Weighting Sets

Wayne8348

The folks at PSA have been doing a great job adding sets to the registry. But many of the new sets are barely being used by the folks on the registry or else having maybe 1 or 2 people registering very few cards. I'm not saying to stop adding sets but I think it would be good to place the emphasis on weighting the mainstream sets which have not been weighted yet. Several of the 1960's and 70's topps sets have not been weighted and their are many members of the registry with a lot of these sets registered.

The list on set registry board has several 1990's sets waiting to be added which would probably not make much sense to grade the commons. Fox example, the best common from the 1998 leaf rookies and stars football may be worth a dime to somebody who doesn't know any better. Who is going to spend $7 to grade these cards?

I'm not saying to stop adding these sets but to maybe add them slower with more emphasis on weighting. The list for set requests is not getting any shorter and a lot of the sets waiting to be added are not going to be collected by as large of group as those collecting 60's and 70's topps.

Wayne

theBobs

Is it appropriate to suggest a set weighting to PSA? How have previously weightings been developed?

Just curious about the historic working relationship between PSA and collectors in building the registry components.

invader73

When PSA look at sets to add to the registry do they look at the pop report to see how many cards they have graded in that set or do they just go by requests? Perhaps they should set a minimum percentage of different cards graded in that set before they add it.

I agree that weighting some sets should be a priority, especially when there are several sets registered.

thegemmintman

Wayne, I have to agree with you. I think the Registry people should at least begin allocating some time to weighting some of the more popular sets. Maybe they could gradually start weighting two "mainstream" sets for every one "non-mainstream" set.

Right now I think they just want to satisfy everyone looking to start a set on the Registry.

Last summer and early fall they had no problems adding new sets to the Registry and weighting them accordingly. What has happened since then? Are they just so overwhelmed? Is Joe Orlando not taking any part in this now since his position with CU changed? Personally, I think it has a lot to do with the latter when it comes to weighting sets.

mikeschmidt

I've heard on numerous occassions (Even from one person who has done it) that if you weight one of the sets yourself, send it on to BJ and Joe Orlando, that they will review it, and, if it is reasonable, or there are minor corrections, they will get the set weighted for you.

WIth many of the sets with not-so-many-cards, it is probably pretty straightforward putting that together.

Alfiewt

I would like to see some of the major sets be weighted, but I don't want them to slow down adding new sets. Even if only one person registers a set for these sets, I would still like to see it. It's the sets that are added to the registry and then now one adds a set thet annoy me.

I also can't weight to see some of the player sets added.

yawie99

i agree! it's frustrating to wait for one's sets to be added/weighted when psa is busy adding sets that may have only 10 percent of the total number of cards graded. what makes it even worse is that few - if any - people have registered many of these recently added sets:

Set Name Total Registered Sets
Baseball: 1982 Donruss 0
Baseball: 1984 Donruss 0
Baseball: 1990 Leaf 1
Baseball: 1992 Bowman 2
Baseball: 1993 Bowman 2
Baseball: 1993 Finest Refractor 1
Baseball: 1999 Bow. Chrome Refractor 0
Football: 1998 SP Authentic 1
Football: 1999 Bow. Chrome 0

calleocho

the set registry is fairly new and its free (although ultimately we pay for it by buying psa cards and sending commons) . i love the registry and while there are things that can improve. we should be glad its there and no doubt many issues will be resolved w/ time . Ethan

yawie99

true enough: i should probably redirect my frustration at the people who request sets and then never bother to register them once they are listed, as well as at those who use secondary e-mail addresses or encourage friends to request sets that they've already requested. (i don't know if the latter group is much of problem, but no honor system is violator free.)

BJ

At the present time we are developing a way to tie weighting to the SMR. This is requiring a great deal of "set up" work on Gayle's my part, but once done, new sets will go up automatically weighted. This will not be without some problems in that there are some cards that are lumped into the common price category when in reality they are not common and will deserve a higher weight than 1. We plan to deal with these issues on a case by case basis. We are estimating the set up work we must do will take about 30 days. Then the programming must be done. I think realistically we should be ready to launch mid to late April.

In the interim, if there are any sets that you feel just HAVE to be weighted right now, please feel free to send me your suggested weighting for the sets. I have had several registrants do this for me and once approved, I've loaded the weights. Please email bj@collectors.com.

Thank you.

mikeschmidt

BJ:

One question -- since you are doing this "tie-in" of SMR prices to the weighting of sets, does that mean that existing weighted sets will in all likelihood be re-weighted? I would be very curious to know. Thank you-

MS

BJ

Probably not. Joe based his weights on the SMR when he originally did them.

