Question for Modern Player Set collectors

jradke4

I was wondering what everyones thoughts were on having pelled and unpelled proctector cards as separate cards on master sets. For example 1997 finest came with a proctective coating on the card. Cards are graded with and without the coating and labeled as such. However this just makes for duplicates of the same card. I understand that some see these are two variations. However as one gets to limited issues like for example Certified Platinum Golds which are numbered to 30, that chances of being able to obtain both variations is hard and expensive. I would rather see them accept either varation of the card.

thoughts??

mdkuom

I agree 100 %. I have a few cards that have the coating still, but are not labeled as such so I can use them as the uncoated version even though they clearly are not. It would be much simpler to not distinguish between the two.

mikeschmidt

PSA has so many ridiculous things with modern player master sets.

Drake's cards -- Master sets include both the panel form and the hand-cut single form. Why should you need two, especially if you have a really nice panel?
1981 Topps Scratch-Offs. Issued in three perforated panels, but again it's included in the master set as the separated panel and the panel.
Same with Hostess Panels from the 1970s. And the 1983 Fleer Stickers and 1982 Fleer Stamps.

PSA obviously encourages this because it helps their bottom line. But it really is frighteningly silly that many of us (including myself) have been suckered into getting duplicates of these cards in various forms so that we can adhere to PSA's guidelines in order to try and achieve a 100% completion rate.

fuj

I don't like having both versions on the registry but I have found that it is easier to get a higher grade on a peeled card. That is why the unpeeled versions usually carry a higher weight (at least it does on the Jordan master set).

I think it is unreasonable and cost prohibitive to have duplicates of the low numbered or hard to find cards just for the sake of the registry.

NathanSr

I had an email conversation with Gayle Kean a while back regarding the 1997 Pinnacle Certified Platinum Golds. I was told that on Pinnacle Brands, the label will not show any sort of designation wether the coating is peeled or not. So I peeled it and submitted.

NathanSr

InMySock

<< <i>I had an email conversation with Gayle Kean a while back regarding the 1997 Pinnacle Certified Platinum Golds. I was told that on Pinnacle Brands, the label will not show any sort of designation wether the coating is peeled or not. So I peeled it and submitted.

NathanSr >>



This is what I learned also, but not by talking to anyone. I had the base version of the Pinnacle Certified card with the coating still on. Everytime I submitted it with the coating on, it would come back a 9. I wanted the "W/COATING" designation on the holder, but PSA wouldn't add it. So, I peeled it, and sent it in again. Whammy, a 10.

When it comes to the 1997 Pinnacle Certified cards (base or Totally), why not peel it? You don't get anything for it by not peeling the coating. Heck, buy a PSA 9 with the coating, crack it, peel it, and get a 10. That is what I would do...

Although, I am not sure why the coating doesn't apply to 1997 Pinnacle cards, but it somehow does to the Finest cards? How can it be one, and not the other (or all)?

~IMS

NathanSr

<< <i>Although, I am not sure why the coating doesn't apply to 1997 Pinnacle cards, but it somehow does to the Finest cards? How can it be one, and not the other (or all)? >>



I was wondering this as well. I was told that "Operations" makes that decision.

NathanSr

AlanAllen

For some years of Finest (1998 football for sure), there were distinct "no protector" parallels that came straight from the pack that way. There are other differences with the no protector parallels... from memory the stock was slightly thinner and the backs were slightly shinier. So, you can't just peel the protector off a base card. Anyway, in those cases, there should be two seperate cards on registry sets. In years where the cards only came from packs with the protector, there should not be. Seems pretty obvious to me, but then I'm assuming they know and care about modern variations.

Joe

jradke4

If you notice they dont have the same stipulation for the mystery finest cards. They had black covers that had to be removed to see the player was you got.

As for the one year when they had the parrallel insert with out the protector I agree. However as was pointed out there is a diffrence in the protector variety and the non-protector.

Browntoni

Why have LEAF cards been added to BASIC player sets????

Porkchopper4

The people who have Modern Player Sets were asked to vote on whether Leaf sets (and a "few" other brands) should be added and Leaf got voted in. If Leaf got voted in, why not O-Pee-Chee? It doesn't make sense to me. The Basic sets are still messed up IMO, but I guess they cannot please everyone.

mikeschmidt

<< <i>Why have LEAF cards been added to BASIC player sets???? >>



Who knows? Although history remembers them as being pretty ugly -- the Sportflics issues were much more widely available in the late 1980s than Leaf

Alfiewt

Adding the 1985-1988 leaf cards to the basic set was a horrible idea and goes completely against the concept of the basic sets. I tried to tell PSA that the 1985-1988 leaf cards are completely different from the 1990-present leaf cards and they split them up in the poll that was sent out. Unfortunately, I think most of the people who voted for the pre-1990 leaf cards were thinking of the 1948-49 and 1960 leaf sets which should be in the basic sets. I can't imagine any collector believing the 1985-1988 leaf cards fit the concept of the basic sets.