A Message from the President - The Panel Vote

JoeOrlando

Dear members,

Recently, an issue was brought to our attention about Master Sets in the Set Registry. Some collectors were upset that multiple versions of the same hand-cut or perforated issues were required as separate line items.

Cosetta Robbins held a poll where she asked the Set Registry participants what they wanted. Did they want each version required or not?

A few days ago and at the Set Registry luncheon at The National, I gave my personal opinion - for whatever it's worth.

Personally, I do not think it makes sense to require each version in the set. To me, it should be an either/or scenario where multiple versions can satisfy one hole in the set.

In my opinion, they are not "variations" at all. There are, in truth, the same exact card...they just appear in different forms depending on the way they were or weren't cut or removed (complete panels, partial panels, solo, etc).

That being said, we are interested in serving our customers and we do care about your input...no matter what I personally think.

The poll, which I assure you was completely legitimate, revealed that the majority actually disagrees with me. I was surprised to say the least but it's true.

First of all, just becasue the poll turned out the way it did does not mean this matter is closed. I still feel the way I do and we are going to continue to discuss the matter internally.

Second, and more importantly, no one is going to be allowed to come on these boards and make ridiculous claims about PSA or the legitimacy of the poll. We have a zero tolerance for false accusations...end of story.

In the meantime, we are going to leave the registry policy alone until further notice...but the matter is not over.

Sincerely,

K

Hard to believe when the board had an overwhelming majority vote for #2.

mikeschmidt

I know at least two Player Set of the Year Award Winners [including myself] who strongly supported Option #2, and I think we both talked to and largely represented the interests of the Mike Schmidt and other major player registries.

It is one thing to have a Panel versus a single [like a Kraft Panel], it is entirely something different to take a Stamp sheet and identify a dozen different iterations of cutting that same sheet up to have a dozen different Registry entries.

Joe -- it is these very policies that have made collecting not fun for me any longer, it is the reason I have sold off my Steve Carlton set, and it is the reason I will not start any new player sets again.

Marc Schoenen

tunahead08

At least 5 of the top 10 collector's on the Ripken Master set voted #2, including the #1 and #2 collectors.

BlackberryHill

The vote is over and the results are in....and I for one will certainly abide by the policy. But, I must say that it is my strong opinion that it simply unfair to expect collectors of baseball cards (or stamps, stickers, etc) to purchase multiples of the same card, stamp or sticker in anticipation of the next combination that might be placed on the Registry. It is hard enough to collect one of some cards. Making it a set requirement to have 10 or 20 of the same card, stamp or sticker, simply doesn't make sense to me. I would like to see the policy change.

If PSA monitors the sale of these panels over the course of the next few weeks and months you will see that there will be many "new creations" created primarily for sale (not to collect) and at significantly higher prices. Such a practice cannot possibly promote the integrity of "card collecting" as we have grown to accept and enjoy over the years.

I must say that I frequently communicate with Cosetta Robbins and she has always been fair and honest in the way she has addressed my concerns. I appreciate that and think that she should be commended for her work on behalf of Registry participants.

gregm13

Joe,

I agree w/ you 100%. In the Dan Marino master set, the 1988 Topps sticker is a complete nightmare because there are literally 100's of variations of the same sticker. The 1988 sticker set has a front and a back...both of which are considered different sets. Therefore, if we count each Dan Marino front sticker that has a different back as a separate slot in the master set (and vice versa - every Dan Marino back that has a different front) then I would have to spend my entire card budget for a year just buying cases of 1988 Topps stickers (which would make Kruk Cards happy...).

Just my 2 cents...

Rgs,

Greg M.

Publius

I voted for option #1 and I know a few more people who did as well.

With what I collect I dont have the same problems with stamps and such other people have mentioned and I can see how that would get frustrating. I happen to enjoy finding the odd and new variations of the 88 stickers (sorry Greg), weirdo and oddball cards to add to the master registry.

I really have a hard time believing there was some sort of collusion going on at PSA to stack the vote to option #1 so they could make more money off the submissions it would force other collectors to have to do to chase the registry. Yes CU is in business to make money off submissions, but thats a little much to point the finger.

I enjoy the master sets and all the variations, it gives me something to shoot for. If you dont like it, dont collect it, collect the basic set, or dont collect at all. Take your bat and ball and go home, CU is not forcing you to collect a master set or buy a stamp. If it ever got to the point where it wasnt fun for me, I would just not collect it.

