Pack Registry

gemint

Has anyone heard if a pack registry is in the making? Did anyone bring this up at the national luncheon? I see they did start a pop report.

I don't think PSA pack grading will really take off until it gets plugged in with the set/pack registry. If they include packs in master sets, it will drive higher demand for PSA graded packs on one hand, but on the other it may discourage people from building master sets.

ROCKDJRW

I wouldn't want them put into master sets. Where would it stop. Wax Pack? Cello Pack? Rack Pack? Vending Box? Case? ETC

gemint

I would arbitrarily draw the line at a wax pack (nickel pack for vintage). Traditionally some colletors have thought sets aren't complete without an accompanying wax pack.

Griffins

I agree with John. Either a nickel or dime pack, depending on the year. No racks or cellos, penny packs maybe, but with a lot less weight.
Make it part of the master set, and also have a complete pack set run for each of Topps, Bowman, Fleer, etc.

gemint

Anthony, I'd also like to see the pack set run on the registry. The master set addition could be controversial but a pack run should be a slam dunk.

Griffins

Judging by the pops there seems to be very little demand for pack grading. Hopefully PSA won't make the same mistake that Global did in not getting a registry off the ground. Already it's been a year, and no sign of anything.

VinScully

I asked this very question last week, and here's the good news reply I got a few days ago:



Yes, we will have a wax pack registry, probably next year.

Thank You,

Michele Redmond
Set Registry Coordinator
Collectors Universe Inc.

gemint

Wonder why it takes so long. The infrastructure is already there. If they can add a Pepe Frias player set upon request, it should be a relatively simple job to add a pack registry. The sooner they get it online, the sooner they take the market over from GAI.

rube26105

i hope they can take it from gai,they are the worst pack graders ive seen,2 bad experince s with their so called "graded" packs,psa is so picky you know they will be right and gone over with a fine tooth comb anyways,and that s a good thing, i opened a slab 1976 gai(sucks lol)pack that iwon in a lot of stuff,was justexpecting some 76 comons or something ,nothg real specail, the wax seal was broke on the back, and it had 6 cards in it,all from 1975,now thats quality control right there ,i will never buy a gai anything if they are that stupid that they cant tell a full pack from a opened on with 6 cards in it,they are going under i hope,you would think psa would want a pack registy rather quick,its not like it would take a team of brain surgeons to figure out how to do it or anything, just start on it and build now, dont wait till next year, get it up and running at least, they got pop report,now get something on the registry,dont care if its a one pack year a week,there are all sports and nonsports to do,gotta start somewhere,dont care if its 88 score lol,just take it away from gai!
randy

grote15

Randy,

Not saying your pack was/wasn't legit, but Topps did routinely use prior year's wrappers (and wax boxes) when they were short. Many 1976 BB wax packs were wrapped in 1974 wrappers, for instance.

rube26105

nah,this one was looked over by gai,there were 5 cards that were pack fresh,and one that was beat half to death on all corners,i hope psa can put the gai pack grading out

wheat34

On June 1st, I had a productive conversation regarding this with Roy from PSA. Here is a follow-up email sent to him after our phone call:

"I appreciate the time you made for me today to discuss some ideas regarding cello packs and the potential to have full sets of a given year / company (for example 1987 Topps would have 792 packs in the 1987 Topps Cello Pack registry to represent each of the available cards in the regular set #1 - #792). Your points were extremely valide when discussing cello packs from the 1960's where the card on top could be the only one of that player that exists in that form (making it impossible to compete with others in the registry). You expressed a concern that packs may not exist in sufficant quantity to justify having a set registry establish for any year. I would agrue that is certainly not the case for packs in the 1980's but may be the case for pre-1980 packs. Barring an appropriate population of grading packs (even when considering 1987-1990 cello packs that are is an overabundance of cases available on the market) I completely understand and agree with your justification.

My strongest arguement right now would be based on our discussion of labeling. I believe that labeling the Front card number (i.e. #540 Lou Brock - Top) and Back card number (i.e. #2 '74 Highlights Lou Brock - Back) would serve muliple purposes. #1 - Clarity / Informational - This would be helpful for people that may want a quick reference for looking up the value or putting their graded cello packs in number order. #2 - Would allow for PSA to keep track of the population of these player packs. If both front and back are used for population purposes, it may justify the creation of a complete set of a given year and perhaps the player appearing on the front would be a 100% weight while the player on the back would be 50% weight (something like that). #3 - Keeping track of the population of players could become another area of sets. For example, if you look at ebay and look at the number of Barry Bonds showing on the top of 1987 Topps and Fleer cello packs, it seems that the population is not all that rare. Continuing to label and keep track of these player packs would reveal other players that could have player / team cello packs (1987 Topps Pirates Cello Team Set ... ). There are plenty of odd ball collectors out there (that being said I am putting together a 1933 Sport Kings set while at the same time working on my Herschel Walker set ...). #4 - If the population numbers never justify the creation of a complete set registry, there still may be people out there that will still be submitting their "common" 1987 Topps cello packs looking to have a "complete cello set". But, if the labeling allows the database to tie the card number(s) (if using both front and back) to the respective numbers in the set, PSA has the potential to have a new competitive set registry component that I believe will be quite successful.

Sorry for being long winded, it just seems if the labeling and database ties are done now, it seems like there is very little risk and an abundance of potential."

Harry

grote15

Labeling each cello with each card # is ill-conceived, impractical and unnecessary, IMO.

wheat34

Grote15 - initial thoughts on why labeling is important,

#1 - Quick reference / Value determination - The value of a cello pack within a specific year is going to have a premium based on who is on the top (and bottom) of the pack. Not only will labeling the card number allow for quick reference for stars but also determining series for older cellos.

#2 - Set Registry - Using Topps as an example, every regular topps set in the 1970's and 1980's is represented in the set registry. This has allowed these sets to grow in popularity and value as condition rarity has created an additional challenge to completing this set. Completing this set based on each card from the set appearing on top/bottom of a cello pack would not only be a fun challenge but would also raise the value of these pack and awareness of PSA pack grading.

Harry

grote15

I completely understand your reasoning for wanting to label each cello the way you described, wheat, I just don't think unopened pack collectors will care if they have a 1977 cello with Don Aase on top and Joel Youngblood on the bottom, as opposed to one with Jim Barr on top and Elliott Maddox on the bottom. The value (or premium as you phrased it) will vary only if a star is showing, anyway. It'd be the rare breed of unopened collector who'd endeavor to collect a cello from a particular year with each card from the set on top. And the truth is, when you get to vintage packs from the 1950s or 1960s, the product is so scarce to begin with, that such a format is impractical. I just don't think comparing the set registry for single cards to a set registry for packs is an accurate analogy. And how will you reconcile wax packs with this model? I'd think the pack registry would be uniform in terms of GPA or grading, so I can't see PSA establishing one model for cellos and another for wax. Most unopened collectors care primarily about two things, IMO: 1) Authenticity and 2) Condition (or grade). The notation of a star showing on the holder is more than sufficient already. Labeling each cello with the name of a common player on top AND on bottom is just overkill, IMO.

gemint

I agree. Few would be willing to collect a set comprised of cards showing on the top & bottom of rack/cello packs. I had the forsight to grade commons and start building my 1969 complete graded set in the late 90s when everyone else thought I was crazy but I don't see "pack sets" as being viable. I think adding a wax, rack and cello set to the master set registry is about as far as I think we can go with including packs in the set registry. Other than that, a pack run registry is the other possibility as far as pack registries will go.