STUPID QUESTION!!!

rw2win

OK, I have a big bullseye on my chest.

1. - Why do some sets have grade weights and some don't?
2. - Who established these grade weight values? PSA?
3. - What is the criteria? Yes, I understand that Aaron is weighted more than a common, but what is it based on? Is it pure stats? Is it number of times a card has been graded and the number of 10's and 9's?

Thanks,
It's Friday night in Iowa, the wife and kids are a sleep and I'm sippin' an Icehouse. Nothing could be finer!

DL

mcastaldi

RW> In order. . .
1. This is because many people were concerned that sets were not being added to the Set Registry quickly enough. When the PSA Set Resistry Forum was created and these feelings were voiced, BJ explained that Joe Orlando was the one who established the weights and when he was promoted the sets backed up. At that point, she offered to post the sets to the registry in an unweighted form and the weights would be added later. The group overwhelmingly chose to add the sets in an unweighted format rather than continue to wait.
2. See #1
3. I'm sure there is some subjectivity to it, but I do know things like HOF status, series, overall popularity, team checklists, etc. Factored into it. For example, some Thurman Munson cards from certain years will have higher values than lower-line HOFers. To my knowledge, population has little or nothing to do with the weighting.

Mike

Vargha

The answer to #3 is strictly price. Since the scale is from 1 to 10 and commons must be a 1 (lowest weight) then everything else is weighted accordingly. It is not linear, however, since the 10 can be many times more valuable than just ten times the 1. For example, in the 1951 Bowman set, a high pop. PSA 8 low number common sells for about $40 and is graded a "1". Mantle's rookie card in PSA 8 sells for about $20,000 (or a factor of 500x) and is weighted as a "10".

Population factors absolutely ZERO in the process.