them, and every single one contains guys that are NOT HOFers. Simply that they were GREAT for the teams they played for. I don't really collect these sets anymore, and anyone is free to request any addition they want. The only people who get the poll are the ones who do collect it. If they want to approve say Todd Stuessie to the All-Time Vikings set, so be it. It will be up to future collectors if they want to start the set and collect the card.
From now on, I will keep my opinions to myself. Best of luck to you all.
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.
Beautiful card Dave. Nice pickup. Can the die-cut version be used in the QB's set?
"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'm w/ Jason on this. I think that he vigilently tries to keep the various "specialty" sets true to the intent of when they were created. If not one "stood guard" over the specialty sets, there is a real possibility many would become "uncollectable" due to additions requested by selfish or less informed collectors. I do the same thing w/ the Dan Marino sets (especially the basic set) because people are trying to add cards all the time that aren't true to the intent for the set. For instance, people were adding the Police cards, stickers, Starting Lineup cards, ect.... to the basic set which really p*issed off the hard core collectors of the set (including myself). I fought (mostly unsuccessfully) to remove the cards because they are not base cards in my opinion. I was so upset that I nearly stopped collecting the set.
My point is that once cards are added to sets that don't belong, then other collectors may stop collecting because they're not going to chase (and spend $) on cards that don't belong to a set. After all, why spend $10's if not $100's of dollars on a card that doesn't fit into your collecting focus?
Once again, this is only my opinion but I agree 100% w/ Jason on this.
Regards,
Greg M.
Collecting vintage auto'd fb cards and Dan Marino cards!!
<< <i>Beautiful card Dave. Nice pickup. Can the die-cut version be used in the QB's set? >>
Thanks... However, I have had this card for 3-4 years so it is not a recent pickup. I just wanted to change the subject and, after last nights game, seem appriopriate....
The card is in my QB set, but will not work for the Future HOF rc set. It sounds like this is a "instert parrallel card" and isn't allowed. Which it think is cr ap but that's OK. I wish I could use a Black Chrome refractor for LT's rookie also but that won't happen...
DAve
I also wanted to mention that I collect the cards I want and not what PSA tells me I should. Just because PSA wont accept my Die-Cut card in the PSA HOF set doesn't mean that I will sell it and buy a non die cut to fit the set. In my opinion, the Die cut is a better card (serial #ed to 500 instead of 2000), and I will keep it because of that...Same thing goes with the LT.... Anyway, I have a hard time understanding why people complain about what is in a set or what is not. Collect what you want and be happy...Don't collect what someone (PSA) tells you what to collect......Just my opinion of course.
My post wasnt meant to imply that you are looking out only for yourself. I am sorry if that was how it was taken. However, to always jump on people when they ask a question about players to add to a set isnt the best either. Its not fun to have ones question or debate immediatley thrown down and sometimes belittled. I think many of us are more than willing to ask around for debate before requesting a player to be added to a particular set. At least those of us who regular read and post on these threads.
If you notice in my post I also agree that everyone is free to requests sets that they would like to have added as well.
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
gotta agree with you Davemri, it doesn't follow common sense. In my mind, it should allow the parallels, i.e. SP die cut, Topps or Bowman Chrome refractors, but only weigh them the same, what the heck is wrong with that?
Peyton Manning is the greatest QB of All-Time!!! (ok technically a bit early to say objectively-- but it's my subjective opinion) Go Colts!!
LT greatest running back ever!! Go Chargers!!
AFC Championship game: Chargers vs. Colts (my two favorite teams). I'll have no idea who to root for.
On the Ket Card sets, I have made a few proposals. Some were good (future HOF sets), some not so good (100 TD threshhold for automatic inclusion for WR/RB). I have to say that Jason has taught me quite a bit about these sets and I've changed my mind to agree with him on the automatic inclusion. EVERY further addition should be a poll with a majority of registants required to vote YES. It's too hard to set a number in football and say anyone who hits that number is an All-Time great. I really don't think Keenan McCardell is an All-Time great receiver yet he came very close to automatic addition. Also clearly no one wants Vinny Testaverde in the QB set.
I just wanted to say thanks to Jason (publically) for all the hard work he has put in on these sets that we all have so much fun collecting. While the tone did seem a bit harsh at first, I think we can all forgive that (especially given the other circumstances). Who hasn't written an e-mail or posted a message when they are upset that other people took the wrong way. I know I have. Also in substance what Jason said was right on.
Hey Guys, you are going to love this story. I have been for some time wondering just how the grading system works at PSA and how decisions are made when assigning a grade. About 3 months ago I bought a 1977 Topps unopened cello pack which had a Leroy Selmon rookie on top, you might remeber it on ebay. I broke the pack and submitted the card to PSA. The card was beautiful and I even thought perhaps maybe a 10 but at the VERY least an 8. It was really well centered, great corners and terrific color.
