* optional cards in player sets.

RedRomad275

I was just looking through my Rose Master set and I noticed a new addition. There are now cards at the bottom of the set that have an * and are optional. I haven't heard anything about this. Are the figured into the total weight? I would guess not as they are optional but this all seems strange. In the Rose set the cards are:

* 1950 -80 J.D. McCARTHY PETE ROSE PLAYER POSTCARDS
97 * 1976 LINNETT PETE ROSE SUPERSTARS-PERFORATED
* 1979 -83 CORAL-LEE PETE ROSE POSTCARDS
4 * 1985 FUN FOOD BUTTONS PETE ROSE
* 1985 FUN FOOD PETE ROSE BUTTONS-CARDBOARD PROOF
* 1987 KRAFT HOME PLATE O.GUILLEN/P.ROSE HERO PANEL-HAND CUT

I just find it odd as I have the Perez Master and the Linnett card was figured into the set and not optional

Red

themetalsign

Optional is crap.......


They are either part of the set or not. JMO








Dave D.

calaban7

These * optional * ,I guess are like being almost pregnant. My only thinking that they may be adjusting the required cards to be "3 or more " , while the remander with fewer than 3 being optional until more are graded.

I collect 83 & 84 topps , plus Randy Jones and Nate Colbert and some other odd ball players. In the Colbert set, the guy who has the better (way better !!! ) set , his name is Scott Thompson , has some cards that I would love to find, much less even get graded. He has a couple 1972 Venenzuelan stamps , that I cannot locate ANYWHERE. While I admire his set , as its real nice, I stand a better chance of leading the Baltimore Orioles to a winning season at the age of 48. If they made these optional , because of their rairity , it would not be so difficult to have a competitive set.

Wondo

Sonny,

How come the Colbert set has the 1972 Venezuelan stamp and the Rose set does not?

edited to add: Maybe that's the optional one?

mikeschmidt

PSA should really spend some time to think about its Master Sets -- figure out a strategy on what should and will be included -- and stop making it so darn confusing for collectors.

They have really driven away so many collectors because of their inconsistent guidance on this topic...

Morgoth

They should appoint a Set Registry manager with maybe a staff of 1 or 2 people who devote themselves to figuring this stuff out and come out with a clear vision for the registry. They should also fix all of the inconsistencies with the registries. Remember that PSA recieves alot of their income from people completing registries or competing in registries. I think the expense would be justified and show us that they actually care about what we care about. No offense to Carol or other staffers but I don't get the feel that when we get answers on the set registry questions it is from people who have a lot of time to go into these issues.

jradke4

are those items that psa still grades??

i wouldnt mind seeing them put an * on cards they dont grade anymore for master sets.

as for having people that just handle the set registry....well they already have 4 people that do just that. the problem is two fold. one is that the people that work on the registry are hampered by software issues which require lots of manual labor and time. two, is that they probably dont have a lot of knowledge overall of the hobby. carol works for PSA but i dont think directly involved in the set registry. if you look on the news link in the registry home page you see all four members of the staff. bj is the lead on the registry team.

maybe what psa needs to do is to have an advisory panel that has rotating members of the set registry (ie people that are the collectors)able to provide some insight as to what is really happening in the hobby. maybe this way their could be changes to set weighting and other things. i personally think that for master player sets weights should not be based soley on SMR but on a combination of rarity and price.

CON40

PSA is slowly killing the Player Set concept unfortunately. Adding "optional" cards for which there is no explanation or set of standards applicable to ALL player sets is extremely flawed. BUt, adopting a universal set of standards would go a long way to guiding collectors in their player pursuits.

In the Ryan Master Set, there is now a listing for the 1967 Topps Mets Team. He is not even pictured in the photo, but his name is listed on the back. If this card is allowable, then I assume any checklist featuring a player's name would be admissible into Master Sets too, since it's essentially the same thing. So, PSA is telling me that in order to have a real Master Set, I need to be hunting down cards with the player's name only, not just a photo. That is confusing and not really applicable to player collecting.

