HOF Set is on the registry.
carkim
Posts: 1,166 ✭✭
This should be interesting...
0
carkim
Posts: 1,166 ✭✭
Comments
No guidelines have been posted in the registry news for this set other than the obvious checklist in the set composition.
Since you seem to have a handle on this HOF registry thing maybe you could lay out again the basics for the board.
1. Cert's from other sets in the registry - Can those be entered?
2. Any card of a HOF player or just regular issues? Ldr cards, Highlights cards, Father & Son, Bronx Bombers, All-Time Greats, Picture Checklists, and the like? Good or no?
3. Without weighting obviously this can only be a card count. A 1980 Bench counts the same as a 1963 Rose.
4. On the subject of weighting, has BJ leaked any thoughts about how PSA will hande this?
Anything I missed?
I know that we are treading some of the same ground from before this was listed, but dont we have a lot of unanswered questions about this set?
I think any and all interested parties in this set might be a lot more enthusiastic about it if we knew where this was headed.
Thanks.
RayB69Topps.
If people are interested, and it is unfair, they will speak out.
Jim
which essentially makes the set useless until they start weighing it.
Right now, a 1995 Ozzie Smith card counts the SAME as an 1887 Cap Anson card. Ridiculous.
I agree that until the make a Babe Ruth card worth a LOT MORE than an Al Lopez card...
and until they make an 1887 card worth a LOT MORE than a 1987 card...
and until they make a player's real rookie card worth a LOT MORE than some "Turn Back the Clock" reprint card made 45 years AFTER the player died...
then the HOF set will languish into a state of disinterest. Hopefully they will work out some way of weighting the cards and this will NOT be the case ...
because it would be a SHAME to see BJ work so hard for nothing!!!
It's a nice idea for them to suggest a theme in collecting. No matter what formula they come up with, we're never going to agree that it's perfect. It is however far better than what is available elsewhere. They are trying, and will improve it based on our suggestions. It's there, and in whatever state of overall accuracy, it should be used and had fun with.
If nothing else, however, it would not be difficult to assign "weights" to the players like PSA has done in most of the previous sets registered.
The Ruths and Aarons and Cobbs can be 10's ... all the way down to the Eppa Rixeys and Travis Jacksons who can be 1's. With 200 guys, they would just have to sort them out to the Top 20 stars worth 10 points, Next 20 worth 9 points, all the way down to the Last 20 who are worth 1 point. This would only take an HOUR to enter the weights.
THEN ,,, and I agree this would take a lot of effort ... but later they could add in something for the AGE and RARITY of the card, etc.
Regardless of the proper "weighting" system to ever develop, it is clear that you are the Undisputed King! You have nearly every Hall of Famer who has a card, and the grades of your cards are amazing. Any Hall of Fame collection that starts out with a PSA 9 Hank Aaron card is something else.
How about relating weighting directly to the PSA 8 SMR price. We all tend to think of it as an efficient market, so then there is no need to argue: Babe Ruth v. Lou Boudreau, 1955 Bowman v. 1991 Umpire Special Edition set, etc.
Here is my proposal for a card's weight:
SMR 8 value < $25 -- Grade weight of 1
SMR 8 value < $50 -- Grade weight of 2
SMR 8 value < $100 -- Grade weight of 3
SMR 8 value < $250 -- Grade weight of 4
SMR 8 value < $500 -- Grade weight of 5
SMR 8 value < $750 -- Grade weight of 6
SMR 8 value < $1,000 -- Grade weight of 7
SMR 8 value < $2,500 -- Grade weight of 8
SMR 8 value < $5,000 -- Grade weight of 9
SMR 8 value > $10,000 -- Grade weight of 10
That should be a good way to approximate the "weight" of your set. Because the weight should be a good indicator of your collection's value, yes? So, under this system, a 1954 Hank Aaron card has a grade weight of 9, because the SMR is $4,250 on a PSA 8. A 1970 Topps Hank Aaron has a grade weight of 4, because the SMR is $170 on a PSA 8. Then the actual grade can be applied to the grade weight to come up with the "weighting" of that player for that HOF set.
What this needs: Pretty much someone would have to do a fairly comprehensive Hall of Fame checklist to document which the major cards are, and what their SMR value is. It would take a few hours to put together, for sure. But I think it would at least give people a somewhat accurate approximately of each collection's place on the registry.
For the purposes of this Registry, I think that all non-standard cards must be excluded (for ease of reference). Either that, or automatically be assigned a grade weight of 1. I don't care how many 1964 Topps Stamps you have of Hank Aaron, or what they're worth. If you can't just get a normal Topps card, it is a grade weight of 1. For many of the turn-of-the-century ballplayers, they may only have non-standard cards, but it seems like HalleyGator has a pretty good idea of what is available and what is best for each of those players already.
Not a perfect plan, but it could be a start of a work-in-progress.
I have no problem whatsoever with SMR price deciding how many points a card is worth on the "weighted" scale.
I also agree that "reprints" and "commemorative cards" and all such things printed 50 years after a player quits playing should be worth 1 point at most.
The two problems with this are; the time factor with linking the SMR price to a given card and also the cards that are not listed in the SMR - how is a price accessed?
Either this is going to be a very long project, or a crude weighted system will be put in place. If the former, I would suggest weighting it from 1 - 100 because a 1933 Ruth PSA 8 shouldn't be close to a T206 Wagner PSA 8.
Under your logic, the holder of that one single card (T206 Wagner PSA 8) would have the highest weighted Hall of Fame set even if that is the ONLY card they own. That defeats the whole purpose of the set.
How did PSA weigh the T206 Wagner and Plank in the T206 registry as compared to the other cards??
PS - TRIMMED cards (like that PSA 8 Wagner) should not count anyway.
Trimmed or cut from a sheet? At any rate, this topic has been discussed ad naseum in other forums. I was surprised (though probably should not have been) that the second Piedmont that was recently auctioned did not dispel any of the original rumours and grumblings.
Vorthian: As I said, weighting this set will be a huge task for anyone who undertakes it; it was just an idea of how things can be done. There will be some deficiencies, but if you have someone who can put $500,000 into their Hall of Fame set, who's going to bicker over No. 1 and No. 2 spots anyway :-) Their collections will be the envy of the hobby, regardless.
Vorthian: I agree that a 1-100 weighting system would reflect the value of the set better, but I too wouldn't want one card worth more than an entire set. I think collecting a complete set of PSA 9 90's reprint cards is more of an accompishment then writing one big check for a great card (even if it is a Wagner).
Hal: Are you willing to work on a checklist of all cards of HOFers from the 1800's and early 1900's and assign weights. I'm willing to work on cards from later years (which I'm more familiar with). I think if a few of us on this board worked together we can put together a complete checklist of cards of HOFers with weights and submit this to PSA.
Also, I think PSA likes having the HOF set similar to a coin type set (In which coins are not weighted for value or rarity within a series). How would you feel about 2 HOF sets, one that is weighted, and one that is an unweighted type set?
BJ e-mailed me and said that she LIKES the idea of weighting according to SMR price ...
and that it would be EASY for them because the computer already has everything linked in the system !!!
Thus, the only "loophole" would be for oddball cards that are not in the SMR ... and many of those should probably not count anyway!
Maybe we are on to something here ... !!!
- Hal Lewis