So guess what, I receive the card back and it grades a 5!!! A f%$#$%ing 5, I couldn't believe it, talk about disappointment. So I figure what do I have to loose, who in their right mind will buy a PSA 5 Selmon anyway, and I crack it out and resubmit it about 2 weeks ago. Guess what, today it comes back............... a 9!!! Will someone please tell me how a card goes from 5 to 9 just like that??
The thing that concerns me most is that we spend our hard earned dollars on cards which have essentially been assigned a value through an extremely subjective process. We all know the price difference between a card that grades 9 and 10, we are talking about hundreds, sometimes thousands of dollars. Take this Selmon for example a 5 is probably worth .99 cents but a 9 probably $300.
I've always wondered when looking at my collection and comparing the same year cards that look identical in condition yet one is a 7 and the other is a 10? I realize that there will always be the human element involved in grading but to go from 5 to 9, it truly questions my faith in the grading process.
One final thought though, I am happy about the 9 but it should have gotten that in the first place. The only downside to my whole story: I was so pissed at the original grade that I went out and bought a Selmon 9, now I have two!!!!
<< <i>Beautiful card Dave. Nice pickup. Can the die-cut version be used in the QB's set? >>
Thanks... However, I have had this card for 3-4 years so it is not a recent pickup. I just wanted to change the subject and, after last nights game, seem appriopriate....
The card is in my QB set, but will not work for the Future HOF rc set. It sounds like this is a "instert parrallel card" and isn't allowed. Which it think is cr ap but that's OK. I wish I could use a Black Chrome refractor for LT's rookie also but that won't happen...
DAve
I also wanted to mention that I collect the cards I want and not what PSA tells me I should. Just because PSA wont accept my Die-Cut card in the PSA HOF set doesn't mean that I will sell it and buy a non die cut to fit the set. In my opinion, the Die cut is a better card (serial #ed to 500 instead of 2000), and I will keep it because of that...Same thing goes with the LT.... Anyway, I have a hard time understanding why people complain about what is in a set or what is not. Collect what you want and be happy...Don't collect what someone (PSA) tells you what to collect......Just my opinion of course. >>
I bought a Manning die cut 10 a year or so ago because I liked them better than the standard SP, only to find out it wasnt allowed in the future HOF set etc. I was kind of frustrated about that, and sold it and boght the normal SP version so it fit in the set. I hate to say it, but Im guilty of succumbing to the will of PSA on certain cards like that.
Daves right, there are certain cards where I buy it to enjoy it, but I do enjoy the registry alot.
I agree this is a problem. I submitted a Moss SP RC and it came back recolored. So I submit it again and it comes back a 6. I am going to crack it out and send it in again and see what happens.
Part of me thinks this might be part of their business model. Knowing that people will resubmit the same card over and over again.
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 agree with you, I think you just keep submitting until you get the grade you believe the card deserves. The question though is should you crack it out and submit as new or resubmit still holdered and ask for a review?
Diatribe? I am college educated and don't know what that word means.....is it like the Iroquois and the Apache? I think although I never post everyone here knows me in one way or another...so greetings to all. Gees Mr. Publius...hate em raiders....although I'm a die hard raider fan (and thouroughly disgusted in recent years...actually for a long time) I don't think Stabler deserves to sit alongside unitas and Montana...but he was the best QB in the NFL for a few years. Speaking of voting...PSA just phoned me back....they will not allow us to vote Joe Squires out of the psa set registry. I was so so so much looking to moving up one space. I would be in favor of allowing true rookie cards such as refractors, die-cuts, and special #'d versions in the sets. It can be counted as the regular weighting even though they may cost more to purchase. Expanding on this....Why isn't the 52 bowman's given different weighting based on LG. vs. Sm? Large is clearly more popular and desirable..and more $ to buy. In baseball they are allowing both 1948 versions on some cards...why not in FB? I collect primarily psa 8's..and having to settle for a psa 5 leaf when it costs more and doesn't look as nice as a bowman 8 is not good (my opinion of course). Why not allow the bowman at 1/2 the weight?
On another note. Not card related. I have the highest respect to all those that serve this country in a military uniform. Lowest to politicians. My ancestors in this country served the british crown in the french and indian wars to defeat the french. 7 served in the General Philipp Schuyler regiment in the american revolution and every conflict since. My wife's nephew's ambulance took a IED hit in iraq about 4 weeks ago. Although wounded, his partner was much worse and he stayed with him saving his life (he's a font line medic) earning a medic commendation award besides the purple heart. We had sent him 2 care boxes that very same day...with letters saying how proud we all were of him. You can't believe the turmoil this caused our family until we knew for sure he was going to be ok. So jason, if you are reading this....we all deeply apreciate all the sacrifices of our finest young men I cannot express my sorrow about your best friend's loss of his legs. It is simply beyond words...our hearts as a nation should go out to him and his family. Our nation has remained free for over 200 years due to our military sacrifices (and the blood of those who served). I will stop at this point. forgive me everyone as I know this isn't a political forum.