They need to stop rejecting other cards for inclusion simply because of PSA scarcity. Just because a card is not in PSA's database doesn't mean it's too rare to include. Their database is not exactly the Library of Congress. About a year ago, they rejected my request for a 1970 Transogram Ryan because mine was the only graded one at the time. Yet, when I requested a 1978 Family Fun Center Ryan that was the only one graded, that was accepted. Why one and not the other? I could never figure it out. Honestly, I don't think they can figure it out either.

mikeschmidt

They seem to be adding these optional cards, en masse, in quite a few sets.

Noticed it in Steve Carlton master set over the weekend...

M

RedRomad275

I would suspect that PSA will slowly be adding the optional cards to all the player sets. I have several sets that have those type of cards. My question is what constitutes a card being added to the optional list. In my Rose set for example, i would like to see the two entire decks of playing cards added to the optional list. In regards to team cards it wasn't to big a deal to me to add them to my player sets as I am working on the 56-81 Reds Team cards so I was getting them anyway. Was this optional thing even announced by PSA? I don't remember seeing it. This borders on the 73 Candy lids thing that just happened a week or so ago. I was also told that PSA didn't grade the McCarthy postcards as the dates the cards were produced were inconclusive.

Red

mike1297

I might be a little biased becasue I too am in the Pete Rose Maset set, but I have always been confused about the playing cards. There not even baseball cards. Seems like just another way to make me spend $5 per card on eBay to try to get them all, if they ever come up.

AISAVDBBALLINPHILLY

In defense of PSA on this issue, I had a 1961 FLEER CHUCK BEDNARIK WALLET PICTURES-HAND CUT card added yesterday as optional to the master set, and I see nothing wrong with them waiting until they get at least 3 graded to permanently add the card. If it remains a 1 of 1 or 2 of 2 it wouldn't really be fair to any competitors of that set that there would only be 1 or 2 cards out there. WIth that card being printed basically on paper stock and hand cut there may not be another one to make a grade - even to just get holdered as authentic like mine.

John

RedRomad275

I see your point however it should be based on production numbers not submissions. If it is a main stream card then there is no reason for not adding it to the set. If it is a serial numbered 1 of whatever then maybe. My point is I was told by set regisrty that the McCarthy postcards aren't graded. The Linnetts cards are an example of a new card based on the new T3 holder. I was also told by set registry that proofs are not graded and they have added the fun foods button proof. I also equate the Kraft panel the same as a hostess panel. It could be submitted individually or as a panel but it goes in the set.

Red

mikeschmidt

<< <i>I also equate the Kraft panel the same as a hostess panel. It could be submitted individually or as a panel but it goes in the set.
>>



And often times they are both weighted the same. If you can only get a single by essentially destroying a panel (which you must do -- as you must destroy the surrounding cards to get the entire black dotted lines in as a single) -- shouldn't the panels be weighted substantially more than the singles?

Also -- by requiring Master Set Registrants to have both in their set, instead of just one, you are essentially encouraging the destruction of the panels for those of us who strive for 100% completion.

A smarter way (in my humble opinion), would be for all the panel cards to offer an option of either the panel or the single for 100% completion, with the panel either getting bonus points or a higer weighting given its relative rarity. For those issues that have multiple variations of panels -- I see no issue with including each example.

But PSA is now allowing many panel-type cards to be in the Registry master sets twice -- it is not just Hostess and Kraft, but also the Dorman Cheese issue, the General Mills 1985 issue, the Stuart issue from 1987, etc.

Silliness!!!

jradke4

<< <i>

<< <i>I also equate the Kraft panel the same as a hostess panel. It could be submitted individually or as a panel but it goes in the set.
>>



And often times they are both weighted the same. If you can only get a single by essentially destroying a panel (which you must do -- as you must destroy the surrounding cards to get the entire black dotted lines in as a single) -- shouldn't the panels be weighted substantially more than the singles?

