Define "weight"

AbsolutJake

I've been unable to really get a definition of weighting as it relates to set building. How is it, or at least what should the formula be behind the valuation of a card's weight.

Concepts that come to mind include:
1) What was print run of this card versus the print run of other cards in the set.
2) Were there common printing problems with this card?
3) What was/is the popularity of this card?

Am I close? The reason I ask is because the set I collect has a really screwed up weighting and I want to fix it, but first I want to understand what it should be.

Any help is appreciated,
Jake

markj111

Just a thought-if you do not know how the weighting is computed, how do you know it is incorrect?

Morgoth

I am pretty sure it's based on things such as perceived scarcity (sometimes real sometimes not), popularity (HOF's are always ranked higher and they even have different tiers of their popularity), and if they were in a rarer series they will sometimes be weighted higher. The big issue you get is that after all these years of grading "surprise" rare cards have come to light. Rarely do the weightings get adjusted for these common card rarities. In sets that cross over to different years, I believe overall set rarity comes into play such as 71's being harder to get in high grade than 68's even though they are older. I wonder if you could come up with an equation that takes alot of these factors into play and spit out a weight. Couldn't be worse than the BCS.

AbsolutJake

<< <i>Just a thought-if you do not know how the weighting is computed, how do you know it is incorrect? >>



Because right now, cards that had a print run of 170,000 are given the same weight as cards that had a print run of 1,100. It's just wrong.

AbsolutJake

<< <i>I am pretty sure it's based on things such as perceived scarcity (sometimes real sometimes not), popularity (HOF's are always ranked higher and they even have different tiers of their popularity), and if they were in a rarer series they will sometimes be weighted higher. The big issue you get is that after all these years of grading "surprise" rare cards have come to light. Rarely do the weightings get adjusted for these common card rarities. In sets that cross over to different years, I believe overall set rarity comes into play such as 71's being harder to get in high grade than 68's even though they are older. I wonder if you could come up with an equation that takes alot of these factors into play and spit out a weight. Couldn't be worse than the BCS. >>



Yeah, that's what I'm trying to do, and I'm just about done. For those wondering, the set I'm looking at is a non-sport set. It's the original (aka Alpha) Magic: The Gathering set printed back in '93. This set had 290 cards and there were 4 tiers of rarity.

1) 5 Basic Lands: Print run of 170k per card. (2 versions of each of these with a print run of 85k each)
2) 74 Commons: Print run of 16k per card.
3) 95 Uncommons: Print run of 4.5k per card.
4) 116 Rares: Print run of 1.1k per card.

So my first component of my equation is reward a point for each level of rarity.

1 point for Basic Lands, 2 points for Commons, 3 points for Uncommons and 4 points for Rares

My next component would be a bonus point assigned to cards that had printing issues. There were a handful of cards that had the same defect 99% of the time they were printed. These include offcentering and assorted print marks. These errors are identical on every card, making it nearly impossible to find a 10 for this card.

So this brings us up to a total of 5 possible points. 4 for being rare and 1 for print issues.

The final component of the equation would be what I'll call Popularity. The difficulty in collecting these cards, because this was originally a game, is that the more popular cards were handled frequently making them more difficult to find in pristine conditions. The range for this component I put at 5 points bringing the total possible points to 10. The equation would look like this:

Print run of card + Potential point for printing issues + Popularity of card = Weight

Make sense?

mikeschmidt

Weighting, at its core, should be tied to card value, not to print runs, which can often be irrelevant. If it is a player set to which you are referring -- cards are being added all the time, and I would suggest waiting until the Player Set is complete until re-weighting is done.

That said, collecting is supposed to be fun. Sure, the competition and camarederie is a hoot, but if you are getting yourself bent out of shape because your 1996 Pinnacle Artist's Proof Refracting Game-Used Grass Mark McGwire card is given the same Set Registry weight as your 1991 Leaf Mark McGwire card, you may want to take a short break from the hobby...

