Player Set Composites - Opinion Needed!!

samspop

If a players career ends, say in 1979, his last regular issue card would be in 1980 due to the fact that the stats for a current year card are for the previous season.

Does anyone have an opinion on PSA's stance that the last card in any composite is the last year of play (the above sample would have his composite end in 1979) instead of the last year of a regular issue card? I want to see what the board thinks about this before I respond to Gayle.

Thanks for the read....

ElectricPrune

Other members will know more about this, but for vintage cards, I don't think this will be an issue. I think Topps usually did not put out a card for most players if they were not going to play that season. For instance, if a player played in '74, but retired before the '75 season, he would usually not have a regular issue '75 card. There were some exceptions such as the'75 Kaline Highlight card, the '74 Mays World Series card, and I believe the '67 League Leader card with Koufax. Hope this helps some.

purelyPSA

If it's KNOWN he's not coming back, like Brock, Kaline, Yaz, or Bench, then Topps doesn't bother.

If it's not known early, like Mantle (or Clemente) then there's no consideration for that.

And that's just for Topps - knowing it was the end never stopped Fleer from putting out an 84 Gaylord Perry, 83 Stargell, etc.

I think anything that is directly linked to his efforts as a player - be it the card after he completes play (if there is one) or a record breaker/highlight card (like Brock, Brooks Robinson, etc) - should be included.

samspop

I guess more specifically, I am talking about the McGwire Composites. PSA does not recognize most cards issued in 2002 since his last season was 2001. His 2001 stats include 97 GMs, 299 AB's, 29 HR's, 64 RBI's, which all go toward his career stats. Most companies and most of the different sets within the companies had regular issue cards. A lot included his 2001 stats, others, which seems to be the norm with many of the different issues, had info related to the season or his career. But, since his last season was 2001 and most of the card companies issued 2002 cards based on this, it would seem to make sense that all 2002 cards should be associated to the Master Set...

Would you agree???

tdfitz

Mike- I have run into the same issue with a good 20+ cards for the Nolan Ryan Master set. I am not a fan of their policy, but it is what it is. To me, since Ryan retired in 1993, all of his 1994 cards should be accepted, but I am willing to play within their rules.

MeteoriteGuy

I also agree the cards the year after a player's career ended should be included. I think right now, they will include them, but only if they have stats.

Mark

MeteoriteGuy

I should have said will include them upon request.

Mark

stitzen

I think if you start including years after they retired it opens a whole can of worms...while the cards may reflect their stats gathered from the previous year, its not a picture of their playing career, which is what (I think) the set registry is supposed to be.

If a player plays from say 1955-1970, I think that putting the 1971 card into the set isn't within the guidelines PSA was trying to setup: establish a picture of a player's career.

samspop

But...on the front end, and McGwire is a great example, there is a 1982 card that is included in the Master Composite.

He started playing in 1986, but his "Rookie Year", by PSA acknowledgement is 1987.

So, by that standard, a players Rookie card is typically the year after his 1st year, so shouldn't his final year be the year after his final year on the field??

Now what??

stitzen

I've never agreed with minor league cards being included in any player's master set...it just doesn't make sense to me, so I can't speak to as why that 82 card is there. Hell, to be honest, the olympic card shouldn't be included in his basic set either (even though it's his signature card), as he wasn't playing MLB until 1986.

tdfitz

Let me throw out another odd one for you, well odd in my opinion. The first card in the Nolan Ryan master set is the 1967 Topps Mets team card. He does appear in the photograph, so does it count? I guess. To me the first card of the set should be his true rookie card. But then I get conflicted because I believe every gradeable item should be in the master. At least with the McGwire master set you don't have a $2000-5000 Venezuelan rookie card hole that stares back at you every time you review your set.

samspop

Agreed on the Venezuelan cards, I am looking at one for my Wilhelm set, as well, not an easy search...

But, I do have a 1985 Chong Modesto Error (Mispelled McGuire) card that comes up very rarely...a Gem Mint copy goes for about $500-750.

It just seems odd that PSA has a lot of leeway when it comes to "Rookie Cards", but then leaves out final year cards due to the player not playing during the year of issue...

If it were black and white, I would think that PSA would agree to putting ALL cards issued during their last playing year (such as in McGwire's case, 2002) rather than certain ones, based on requests from whoever wants the card added. It would put better boundaries on the "moving target" aspect that most of the larger composites take on...

jradke4

<< <i>I've never agreed with minor league cards being included in any player's master set...it just doesn't make sense to me, so I can't speak to as why that 82 card is there. Hell, to be honest, the olympic card shouldn't be included in his basic set either (even though it's his signature card), as he wasn't playing MLB until 1986. >>



no the olympic card should be included as many few this as the real rookie. plus it was not an insert card or shorprinted. just as many pete roses are out there. i feel it should stay in a basic set. at least by the rules that they use for those sets.

Alfiewt

Card companies used to stop making cards of a player when he retired, so player sets had a natural stopping point. So for older players you just have to look and see what the last year was that the manufactures issued regular issue cards. For many players, the last regular issued cards were issued in their final playing year, but for many others, the last regular issue cards were the issued the year following their last season. For example, Don Mattingly had many cards issued in 1996 although 1995 was his last season. The 1996 cards absolutely belong in his player sets, they were issued as cards of a regular player because there was some uncertainty whether he was going to come back or not. The card manufactures stopped issuing cards the following year, when it was known for sure that he was not coming back, giving his player sets a natural stopping point.

The manufactures don't stop making cards when a player retires now, so there doesn't seem to be a natural stopping point anymore, but I think including cards of the year following the players final season makes sense to most people.

stitzen

<< <i>

<< <i>I've never agreed with minor league cards being included in any player's master set...it just doesn't make sense to me, so I can't speak to as why that 82 card is there. Hell, to be honest, the olympic card shouldn't be included in his basic set either (even though it's his signature card), as he wasn't playing MLB until 1986. >>



no the olympic card should be included as many few this as the real rookie. plus it was not an insert card or shorprinted. just as many pete roses are out there. i feel it should stay in a basic set. at least by the rules that they use for those sets. >>



But based on the guidelines of the player sets, it says clearly that his Mac's playing years were 1986-2001. Shouldn't the cards included in the player registry sets be that of a player in a major league uniform during his playing years?

edit: just looked through the mcgwire basic set as a sidenote, and wow, what an odd assortment of cards to be included in a 'basic' set. Looks like a ton of cards that should be included in the master set but not a basic one.