Back to cards...why isn't winston hill part of a potential hof set..he has 8 pro-bowls? Maybe Walt sweeney?
Jay
Collecting PSA... FB,BK,HK,and BB HOF RC sets 1948-76 Topps FB Sets FB & BB HOF Player sets 1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
"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>Speaking of voting...PSA just phoned me back....they will not allow us to vote Joe Squires out of the psa set registry. I was so so so much looking to moving up one space. I
Jay >>
Playa hater. Why you gotta pick on me Jay? I got nuttin but love for you baby
Im just mad that Jim Zorn isnt in the QB set, not that Stabler is
Schuyler, thats a long line of history for you. So your in some fashion related to Alexander Hamilton (see picture below), who married a Schuyler daughter.
I just went through all my HOF RC's and rescanned them with a black background. After looking at Jason's and Dave's pics I really liked the way the cards presented themselves. I wish you 2 could have let us in on how exhausting it was going to be. I think I put in approx. 6-7 hours on this, but the end result is nice. If anyone wants to check it out here's the link vjs5 nfl hof rc Now to start on my other sets.
Great job vj! I really like the color and clean look of the OJ and Larry Little rookies among others! Good luck on your upgrades and completion of the set!
* '72 BASEBALL #15 100% * C. PASCUAL BASIC #3 * T. PEREZ BASIC #4 100% * L. TIANT BASIC #1 * DRYSDALE BASIC #4 100% * MAGIC MASTER #4/BASIC #3 * PALMEIRO MASTER/BASIC #1 * '65 DISNEYLAND #2 * '78 ELVIS PRESLEY #6 * '78 THREE'S COMPANY #1
When the sets were put together in 2003, the possibiliy of including alternate RCs awas discussed, but PSA told us their software would not support it. The HOF set was initially populated with Bowman Large only, but somewhere along the way they started allowing Smalls.
I know I'm not a big player in the HOF set, but I think it should stay the way it is. Only the most desirable/vaulable/key RC should be included. Anything less dilutes the mystique and subverts the intent. That also means no parallels, because they do not meet the definition of an RC (not from a base set). JMHO.
<< <i>I just went through all my HOF RC's and rescanned them with a black background. After looking at Jason's and Dave's pics I really liked the way the cards presented themselves. I wish you 2 could have let us in on how exhausting it was going to be. I think I put in approx. 6-7 hours on this, but the end result is nice. >>
I did the same thing a few months back vj and, like you said, it is VERY time consuming - but well worth it in the end. Here's my set:
"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>When the sets were put together in 2003, the possibiliy of including alternate RCs awas discussed, but PSA told us their software would not support it. The HOF set was initially populated with Bowman Large only, but somewhere along the way they started allowing Smalls.
I know I'm not a big player in the HOF set, but I think it should stay the way it is. Only the most desirable/vaulable/key RC should be included. Anything less dilutes the mystique and subverts the intent. That also means no parallels, because they do not meet the definition of an RC (not from a base set). JMHO.
Joe >>
So how is Topps and I assume others will as well, putting the rookie card logo on the refractor parallel cards?
It shouldn't matter if your a big player or not in the registry sets as long as you are actively participating. I just don't believe and feel a large number of collectors would agree that indeed a 98 SP Authentic Die Cut Peyton Manning is one of his rookie cards, same as a 2001 Topps Chrome Ladanian Tomlinson Black Refractor, do you guys really believe that is not a rookie card???? I don't understand how anyone can feel by having an option for someone to put their die-cut, or refractor, or whatever it is, in replacement of the base card from the same set that is worth less but is counted for the same weighting diluting the set.
Topps can write whatever they want on their cards. The Rookie Card definition has remained largely unchanged in the 27 years I've been collecting. However, this is a fluid hobby, and there are definitely more people now calling parallels and other inserts Rookie Cards. If that becomes the norm, PSA's sets should adapt. It won't change how I collect, though. Only a base card can be a Rookie Card in my collection.
<< <i> I just don't believe and feel a large number of collectors would agree that indeed a 98 SP Authentic Die Cut Peyton Manning is one of his rookie cards, same as a 2001 Topps Chrome Ladanian Tomlinson Black Refractor, do you guys really believe that is not a rookie card???? >>
Yes, I really believe those are not Rookie Cards. Beckett agrees with me... there is no RC next to those cards or any other parallels in their magazine. PSA also agrees with me... look at the composition of the "Rookies" sets in the registry - no inserts there either.
I'm not trying to be a codgy stubborn old fart here, but the fact is the overwhelming senitiment in the hobby is that only base cards can be RCs. Again, that might change.
I look at Die cuts, parallels, refractors etc. as VERSIONS of the base Rc card. Now I don't mind if someone has a die cut Manning RC as opposed to his regular RC and wants to include it in the Registry. If that collector prefers that version of his Rc because they feel it's more desireable, that's okay with me. But I don't think there should be 2 differently weighted options of that card for the registry.
