Set rating question.
billwaltonsbeard
Posts: 3,748 ✭✭✭✭
Why is it that cards in the registry are rated based on the raw card value rather than the Population Report?
This doesn't seem right to me.
In the 86 Fleer set for example, Maurice Lucas, Rolando Blackman and Steve Johnson are 3 of the tougest 9s in the set. Yet their rating doesn't reflect that.
Any thoughts?
This doesn't seem right to me.
In the 86 Fleer set for example, Maurice Lucas, Rolando Blackman and Steve Johnson are 3 of the tougest 9s in the set. Yet their rating doesn't reflect that.
Any thoughts?
0
Comments
Link To Scanned 1952 Topps Cards Set is now 90% Complete Plus Slideshows of the 52 Set
I think the system does have some flaws though. PSA 8 in 1952 Topps is a lot harder than PSA 8 in 1990 Leaf. In my opinion, there is no one standard that makes sense when applied to all sets across the board. I think each set needs to be evaluated on its own to account for the vast differences in conditions from year to year an issue to issue.
I also find this very confusing from the Set Registry's FAQs:
"What are weights?
Within a set, not all cards and tickets have the same value. Sets in the PSA Set Registry are weighted on a 1 to 10 scale with 10 being the rarest item and 1 being the most common. While it may be in true in some instances that an item may be many times over 10 as rare as the most common item in the set, the Registry keeps the scale simple so that all levels of collectors can compete. Each item within the set is assigned a weight based on the value of the item in NM-MT condition."
So, is this saying that it is rarity that gives a card it's weight or the NM-MT condition? Or is this saying that the value of a PSA 8 already reflects the rarity of the card?
they have a tough time keeping up with weights at the present. if they used the pop, which isnt 100% current to adjust weight we would really be behind.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>so you think a low pop common should be higher than a HOFer? What happens when someone submitts 20 of that low pop common??
they have a tough time keeping up with weights at the present. if they used the pop, which isnt 100% current to adjust weight we would really be behind. >>
How about basing the rating on the percentage of grades given vs. the total number of cards submitted?
pop numbers dont mean that the cards arent out there. they just havent been graded yet to the numbers of more popular cards.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>does card sensitivity (ie. black borders) taken into consideration for weight of card? >>
no that is dealt with when the cards are graded. only price in psa 8 determines the weight of the card. for example all 1971 topps baseball have black borders, so that plays no part in weighting that set.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>
<< <i>does card sensitivity (ie. black borders) taken into consideration for weight of card? >>
no that is dealt with when the cards are graded. only price in psa 8 determines the weight of the card. for example all 1971 topps baseball have black borders, so that plays no part in weighting that set. >>
i understand if the set is all the same type of card. but wouldnt a player set have different standards for weight then. I would think a 1992 donruss joe carter with centering issue would be weighted higher than other card in the collection.
You'll see a higher registry weight for '71 than '69 or '70, for example, on some player sets where the difference cannot be attributed to series (e.g., Gaylord Perry).
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.