Also -- by requiring Master Set Registrants to have both in their set, instead of just one, you are essentially encouraging the destruction of the panels for those of us who strive for 100% completion.

A smarter way (in my humble opinion), would be for all the panel cards to offer an option of either the panel or the single for 100% completion, with the panel either getting bonus points or a higer weighting given its relative rarity. For those issues that have multiple variations of panels -- I see no issue with including each example.

But PSA is now allowing many panel-type cards to be in the Registry master sets twice -- it is not just Hostess and Kraft, but also the Dorman Cheese issue, the General Mills 1985 issue, the Stuart issue from 1987, etc.

Silliness!!! >>



I agree. its the same when finest card had the protectors. to be 100% you have to both peeled and unpeeled. who cares. one should be enough. the problem is that when they label them as being protected then they end up with 2 variants.

one card or panel should be enough.

fandango

A MASTER set is just that...it should include all cards (not 1/1..i believe 1of 5 is the cutoff) of the player....if its good enough to be optional, it should just be included in the MASTER set without an asterisk...

that is why they have Basic sets---to not have to include those Optional cards----

seems cut and dry to me, dont know why PSA makes it difficult......

TheVon

It seems to me like the addition of optional cards could be a direct response to people's complaints on these very boards. I remember reading a discussion not too long ago about whether or not 1 of 1 cards or limited cards should be added to master sets and the idea of having optional cards was bandied about and supported by several posters. People also complained that there was no attractive way to showcase some of their cards that they were proud of when they weren't part of the set composition. The Collector's Showcase was heralded as too confusing and unwieldy.

This is just my two cents, but it seems to me like PSA is doing their best to give us what we've asked for. Perhaps it is us who should sit down and think about what we really want?

RedRomad275

There is a difference between 1 of 1's and mass produced cards for the Master sets. If you look at the cards I listed you will see they are all mass produced. I don't understand the line of thinking behind this. That aside I was under the understanding that proofs or possible 1 of 1's were not allowed.

Red

Alfiewt

From the set request page:

"Items which may be scarce or new to PSA grading may be added as optional to the set until a population of 3 is reached. If you aware of an increased population for an item and the item is still listed as optional, please email the Set Registry customer service."

NickM

I see 2 legitimate reasons for optional cards: cards they don't grade any more (1984 Ralston Purina is in some player sets) and things that aren't really cards, but which PSA still grades (primarily buttons and pins).

Peeled vs. unpeeled (primarily Finest, but also a few other sets) should have 1 spot, which can be filled by either - it is the same card, after all.

Team cards should be removed entirely unless the person has a special status on the card different from the average player ('75 & '75 Mini Indians Team would still qualify for the Frank Robinson Master Set, because he is the only one named and has a separate head shot from the team picture).

I would leave the panels and singles from food issues, 1981 Scratchoffs, etc. in as separate entrants for the set. It's much more difficult to get a panel (or full box) in high grade than 1 single card cut out of that.

Meanwhile, PSA hasn't figured out that 1976-77 Topps/OPC Glossy should be 4 separate sets for the registry (and 4 separate cards for Master Sets), not 1. Topps and OPC have separate back listings, and rounded and square corners are rather different cards.

Nick

lawyer05

helloe

bobsbbcards

The more things change......

JoeBanzai

Optional.

bammerbb

I think the cards are just what they say they are "OPTIONAL". We (and I'm including myself) sometimes get so worried about what is or is not in the sets, we lose focus on what the set is. And they are sets we should have fun putting together.

For the optional cards with the asterisks, if you go to View Set Contents, you will see down at the end of the cards listed, the asterisk cards are at the end. And then, after the list of them, is this:
"* These items are optional and are not used to calculate the grade or the completion percentage of the set." I know some of the sets I might be interested to make have some asterisks, and it seems like some of them are cards that may only have 1 card graded. Also I think PSA puts some in "just because." Don't think it's a big thing to worry about.