I agree with fabfrank. Modern day cards that have scarcer versions of a base card...like the die cut sp, or excitent versions # to 250 are still rc's. Same with refractors...just a more limited version. To clarify things-I think there should be allowed but only at the same weight. However, going back to the 1952 bowmans if we followed the standard princible of most valuable, and desired cards then only the large version would be allowed. Population of the significant rc's is similar between the 2 versions. Why not give the collector who had to pay 2x+ more for the large version a greater reward for doing so. Same princible with the 48 bowmans that have a leaf on the registry....allow them at a realistic % of the weight of the leaf. Similarly allow the 48 leaf pihos for the bowman.
The hockey hof rc set alows both the OPC and Topps versions at the same weight in almost all cases (note: the opc is worth 2x+). Baseball has allowed some 48 bowmans. I voted to allow that for card polled (members voted yes).
Question to someone who has pricing knowledge...i do not keep spreadsheets of belong to vcp.......there is an ebay auction #320156214250 1952 bow small groza psa 8 (pop 15 none higher) and a bin for $2500/BO ( he has one offer) Seller claims the last went for $2793.00 Could tha be right? I think he is way off. I ask as I have a dub of this card I wouldn't mind selling but can't imgine its worth that much.
jay
Collecting PSA... FB,BK,HK,and BB HOF RC sets 1948-76 Topps FB Sets FB & BB HOF Player sets 1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
I agree with fabfrank. Modern day cards that have scarcer versions of a base card...like the die cut sp, or excitent versions # to 250 are still rc's.
Actually Jay, let me clarify. I personally don't consider these cards true Rc's. To me the true RC is the base card. I'm just not so vehemently opposed to these cards as some others are in allowing people to use them in their special sets. (such as all-time qb's, team of the decade, etc.)
I don't agree with crossing over brands when it comes to choosing a Rc to be used in the HOF set. There is a significant difference between a 48 Leaf and a 48 Bowman card. In the case of the Bowman Small and Bowman Large, they are basically the same card, just a different size. I think that was the main criteria when PSa decided to allow either card to be considered
<< <i>Three Don Hutson's came up today on Ebay. All of them are PSA 5. Kinda odd that three come out in the same day but that they all are the same grade. >>
I still want that Hutson PSA 7 that Davemri won a couple months back, that card looked super high end.
Comments
<< <i>On a completely unrelated note, I am curious as this thread is so long and the search feature here leaves much to be desired, but what would be Ladanian Tomlinson's RC for the HoF set likely be? >>
2001 Topps Chrome
<< <i> I don't think Tiki every had a real shot at the hall. >>
Absolutely correct...You can talk "per game" or "per start" all you want, but Tiki didn't do it long enough...HOF player in my eyes has a combination of dominance and longevity.
Best comparison for Tiki Barber is Ricky Watters..Although Watters was chosen to more Pro Bowls and had the Championship that Tiki didn't have..Thier stats and style of play was very similar and they affected their teams (positive and negative) in similar ways. Watters wasn't know as a fumbler like Tiki, but did have the alligator arms reputation.
Tiki played in 10 more career games than Watters did..
Tiki-15,631 yards from scrimmage, 67 TDs, 3 Pro Bowls
Watters-14,891 Yards from scrimmage, 91 TDs, 5 Pro Bowls
Watters hasn't even come close to the SEMI-finals yet, and honestly I'd be surprised to see Tiki ever get that far. With so many better RBs from this era (Faulk, Martin, Bettis, Terrell Davis, Edgerrin James, Tomlinson)..Tiki is going to be compared to those guys and he's going to come up short every time...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
If Tiki had played 2 or 3 more years, and at least 2 of them at or near the same high level, I think his HOF chances would have been excellent. He finished top 5 in yards from scrimmage 5 out of 6 years, which is pretty darn dominant. But, sadly, it's all "ifs" because he didn't play long enough.
Anyway, my whole point is that Tiki has become a real a-hole over the past year. And I never saw it coming.
Lenny Moore was the original "swing back" and that's why he's in the HOF. Yards from scrimmage.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>I don't think revolutionized the RB position, thats giving him WAY too much credit. >>
I said he helped revolutionize the position, and I believe that. He helped pave the way for versatile receiving backs like Faulk, Tiki and LT2. Again, I don't think Watters is a HOF'er, but I don't think he should just be dismissed by the voters because of his low rushing total. His yards from scrimmage total is very good.