NickM

Publius - I don't really mind different manufacturer-created front-back combos. But cutting up a sheet into different partial combinations is a whole different story to me.

Nick

tunahead08

<< <i>Publius - I don't really mind different manufacturer-created front-back combos. But cutting up a sheet into different partial combinations is a whole different story to me.

Nick >>



Exactly... it's one thing if they came from the manufacturer like this, but when it's just someone cutting it up into different "variations" it's not something that should be included.

jeffcbay

<< <i>In my opinion, they are not "variations" at all. There are, in truth, the same exact card...they just appear in different forms depending on the way they were or weren't cut or removed (complete panels, partial panels, solo, etc). >>



This line says it all there... still, I trust the poll, and I'm willing to deal with it either way. It won't stop me from collecting PSA graded cards.

Alfiewt

<< <i>
I happen to enjoy finding the odd and new variations of the 88 stickers (sorry Greg), weirdo and oddball cards to add to the master registry.
>>



I enjoy collecting the different stickers, weirdo and oddball cards too but this poll was NOT about eliminating them from the master sets. It was about eliminating the different panel configurations that are the same card but cut into different shapes by collectors and submitters. I think a lot of people who voted for option 1 were under the impression that different variations of cards would be eliminated but the only thing that would be eliminated are the artificial combinations created by collectors and submitters. I also think the poll should have included the option of having a single card slot and a single panel slot. For certain cards (like Bazooka and Hostesses) it make sense because both the singles and panels are collected but to have the All Star game program insets listed 20 times is excessive.

mikeschmidt

<< <i>

<< <i>
I happen to enjoy finding the odd and new variations of the 88 stickers (sorry Greg), weirdo and oddball cards to add to the master registry.
>>



I enjoy collecting the different stickers, weirdo and oddball cards too but this poll was NOT about eliminating them from the master sets. It was about eliminating the different panel configurations that are the same card but cut into different shapes by collectors and submitters. I think a lot of people who voted for option 1 were under the impression that different variations of cards would be eliminated but the only thing that would be eliminated are the artificial combinations created by collectors and submitters. I also think the poll should have included the option of having a single card slot and a single panel slot. For certain cards (like Bazooka and Hostesses) it make sense because both the singles and panels are collected but to have the All Star game program insets listed 20 times is excessive. >>




Interesting you bring up the concept of a single card slot and a single panel slot for things like Hostess and Drake's panels. I say that because I have now seen PSA start to grade [and slots open up on the Master Set Registries] that include variations of the panel.

e.g. 1988 Drake's Panel featuring Rickey Henderson, Mike Schmidt and Dwight Evans.

Currently, the Registry include the 3-card panel and the single card for Mike Schmidt. But [as soon as they are graded], it will also allow 2-card panels of Henderson/Schmidt and Schmidt/Evans to be added as separate slots on the Registry. This has already started to occur, and I think is both tragic and profoundly silly.

Publius

<< <i>Publius - I don't really mind different manufacturer-created front-back combos. But cutting up a sheet into different partial combinations is a whole different story to me.

Nick >>



I totally agree with you on that issue. Its not happening, or not available, in the things i collect but it would be frustrating to have variations of a 3 card cut panel required.

I have a master set i collect with a sticker in it, and a long time ago PSA slabbed it and mislabeled it. Now its part of the registry- the correctly labeled one, and the mislabeled one both. Well its impossible to get the mislabeled one because they label them correctly now. Who cares, I just dont collect that one mislabeled card.

Im sure its just not that easy to say "dont collect the variations of the 3 card panel". Just like welfare, there is no blanket policy that will fit everyone and make everyone happy, there are always exceptions where anyone with common sense will say "thats stupid". I think PSA is just trying to quantify the master sets as any card you can find.

joe

PoppaJ

Could it be that maybe many voters just weren't quite sure what they were voting on?

I'm not calling anyone stupid or anything, I'm just thinking that maybe some voters, in haste, didn't take the time to totally understand what they were voting on.

Is a 2nd Vote in order? Maybe a 2nd Vote that includes illustrations, examples etc.???

Just saying' ....

PoppaJ

CrimsonTider

I have a question for Joe.


Being that PSA accepts hand-cut variations of many different issues, why will PSA refuse to grade 1984 Nestle cards that are hand-cut?


That being said, Joe, I have some cherry Dale Murphys that are just waiting to find a new home in a PSA case, please let them go home.

kwtoz

Joe...

Why don't you have two types of Master Sets for this scenerio? That way, people can build the set that they want.

