Current Finest or All-Time Finest (Which is really more important?)

thegemmintman

Every time I view the Registry I get distracted between these two sections. The Registry lists the top 5 for each of these lists (I realize we can access more than that), but puts the All-Time Finest list first.

I think the way they should do it is to put only the Current Finest list, and list the top 10 set collectors for said set. I think the All-Time list is a bit superfluous. I don't really need to know that David Hall used to have the best set ever before he decided to break it up.

At most what the Registry should do (for All-Time Finest) is to list separately a single Set Rating as the best that had ever been assembled. This way it gives collectors an idea of what the best ever was but doesn't throw five sets at them that leave us to figure out whether those sets exist anymore.

So in review, I suggest a Current Finest list only with the top ten collectors. This would be a lot more inclusive for set collectors than to list only the top five. A lot of people would be happy to see this. A single figure for All-Time Finest would be put in close proximity to the Current Finest list. That would be it. I think we should still be able to access a comprehensive list of sets as we do now to see how many sets have been registered in total.

What does everyone think?

skylaneflyer

Z,

I agree, the current, active and in-tact sets are relevant. What was the finest set, is no longer the finest set, so who really cares.

Sky

Vargha

I actually don't care either way.

mikeschmidt

I think it should be updated to show the 5 Finest All-Time and the 10 Current Finest.

With the Finest All-Time, I think that it serves two purposes: a) when master sets break up, it is sometimes easy to see where the cards have went, how they got dispered, what still isn't registered, etc. b) I think it is interesting to see how close some people got to "the best possible" set.

I do think that Current Finest should be listed first, though, since that is what people here will use most.

As time goes on -- more of these "All-Time Finest" sets will be broken up. Thus, having a history of what once was is very useful information, I think. For example, I am often perplexed at why Kirk Harris' T-206 set is no longer listed in the All-Time Finest section of T206. It may have been his personal decision, but it was a very useful benchmark for the T-206 set.

I will say that I certainly have no interest in seeing a complete list of 20 "Current Finest" 1968 Topps sets, or whatever, when 17 of those sets are under 5% complete. I'm exaggerating for effect, but I think you get my point. I don't care if someone has 17 PSA 7 and 8 cards in their 1968 set. Nor do I ever plan to care.

It's a small matter, but those are my thoughts.

dalew

I'm a little confused (but many know that). If I break up a Set Registered Set, does that set stay in the All Time Finest? If so, if I sell a slab from that set, how can a person who has purchased that card upload it to the site? I didn't think that two cards with the same registry number could be uploaded to the same site.

Or is the all time finest and the current finest separate from each other?

Thanks,

Dale

thegemmintman

Dale, the answer to the first part of your question is yes. I don't know the answer to your second question, but it's a good question that I've always wondered about.

carkim

Dale,

Actually the answer to your first question is YES and NO.

If you have a set that is at least 90% complete it will remain in the All-Time Finest list forever. Even if you delete cards from your set or delete your entire set altogether. (once a card is deleted from your set, it can be added to another set.)

If your set is less that 90% complete (Like my second 1976-77 Topps Basketball set) and you sell is or break it up, it will be deleted forever. I did this once with my second 1974 Topps Baseball set. Now Todd owns it and it is in his name. Looking at the "current" list no one would ever know that Todd's set use to be mine.

Carlos

Mitochondria

Dale,

I usually request collectors remove cards from the registry that they sell or trade to me which they have always done. What is even more baffling is that someone can simply take the certification numbers out of Superior, Mastro, e-Bay auctions, etc. and begin registering a set. At least PSA has a mechanism to settle disputes (even though it is time consuming for those of us who keep most of our cards in the bank)in occasionaly requiring scans of the cards.

On another note, I believe that the registry should maintain both the current and all-time lists. Furthermore, I hope in time that scans will be required in sets that make the all-time list. It is not fun looking at a bunch of numbers not knowing what the centering strengths are or were!

Ron

Cnelsons

Just to clarify if I'm reading this right. One card CAN be registered to 2 or more sets?

vdavalillo

I think it is fine just the way it is.

First, I care about how good David Hall's and possibly other sets were and it makes it interesting to have both comparisons.

Secondly, given that you can access the complete list of sets with no trouble, whats the difference whether the first page lists 5 or 10.

carkim

Cnelsons> In some cases, YES!