If he wasn't such a malcontent, and if he was the go to man on some of those amazing 49ers teams when Montana, Rice, and Young got all the acclaim, he'd no doubt get more consideration. His numbers compare quite favorably with some HOF and future HOF (Bettis) backs:
Watters 144 Games 14,891 YFS
Riggins 175 Games 13,442 YFS
Simpson 135 Games 13,378 YFS
Bettis 192 Games 15,111 YFS
Watters was a T.O. type player, in that he did as much bad for his teams as he did good. This is why he turned into a journeyman type player..No one (including the 49ers) thought he was worth the troubles he caused. Anyone remember the "For What?" response he gave when queried about why he was short arming passes? He was a guy who cared more about himself than his team. Really, the only reason he won a ring was BECAUSE of Young and Rice..
Still don't even understand how he "helped" revolutionize anything..He was a good receiver out of the backfield..So what..Ask any 49ers fan and they will tell you Roger Craig is the guy who made the swingback a needed position in that 49ers West Coast Offense. Watters was a guy who fit into a system that was already in place. This makes him a HOFer? Over a guy like Roger Craig? Not in 1,000,000 years..Not to anyone who watched both of those guys play...
Here the list of RBs with more receiving yards than Watters:
Marshall Faulk 6,875
Larry Centers 6,797
Ronnie Harmon 6,065
Lenny Moore 6,039
Keith Byars 5,651
Frank Gifford 5,434
Marcus Allen 5,411
Tiki Barber 5,183
Joe Morrison 4,993
Roger Craig 4,911
Hershel Walker 4,859
John L. Williams 4,656
Ernest Byner 4,605
Walter Payton 4,538
Thurman Thomas 4,458
Ricky Watters 4,248
Alot of those came BEFORE Watters or played during the same time frame when short dumpoffs to the RB became popular because of that West Coast Offense.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
No way Watters belongs in the HOF
<< <i>
<< <i>On a completely unrelated note, I am curious as this thread is so long and the search feature here leaves much to be desired, but what would be Ladanian Tomlinson's RC for the HoF set likely be? >>
2001 Topps Chrome >>
Thanks much!
Just PM.
Brian
Its funny, it seems like almost monthly we have these posts from collectors wanting fundamental changes to Key card and/or HOF sets... If you're bored, find a new set to start.
Can we just accept what we have on the current registry and stop trying to re-invent the wheel? If there is something you don't like, e-mail PSA about it. If PSA doesnt want to change it, stop collecting the set. Its all about choice/preference isn't it? Its supposed to be a fun hobby right, not a chore or a nuisance... I guess I just get tired of guys getting wild hairs up their you know what and decide to try and force the rest of us to collect something we shouldn't have to.
The Bill Willis, 1991 Enor addition to the HOF Browns set is just a perfect example. No poll was sent. Card does not belong as it wasn't a mainstream issue and isn't even a rookie card. But, some collector spent $5 for one and since he owns it, might as well make everyone else have to buy it to complete the set as well...Ridiculous.
Only future changes to any of the Key Card or HOF sets should be done by poll vote only...Not only that, but PSA needs to require 51% or more of the collectors of that set reply with a YES to add a card. If ther are 20 collectors, but only 5 of them vote, and only 3 of those vote YES, Im sorry but that is not a valid addition. 20 collectors of the set means you should need 11 YES votes to add..Lack of response should equal a NO vote...All of us don't get or have daily access to e-mail and internet.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Its funny, it seems like almost monthly we have these posts from collectors wanting fundamental changes to Key card and/or HOF sets... If you're bored, find a new set to start. >>
Dude, I asked a simple question soliciting some opinions from fellow collectors of the All-Time QB's set. That's all. I have no intentions of requesting any new additions or changes. I think it's cool that we know once a running back hits 10,000 yards and once a WR hits 800/12,000, that he'a automatically included in the set.
From what I can see though, there is no good automatic stat for QB's that wouldn't exclude undeserving guys such as Testaverde and Bledsoe. I just wanted to know what everybody else thought. If anyone else who can respond in a calm, rational manner would like to weigh in, please feel free.
My eBay Store
BigCrumbs! I made over $250 last year!
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
Any card added should be put to a vote. I always vote on cards when presented the opportunity and when I've wanted a card voted on, I've asked that it be polled. I believe that is how it should be and have no disagreement with that at all. I hated that the Enor cards were in the Player/Coach/Admin HOF set and that you could put anything you wanted in there. I stopped collecting it. I stopped collecting most of the team sets, for various reasons, that was my choice.
My eBay Store
BigCrumbs! I made over $250 last year!
<< <i>Wow. Seems a bit of a diatribe for what appeared to be a pretty simple, innocent question. >>
I agree.
I have always been curious as to what the criteria for a QB in the set were. When Ken Stabler is in there, I would imagine the bar is low. Glad I didnt ask
<< <i> Wow. Seems a bit of a diatribe for what appeared to be a pretty simple, innocent question. >>
Yeah probably so...I've been holding my tongue on the issue and after a long day of finding out one of my best friends lost his legs in Iraq I probably shouldn't have posted.
I really wasn't aiming at anyone in particular. I took the opportunity to expound on the innocent question after I gave the innocent answer. Sorry if feelings got hurt.