AbsolutJake

<< <i>Weighting, at its core, should be tied to card value, not to print runs, which can often be irrelevant. If it is a player set to which you are referring -- cards are being added all the time, and I would suggest waiting until the Player Set is complete until re-weighting is done.

That said, collecting is supposed to be fun. Sure, the competition and camarederie is a hoot, but if you are getting yourself bent out of shape because your 1996 Pinnacle Artist's Proof Refracting Game-Used Grass Mark McGwire card is given the same Set Registry weight as your 1991 Leaf Mark McGwire card, you may want to take a short break from the hobby... >>



I totally see what your saying and agree. I'd rather they not even have a weighting system, but if they do incorporate one, it needs to be something close to accurate. Toward your point of valuation determining weight, the inconsistency is even greater there. There are cards that sell for $1 being given the same weight as $200 cards. Using the formula I posted above would map the cards almost identically with what their sale prices usually are. If I don't get buy-in from the other Alpha collectors, I'll just let things be. But if they are equally irked, I'd like to offer a solution.

WinPitcher

Because right now, cards that had a print run of 170,000 are given the same weight as cards that had a print run of 1,100. It's just wrong.

within the same set?


Steve

AbsolutJake

<< <i>Because right now, cards that had a print run of 170,000 are given the same weight as cards that had a print run of 1,100. It's just wrong.

within the same set?


Steve >>



Yep

MorrellMan

If I understand this correctly, this is a game set - the shorter print runs are specifically meant to create "trump" cards that are of more value in playing the game. It also makes sense that in the trading market, these stronger "trump" cards would cost more. However, I'm not so sure that the registry weighting system is applicable to this. Is it fair to assume that there is more trading, volume wise, on the more valuable cards? If so, they would appear to be easier to get than some of the lesser traded "commons". I think you're using a yardstick to measure pounds.

mikeschmidt

Jake-

When I review the set composition, I see that there already is a weighting in place (e.g. new sets are defaults at a weighting of 1 for each card). For anyone who has ever played the game (which I did a decade ago....), we all know that the Ancestral, the Mox cards and the Black Lotus are the key cards to the set. Unsurprisingly, they all have weightings of 8 to 10. PSA will only ever have a weighting system of 1-10, so don't try and get fancy with half-points, or cards weighted at 342, or anything like that.

Now, perhaps an Uncommon Card from the set sells for the same as a Common. Is that the case? Sometimes the relative production of Common and Uncommon is so little, as compared to the rares.

As for printing defects -- interesting, but probably not important. Or, perhaps important, but it will not be persuasive, unless you have bonafide evidence of condition scarcity because of the printing defects. And, just to be clear, PSA really bases its weightings off of scarcity in PSA 8 condition. So if the printing issue you talk about prevents 10s from happening, but the card is still plentiful in NM/MT condition, it simply won't matter.

Finally, and this may be your biggest stumbling block (I say this, as you are #2 in the Set Registry, despite a higher completion percentage). Changing the weighting of sets is most likely to work if you have a concensus of other key Set Registry participants. I assure you that if you can get 8 or 9 of the Top 10 guys on the Registry (or even 3 or 4 of the Top 5) to agree on a new weighting for the set -- it is highly likely that it will be approved, as you guys are probably more of the subject matter experts than anyone else. But your arguments here may not be as persuasive to your competitors on the Registry.

Good luck,
marc

thefootballcardstore

Weight is based on value. However, value could be defined as a short print common as they are valued more.


Here is weighting as defined by PSA:

Set rankings are determined by the grades of the items in the set, the "weight" assigned to each item in the set, and the set's completeness. Each item within the set is assigned a item rating based on the value of the item in NM-MT condition. For example, a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle would have a much stronger rating than a 1952 Topps common and, therefore, be given more weight in evaluating the set as a whole. Most sets are broken down using a 1-10 scale, with 10 being the greatest weight. Some sets feature ultra-rare items. Those items will command a much higher weighting according to their relative rarity. If the set is very small with little variation in individual item prices, then the scale may be 1-5. Weighting for each set is viewable by clicking on the set composite link found on each set page.

