Idiotic new "guidelines" for adding cards to Registry

Steve1124

Is anyone else as annoyed as I am about PSA's new "guidelines" that a particular card issue must have AT LEAST THREE in the population report, in order for that card to be entered in the Set Registry?! Oh, they will allow the card to be added with fewer than 3, BUT will designate it as "optional", and if you have one, it will not count toward the set completion per centage! To me, this is just plain stupid, and creates an immediate inconsistency with other issues that are ALREADY IN THE REGISTRY with less than a count of 3! Some cards are just genuinely rare, and may NEVER have a total of 3 graded--but now, if you have add one of these, you are going to be penalized in effect, by not having it count toward your set's completion per centage! Ah, but if someone else ALREADY HAS such an issue in the Registry, it does NOT get the stigma of having it become "optional". This is just plain stupid, inconsistent, and uncalled for.

Your thoughts??

SOM

Follow the money...

Think about thow this puts $$$ in PSA's pocket...

Publius

Was this something that just came out? something new?

envoy98

I've never heard that before. The T206 Honus Wager is optional for the T206 set but it has a pop of >3. The Bronko Nagurski is required in all the football sets he applies too...But I guess when a psa 3 costs you a couple grand vs. 200k...

Stump

This doesn't make sense to me. Where did you see this new rule??

asphaltman76

The T206 Wagner isn't optional. You have no way of ever getting 100% completion without the Wagner.....unfortunately.

JasP24

I believe this applies to only Player sets. Also, the POP 3 sounds like it applies to the TOTAL population of the card, not the POP in a particular grade..In which case the Honus and Bronko are both over 3 in total pops. Here's the word for word from PSA.

Player Card Requests to Established Sets:
Player set compositions, especially for modern basic sets and all master sets, are constantly expanding as new cards are graded by PSA. If you have a card that does not yet appear in a player set, you may request that it be added to the set. 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. Beginning January 1, 2007, pins will also be included in the player sets.

Makes sense really...I'm sure PSA made this change because they've had tons of complaints from collectors when a card gets added to a players set that is a POP 1 in any grade...Especially the low serial numbered types..

Jason

Alfiewt

This has been the policy for a while and I really like the rule. I don't see a problem with having to wait until there is a reasonable population of a card before it counts in the registry. I would hate to be collecting a set and have my completion percentage drop because another collector submits a bunch of obscure cards. I think it is a much better way of integrating cards into the registry. It also prevents true 1 of 1 cards from accidentally being added to the registry which I think would completely ruin the player registries. Just be patient, if the card isn’t truly rare, it will soon have a pop of 3 or more and be required in the registry.

Steve1124

Alfiewt- I see your point, but my main gripe is the INCONSISTENCY it creates. For cards ALREADY IN the Player Set, with a pop. of less than 3--they're "okay" and can STAY there. BUT--someone cannot introduce a NEW rare card into the set, unless there becomes at least of three of them! That particular issue could also have some graded by a different company, which likewise "won't count". If they are going to implement this rule, they should be CONSISTENT, and pull out EVERY card until it has a population of at least three.

Alfiewt

I think it would take a lot of work to go through all of the player sets and remove all cards that have a pop of less than 3. If you know of any truly rare cards in sets that are not likely to have a pop of 3 or more anytime soon, I would send an email asking to have the cards removed. I wouldn't worry about cards that aren't truly rare and just haven't had enough cards submitted yet though. Those cards will soon have a pop of three and the inconsitency will be fixed. Which player sets are you concerned about?

Steve1124

Alfiewt- Am mainly working on a Feller, Colavito, and J. DiMaggio sets. Just to give you an example of an inconsistency that's been created: In the Feller (master) set, there is a 1954 Topps Scoop #27, AND a 1954 Topps Scoop #27 WITH COATING. The "coating" thing is a joke, as it's simply a card where the black strip "coating" was never scratched off! There is only ONE card like that, with the coating, and it is in it's own set--in NON-sports, for the 1954 Topps Scoops--and that's fine--that's where it belongs. But to keep it in the Feller Master Set is ridiculous--they have the actual issue there already, since there are several graded (with the coating removed). I have written to PSA in the past, asking them to remove this one from the Master Set, but my plea fell on deaf ears. Maybe NOW however, with this new policy, they'll re-consider. I just wish PSA would stop "changing the rules" in mid-stream!

tdfitz

I have run into this rule with the Nolan Ryan master set and dislike it immensely as well. There are 13 cards at the bottom of the list that are "optional" as there are less than 3 graded total. Why should I be busting my ass to make my master set as complete as possible, only to get a red star next to it and not have it be truly part of the set? I have one of two 1971 Venezuelan stickers of Ryan that are graded and I guess I have to wait out the next ten years before someone grades the third before this item, which should be weighted at least a 9 or 10, can be added. Rediculous in my opinion. A master set is just that... a master. I understand this policy for a basic set.... but not a master.

mikeschmidt

Interestingly, the Player Set Registries have been around for five years before this rule was created....and there are many player sets that have existing cards that are *not* optional with total populations fewer than five.

Nothing to beat inconsistency like more inconsistency.