<< <i> Jason's a great guy and knows his football. but on some of these sets he really only wants things his way. it appears that he is pretty protective of some of the sets that he started. Awhile ago I had a thread about some players that might warrant addition to the all time packer set. namely Darren Sharper and Ryan Longwell. yes longwell is a kicker but is also the all time leading scorer in packer history. i mean that must count for something given the team is older than the NFL. but he feels that only HOF caliber players should be in all time team sets. >>
I take exception to this though. Not ONCE have I ever done anything in regards to the Registry that served MY best interests. Any sets that I started or helped put together I added or voted here in the forum for the players who I thought were TRULY worthy based on their merits. Not just because I own the card or don't own it. I have voted NO on player additions in the past even though I owned the card and it would likely further me in the set. To me, that is a selfish way to do business. These sets are supposed to be for everyone to enjoy. Secondly, if an opinion is asked for I have no problem giving it. I didn't think Sharper and/or Longwell were good enough to be considered "All-Time Packer Greats". This was MY PERSONAL OPINION. Anyone can request an addition, my problem is when PSA doesn't send out a poll...I also don't think a guy needs to be a HOFer to be included in the Team sets. I did help put together many (not all) of them, and every single one contains guys that are NOT HOFers. Simply that they were GREAT for the teams they played for. I don't really collect these sets anymore, and anyone is free to request any addition they want. The only people who get the poll are the ones who do collect it. If they want to approve say Todd Stuessie to the All-Time Vikings set, so be it. It will be up to future collectors if they want to start the set and collect the card.
From now on, I will keep my opinions to myself. Best of luck to you all.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
My point is that once cards are added to sets that don't belong, then other collectors may stop collecting because they're not going to chase (and spend $) on cards that don't belong to a set. After all, why spend $10's if not $100's of dollars on a card that doesn't fit into your collecting focus?
Once again, this is only my opinion but I agree 100% w/ Jason on this.
Regards,
Greg M.
References:
Onlychild, Ahmanfan, fabfrank, wufdude, jradke, Reese, Jasp, thenavarro
E-Bay id: greg_n_meg
<< <i>Beautiful card Dave. Nice pickup. Can the die-cut version be used in the QB's set? >>
Thanks... However, I have had this card for 3-4 years so it is not a recent pickup. I just wanted to change the subject and, after last nights game, seem appriopriate....
The card is in my QB set, but will not work for the Future HOF rc set. It sounds like this is a "instert parrallel card" and isn't allowed. Which it think is cr ap but that's OK. I wish I could use a Black Chrome refractor for LT's rookie also but that won't happen...
DAve
I also wanted to mention that I collect the cards I want and not what PSA tells me I should. Just because PSA wont accept my Die-Cut card in the PSA HOF set doesn't mean that I will sell it and buy a non die cut to fit the set. In my opinion, the Die cut is a better card (serial #ed to 500 instead of 2000), and I will keep it because of that...Same thing goes with the LT.... Anyway, I have a hard time understanding why people complain about what is in a set or what is not. Collect what you want and be happy...Don't collect what someone (PSA) tells you what to collect......Just my opinion of course.
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
If you notice in my post I also agree that everyone is free to requests sets that they would like to have added as well.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
Peyton Manning is the greatest QB of All-Time!!! (ok technically a bit early to say objectively-- but it's my subjective opinion) Go Colts!!
LT greatest running back ever!! Go Chargers!!
AFC Championship game: Chargers vs. Colts (my two favorite teams). I'll have no idea who to root for.
On the Ket Card sets, I have made a few proposals. Some were good (future HOF sets), some not so good (100 TD threshhold for automatic inclusion for WR/RB). I have to say that Jason has taught me quite a bit about these sets and I've changed my mind to agree with him on the automatic inclusion. EVERY further addition should be a poll with a majority of registants required to vote YES. It's too hard to set a number in football and say anyone who hits that number is an All-Time great. I really don't think Keenan McCardell is an All-Time great receiver yet he came very close to automatic addition. Also clearly no one wants Vinny Testaverde in the QB set.
I just wanted to say thanks to Jason (publically) for all the hard work he has put in on these sets that we all have so much fun collecting. While the tone did seem a bit harsh at first, I think we can all forgive that (especially given the other circumstances). Who hasn't written an e-mail or posted a message when they are upset that other people took the wrong way. I know I have. Also in substance what Jason said was right on.
Thanks,
Mike.
So guess what, I receive the card back and it grades a 5!!! A f%$#$%ing 5, I couldn't believe it, talk about disappointment. So I figure what do I have to loose, who in their right mind will buy a PSA 5 Selmon anyway, and I crack it out and resubmit it about 2 weeks ago. Guess what, today it comes back............... a 9!!! Will someone please tell me how a card goes from 5 to 9 just like that??