WinPitcher

Jake what set has a print run of 170k for some cards and 1,100 for others? Are you talking about inserts?

Im confused.

Steve

ezyshooter

Weighting is done by the SMR value what PSA publishes. If common cards are 20-30 dollars a card in PSA 8 then a card that is worth 200-300 will have a weight of 10. Some cards like #4 from the 1970 Topps basketball is so far off it's not funny. Card is only weighted a 1 but a PSA 8 goes for 400-500 dollars everytime on e-bay because of it being a sp and very few graded a PSA 8. PSA does not consider SP in sets just to make it fair to people. Otherwise all SP's would have very high weight and only a hand full of people could afford cards in higher grades as PSA 9 or 10's if available.
So the answer to your question is they go by a cards value set at PSA 8 levels only.
Steve

shagrotn77

Weight =

Fuzz

No one in here went with (mass x gravity) ??

MS,
Check 63 Topps FB weights. I don't know who did it but it is clearly an exception to your rule.
Fuzz

AbsolutJake

<< <i>Jake what set has a print run of 170k for some cards and 1,100 for others? Are you talking about inserts?

Im confused.

Steve >>



Magic Sets

Here is a link that describes the Magic sets. You can take a look at the Alpha set description. In short, here is the breakdown:
1,100 of each of the Rares were printed
4,500 of each of the Uncommons were printed
16,000 of each of the Commons were printed
85,500 of each of the Lands were printed (per picture)

AbsolutJake

<< <i>Weighting is done by the SMR value what PSA publishes. >>



Unfortunately PSA doesn't publish SMR values for Magic cards.

Morgoth

I agree with your weighting system. I used to play magic with the team Dead Guy's (Chris Pikula, Dave Price etc) when I was at Cornell. I do have another addition though. I think you should give the power nine in that set a huge bonus, like maybe a 10. Otherwise I agree with your rankings. They would be fair as when I collected those cards the difficulty is divided up into commons, uncommons and rares. I do think value is important but can't think of many uncommons that are worth that much more than the playable rares (Psi Blast, Counterspell, Knights come to mind as being worth more).

helionaut

For the alpha set, I'd look at giving more weight to those cards that weren't reprinted in Revised-onward higher than those that were, and those that weren't reprinted after Revised a little less (duals, Fork, Sol Ring). Unless they really stank, chances are they have greater value and some degree of the prestige that is the root of weight. Even though Lich was never really a good card, the one in my trade binder always gets a lot of interest. Commons and uncommons, too. Berserk and Invisibility are two of my favorite cards. Berserk is one of the most valuable uncommons in the game, and Invisibility is just a good card given the lack of walls anymore. I'd also give a little higher weight to Chaos Orb since that was designed to be handled roughly, and so would get a little bonus weight to emphasize the difficulty of condition, in addition to it being a popular, unreprinted rare.

AbsolutJake

<< <i>For the alpha set, I'd look at giving more weight to those cards that weren't reprinted in Revised-onward higher than those that were, and those that weren't reprinted after Revised a little less (duals, Fork, Sol Ring). Unless they really stank, chances are they have greater value and some degree of the prestige that is the root of weight. Even though Lich was never really a good card, the one in my trade binder always gets a lot of interest. Commons and uncommons, too. Berserk and Invisibility are two of my favorite cards. Berserk is one of the most valuable uncommons in the game, and Invisibility is just a good card given the lack of walls anymore. I'd also give a little higher weight to Chaos Orb since that was designed to be handled roughly, and so would get a little bonus weight to emphasize the difficulty of condition, in addition to it being a popular, unreprinted rare. >>



Good thought. Lack of being reprinted after Unlimited definitely makes those much more intriguing. Thanks Helio.