One thing we will probably do, which is what we are currently doing for the PCGS Set Registry, is post the suggested weights for a week on the news page to allow registrants to send us any feedback they may have. This has been working well for the PCGS Set Registry. Obviously, it is impossible to make everyone happy, but this preview of the weighting does help.

FB

BJ,

You guys are great! Thanks for all of the help in making what was once a hobby into somewhat of an obsession for a lot of folks. Between the Registry itself and the people involved on the Message Boards, I look forward to checking both places daily to see whats going on. Thanks again and have a great day!!!

HalleyGator

Ditto!!

BJ and the folks there all work 110% to please all of us ... which is darn near impossible!!!

Kudos to BJ and Gayle!!!

carkim

Can someone go into more detail about the Set Registry, SMR tie in.

I don't understand it.

Example. My 1976-77 Topps Basketball set only has 12 cards listed in the SMR. does that mean only 12 cards will have weight higher that 1???

Carlos

carkim

A word about weighting. We are in the process of tying weighting of sets to the Sports Market Report pricing. This does require a great deal of preparatory work, but once done, new set composites will go up with weighting already done. We expect to launch this in approximately six weeks. In the meantime, however, should you want to send us weighting for your favorite sets, we will review the weights and add them to your set composites.

This was from the PSA Insider.

carkim

Can someone go into more detail about the Set Registry, SMR tie in.

Can anyone expand on the weighting question I have???


Example. My 1976-77 Topps Basketball set only has 12 cards listed in the SMR. does that mean only 12 cards will have weight higher that 1???

Carlos

69topps8

The set weighting is not consistant from set to set. For example, the 1969 set is weighted such that every card that is not listed in the SMR is valued at 1. For other sets (like the 1972) some commons or minor stars not listed in the SMR are assigned higher values than other similar cards from a particular series.

Since the 1969 set was one of the first post-1955 sets to be added to the registry, it may be the exception. I'm not very familiar with the 1976-77 Basketball set but my guess is they will use the same approach they've been using for the most recent weighted sets, i.e., they will weight minor stars with a slightly higher value than the basic commons.

carkim

But if the minor stars are not listed in the SMR then how will the computer recognize them when a set is being weighted?

HalleyGator

This is exactly why I think we will all benfit from the Set Registry being "weighted" according to the SMR.... because I think it will force PSA to "subdivide" the common cards in much more detail.

Instead of just listing superstars and then listing all the rest as "commons"... I think they will have no choice but to breakdown the sets even further and make specific listings in the SMR for cards of quality players who were NOT superstars but who were certainly NOT a "run of the mill" common player who played in 3 big league games.

I can think of several examples: Guys like Greg Luzinski, Dave Kingman, Gary Mathews, Willie Montanez, Dave Righetti, etc.

Perhaps these guys who logged some serious quality time in the majors will find the value of their cards now being raised ABOVE the level of "common" ??

NickM

Even more important than adding semi-star players is adding league leader cards, team cards, checklists, and special cards featuring superstars. The market on those is much more stable than the market for semi-stars.
BTW, of the players Hal mentioned, I don't see any demand really for Montanez, Matthews, or Righetti. I would, however, add the following players to the list: Camilo Pascual, Sam McDowell, Boog Powell, Jim Rice, George Foster, Fred Lynn, Richie Allen, Tony Oliva, Vada Pinson, Luis Tiant, Joe Torre, Ken Boyer, Gary Carter, Steve Garvey, Tommy John, Bert Blyleven, Mickey Lolich, Jim Kaat, Denny McLain, Larry Bowa, Dave Concepcion, Billy Pierce, Graig Nettles, Rollie Fingers, and Rich Gossage. Their cards consistently sell for higher than common card prices. [I'm sure there are a lot more who I missed.]

Nick

HalleyGator

My thanks to Nick for taking the time to think of some better examples than the ones I came up with on the fly ...

I guess I was thinking of guys who were one step above common ... while Nick mentioned guys who were one step below Hall of Fame.

Regardless, I hope we are right and that these "non-common" cards will start to get their due!!

NickM

Hal - I was thinking of the players I snap up due to the Beckett effect on dumb dealers. They take a look at the current month's price guide, see that the guy is not among the 20 to 30 cards listed for some vintage set, and figure he's a common. I've even seen HOFers go this way - normally lesser known ones such as Aparicio or Wilhelm, but even as high up as Billy Williams.

Nick

HalleyGator

...and apparently Rollie Fingers, since you listed him in your group!!

carkim

When do you think the SMR will list minor stars?

Carlos