The thing that concerns me most is that we spend our hard earned dollars on cards which have essentially been assigned a value through an extremely subjective process. We all know the price difference between a card that grades 9 and 10, we are talking about hundreds, sometimes thousands of dollars. Take this Selmon for example a 5 is probably worth .99 cents but a 9 probably $300.
I've always wondered when looking at my collection and comparing the same year cards that look identical in condition yet one is a 7 and the other is a 10? I realize that there will always be the human element involved in grading but to go from 5 to 9, it truly questions my faith in the grading process.
One final thought though, I am happy about the 9 but it should have gotten that in the first place. The only downside to my whole story: I was so pissed at the original grade that I went out and bought a Selmon 9, now I have two!!!!
Go Pack,
Doc
<< <i>
<< <i>Beautiful card Dave. Nice pickup. Can the die-cut version be used in the QB's set? >>
Thanks... However, I have had this card for 3-4 years so it is not a recent pickup. I just wanted to change the subject and, after last nights game, seem appriopriate....
The card is in my QB set, but will not work for the Future HOF rc set. It sounds like this is a "instert parrallel card" and isn't allowed. Which it think is cr ap but that's OK. I wish I could use a Black Chrome refractor for LT's rookie also but that won't happen...
DAve
I also wanted to mention that I collect the cards I want and not what PSA tells me I should. Just because PSA wont accept my Die-Cut card in the PSA HOF set doesn't mean that I will sell it and buy a non die cut to fit the set. In my opinion, the Die cut is a better card (serial #ed to 500 instead of 2000), and I will keep it because of that...Same thing goes with the LT.... Anyway, I have a hard time understanding why people complain about what is in a set or what is not. Collect what you want and be happy...Don't collect what someone (PSA) tells you what to collect......Just my opinion of course. >>
I bought a Manning die cut 10 a year or so ago because I liked them better than the standard SP, only to find out it wasnt allowed in the future HOF set etc. I was kind of frustrated about that, and sold it and boght the normal SP version so it fit in the set. I hate to say it, but Im guilty of succumbing to the will of PSA on certain cards like that.
Daves right, there are certain cards where I buy it to enjoy it, but I do enjoy the registry alot.
I agree this is a problem. I submitted a Moss SP RC and it came back recolored. So I submit it again and it comes back a 6. I am going to crack it out and send it in again and see what happens.
Part of me thinks this might be part of their business model. Knowing that people will resubmit the same card over and over again.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
Doc
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
Doc
<< <i>Will someone please tell me how a card goes from 5 to 9 just like that??
>>
Most likely there is a tiny surface wrinkle on the back that the second grader missed.
Joe
<< <i>
<< <i>Will someone please tell me how a card goes from 5 to 9 just like that??
>>
Most likely there is a tiny surface wrinkle on the back that the second grader missed.
Joe >>
AllanAllen,
Check your PM.
Regards,
Greg M.
References:
Onlychild, Ahmanfan, fabfrank, wufdude, jradke, Reese, Jasp, thenavarro
E-Bay id: greg_n_meg
I would be in favor of allowing true rookie cards such as refractors, die-cuts, and special #'d versions in the sets. It can be counted as the regular weighting even though they may cost more to purchase. Expanding on this....Why isn't the 52 bowman's given different weighting based on LG. vs. Sm? Large is clearly more popular and desirable..and more $ to buy. In baseball they are allowing both 1948 versions on some cards...why not in FB? I collect primarily psa 8's..and having to settle for a psa 5 leaf when it costs more and doesn't look as nice as a bowman 8 is not good (my opinion of course). Why not allow the bowman at 1/2 the weight?
On another note. Not card related. I have the highest respect to all those that serve this country in a military uniform. Lowest to politicians.
My ancestors in this country served the british crown in the french and indian wars to defeat the french. 7 served in the General Philipp Schuyler regiment in the american revolution and every conflict since. My wife's nephew's ambulance took a IED hit in iraq about 4 weeks ago. Although wounded, his partner was much worse and he stayed with him saving his life (he's a font line medic) earning a medic commendation award besides the purple heart. We had sent him 2 care boxes that very same day...with letters saying how proud we all were of him. You can't believe the turmoil this caused our family until we knew for sure he was going to be ok. So jason, if you are reading this....we all deeply apreciate all the sacrifices of our finest young men I cannot express my sorrow about your best friend's loss of his legs. It is simply beyond words...our hearts as a nation should go out to him and his family. Our nation has remained free for over 200 years due to our military sacrifices (and the blood of those who served). I will stop at this point. forgive me everyone as I know this isn't a political forum.
Back to cards...why isn't winston hill part of a potential hof set..he has 8 pro-bowls? Maybe Walt sweeney?
Jay
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
<< <i>Speaking of voting...PSA just phoned me back....they will not allow us to vote Joe Squires out of the psa set registry. I was so so so much looking to moving up one space.
