Will we ever see modifications to the set registry weightings and formulas?

detroitfan2

I apologize if this has been discussed before (I don't recall it), but do you think we'll ever see the day when the set registry ranking formulas and/or grade weights are modified?

I see a few general flaws in the current system, although I think it works pretty well

First, the 1-10 weightings do not allow enough flexibility. For example, the 1955 Clemente is "worth" nearly 60 times more than a 1955 common (using PSA 8 SMR values), but it's only "worth" 10 times more in the rankings.

Second, again using 1955 Topps as an example, a set with 100 PSA 8 commons would have the same rating (if I understand it correctly) as a set with 50 PSA 7 commons and 50 PSA 9 commons (both would have an 8.0 GPA), yet according to SMR, the value of the 100 PSA 8 cards would be $8000, while the set with the PSA 7's and 9's would be valued at over $19000!

Also, it seems like perhaps population reports could be used in the equation somehow.

Maybe it would come down to a set's rating being the SMR value of the set, but wouldn't that really be the true indicator of the set's superiority?

I also wonder if the ratings / rankings could become "real-time" at some point, where ratings could fluctuate without cards being added/upgraded just based on changes in SMR values and population reports. How about that for driving someone insane! One day you wake up and you've dropped from #1 to #2 because a population report changed?

Thoughts?

lawnmowerman

<< <i>I also wonder if the ratings / rankings could become "real-time" at some point, where ratings could fluctuate without cards being added/upgraded just based on changes in SMR values and population reports. How about that for driving someone insane! One day you wake up and you've dropped from #1 to #2 because a population report changed? >>



Yes, that would be bad.

I have noticed in the Emmitt Smith master set some ratings should be incresed while others need to be decreased.

I like your point about the pop report coming into play. There are a bunch of Emmitt cards that are tough to come by in 10 or 9 form but the ratings dont reflect that, due to being an impossible foil card or just plain scarce. Being that the set is constantly changing these problems will be worked out when the time is right , I guess

TheMcgwireMuseum

I've thought about this many times as well. Im sure every set has its own weights that don't make sense to the people collecting it and have actual first hand knowledge of where certain cards should be placed within the set as far as scarcity. The only solution I came up with that would seem to be consistently fair throughout ever-changing pop reports would be to have them weighted based on scarcity in grade compared to total pop reports of that specific card. That would eliminate the unfairness of 1/1's ( in any grade) being unjustly weighted higher against other cards in the set if it took into account the fact that a specific card has only one or a couple graded examples.

jradke4

I can see using SMR prices for weighting regular sets. Like 55 Topps for example. However, for player sets I think there needs to be a combination of SMR/price and the rarity of the card. This is generally true for modern player sets. With all the parallels, inserts and serial numbered cards. The biggest problem is that the ladies dont have the time and card experince to be the judge. That is probably why they have gone to a SMR related weighting. I know they are trying to get some new software up and running for the set registry. Maybe when that happens there would be the chance that members of sets would get a chance yearly to be polled on the set weights.

shagrotn77

I'm all for PSA 9 PD's being counted as PSA 8's, rather than PSA 7's. In actuality it should be 8.5 since 9 PD's ALWAYS sell higher than 8's, but the move from 7 to 8 would be a nice compromise.

Griffins

I"ve seen the weighting change on several sets I collect in the last year. Usually when someone complains and has it changed to benefit them.
I agree that it's not perfect- stars that are relatively easy to find often get higher weights than rarities, just because those rarities are so thinly traded that the SMR doesn't reflect their true value. I'm not talking about low pop cards as rarities, as that can change over time. But rather scarce common cards, like a '58 Topps Herrer or '58 Bell Cimoli or '57 Topps Bakep.

MeteoriteGuy

All Hall of Famers should be two points in the big modern sets....or at least 1.5. How is John Elway or Barry Sanders not worth more then Heath Shuler.

Mark