I
Jay >>
Playa hater. Why you gotta pick on me Jay? I got nuttin but love for you baby
Im just mad that Jim Zorn isnt in the QB set, not that Stabler is
Schuyler, thats a long line of history for you. So your in some fashion related to Alexander Hamilton (see picture below), who married a Schuyler daughter.
Now to start on my other sets.
* C. PASCUAL BASIC #3
* T. PEREZ BASIC #4 100%
* L. TIANT BASIC #1
* DRYSDALE BASIC #4 100%
* MAGIC MASTER #4/BASIC #3
* PALMEIRO MASTER/BASIC #1
* '65 DISNEYLAND #2
* '78 ELVIS PRESLEY #6
* '78 THREE'S COMPANY #1
WaltDisneyBoards
I know I'm not a big player in the HOF set, but I think it should stay the way it is. Only the most desirable/vaulable/key RC should be included. Anything less dilutes the mystique and subverts the intent. That also means no parallels, because they do not meet the definition of an RC (not from a base set). JMHO.
Joe
<< <i>I just went through all my HOF RC's and rescanned them with a black background. After looking at Jason's and Dave's pics I really liked the way the cards presented themselves. I wish you 2 could have let us in on how exhausting it was going to be. I think I put in approx. 6-7 hours on this, but the end result is nice. >>
I did the same thing a few months back vj and, like you said, it is VERY time consuming - but well worth it in the end. Here's my set:
HOF Rookies
* C. PASCUAL BASIC #3
* T. PEREZ BASIC #4 100%
* L. TIANT BASIC #1
* DRYSDALE BASIC #4 100%
* MAGIC MASTER #4/BASIC #3
* PALMEIRO MASTER/BASIC #1
* '65 DISNEYLAND #2
* '78 ELVIS PRESLEY #6
* '78 THREE'S COMPANY #1
WaltDisneyBoards
<< <i>When the sets were put together in 2003, the possibiliy of including alternate RCs awas discussed, but PSA told us their software would not support it. The HOF set was initially populated with Bowman Large only, but somewhere along the way they started allowing Smalls.
I know I'm not a big player in the HOF set, but I think it should stay the way it is. Only the most desirable/vaulable/key RC should be included. Anything less dilutes the mystique and subverts the intent. That also means no parallels, because they do not meet the definition of an RC (not from a base set). JMHO.
Joe >>
So how is Topps and I assume others will as well, putting the rookie card logo on the refractor parallel cards?
It shouldn't matter if your a big player or not in the registry sets as long as you are actively participating. I just don't believe and feel a large number of collectors would agree that indeed a 98 SP Authentic Die Cut Peyton Manning is one of his rookie cards, same as a 2001 Topps Chrome Ladanian Tomlinson Black Refractor, do you guys really believe that is not a rookie card???? I don't understand how anyone can feel by having an option for someone to put their die-cut, or refractor, or whatever it is, in replacement of the base card from the same set that is worth less but is counted for the same weighting diluting the set.
<< <i> I just don't believe and feel a large number of collectors would agree that indeed a 98 SP Authentic Die Cut Peyton Manning is one of his rookie cards, same as a 2001 Topps Chrome Ladanian Tomlinson Black Refractor, do you guys really believe that is not a rookie card???? >>
Yes, I really believe those are not Rookie Cards. Beckett agrees with me... there is no RC next to those cards or any other parallels in their magazine. PSA also agrees with me... look at the composition of the "Rookies" sets in the registry - no inserts there either.
I'm not trying to be a codgy stubborn old fart here, but the fact is the overwhelming senitiment in the hobby is that only base cards can be RCs. Again, that might change.
Joe
The hockey hof rc set alows both the OPC and Topps versions at the same weight in almost all cases (note: the opc is worth 2x+). Baseball has allowed some 48 bowmans. I voted to allow that for card polled (members voted yes).
Question to someone who has pricing knowledge...i do not keep spreadsheets of belong to vcp.......there is an ebay auction #320156214250
1952 bow small groza psa 8 (pop 15 none higher) and a bin for $2500/BO ( he has one offer) Seller claims the last went for $2793.00 Could tha be right? I think he is way off. I ask as I have a dub of this card I wouldn't mind selling but can't imgine its worth that much.
jay
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
Joe
Actually Jay, let me clarify. I personally don't consider these cards true Rc's. To me the true RC is the base card. I'm just not so vehemently opposed to these cards as some others are in allowing people to use them in their special sets. (such as all-time qb's, team of the decade, etc.)
I don't agree with crossing over brands when it comes to choosing a Rc to be used in the HOF set. There is a significant difference between a 48 Leaf and a 48 Bowman card. In the case of the Bowman Small and Bowman Large, they are basically the same card, just a different size. I think that was the main criteria when PSa decided to allow either card to be considered
<< <i>Three Don Hutson's came up today on Ebay. All of them are PSA 5. Kinda odd that three come out in the same day but that they all are the same grade. >>
I still want that Hutson PSA 7 that Davemri won a couple months back, that card looked super high end.
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!