I would think that would make just about everybody happy.

KbKards

The correct answer to the poll question wasn't clearly 1 or 2. It was sometimes 1 and sometimes 2.
PSA needs to separate the factory issued legitimate variations from combinations created with scissors.
The answer to the poll question when applied to issues like 1961 and 1962 Topps Stamp Panels is easy and clearly 1.
The answer to the poll question when applied to cutting 1969 or 1974 Topps 12 stamp panels into every permutation is clearly 2.
Each individual card issue where there's a question will have a logical yes or no answer on whether it's allowed.
Single cut card and 3 panel 1960-1967 Bazooka - yes. Two card cut strip 1960-1967 Bazooka - no.


1) Continue to allow and require multiple combinations and keep the master sets as they are
2) Remove duplicate stickers/stamps/panels for each company/year and make these items either/or in one slot for that company/year
3) No opinion

jradke4

this issue reminds me of the duplication with the mid to late 90's finest cards that came with the peel off protectors. in many master sets there are both peeled and unpeeled required for both regular and refractor cards. then in 96 finest started bronze, silver and gold base cards (plus refractors). it is quite insane. thank god they stopped the protectors in 1999.

jeffcbay

<< <i>Joe...

Why don't you have two types of Master Sets for this scenerio? That way, people can build the set that they want.

I would think that would make just about everybody happy. >>



Wow, no.

NickM

I agree with what KbKards said.

JoeO - phrasing the matter for a future vote as Kb did may lead to a different result.

Nick

tunahead08

And if there's anyone that is unfamiliar about what some of us are talking about, here's some good examples:

1983 Fleer Stamps:





1984 AS Program Inserts:

swartz1

<< <i>And if there's anyone that is unfamiliar about what some of us are talking about, here's some good examples:

1983 Fleer Stamps:





1984 AS Program Inserts:


>>



you can take the bottom right corner quad panel out because it was damaged during shipping... no longer a PSA 10

BlackberryHill

Very well said. Listening to the message board comments suggests some misunderstanding of the questions posed to collectors.

BlackberryHill

KbKards got it! He/she said, and I agree:

The correct answer to the poll question wasn't clearly 1 or 2. It was sometimes 1 and sometimes 2.
PSA needs to separate the factory issued legitimate variations from combinations created with scissors.
The answer to the poll question when applied to issues like 1961 and 1962 Topps Stamp Panels is easy and clearly 1.
The answer to the poll question when applied to cutting 1969 or 1974 Topps 12 stamp panels into every permutation is clearly 2.
Each individual card issue where there's a question will have a logical yes or no answer on whether it's allowed.
Single cut card and 3 panel 1960-1967 Bazooka - yes. Two card cut strip 1960-1967 Bazooka - no.


1) Continue to allow and require multiple combinations and keep the master sets as they are
2) Remove duplicate stickers/stamps/panels for each company/year and make these items either/or in one slot for that company/year
3) No opinion

mcadams

Joe- you're the President..That means if you feel strongly about an issue, you take action on it. Its not enough to say "hey guys I feel this way about the issue, i understand you, really i do, but my hands are tied. Hope you understand." We DON'T understand. I'm NOT saying that anything crooked is going on to generate profits for PSA, but until the board understands more about this silent majority who never posts anything, but who all voted for option #1, the issue will persist. This topic is the equivalent of waking up one morning in November 1992 and reading that Ross Perot just won the Presidency...Some further explanation IS in order.

cougar701

I have the #2 All-Time Steve Carlton Basic Set(100%) and the #5 All-Time Mike Schmidt Basic Set(97.5%).

I don't collect anything but the basic player sets and this stuff never would interest me BEFORE reading all of this...

AFTER reading and understanding the issue with pictures included, I feel like this issue is truly a common sense call. You've got to make these variations types an either/or scenario.

I can appreciate PSA putting the issue to a vote, but the best decision should simply have been to allow logic and common sense rule and make the decision as the president.

If anything, Joe, you need to re-visit the poll and add weight behind your most active and vital members votes of the sets this scenario is impacting. Sort of like a company does with shareholders... those with the most shares get the most say. The guys ranked 20th through 38th on the list with the least invested, should have very little say even collectively. Allow the people who rank 1st through the 10th who have overwhelmingly more invested in this issue and the integrity of the set itself decide how the policy will go for that set.

I agree with Mike Schmidt, this is waaaaaaaaay to micro for me to even consider collecting on this level, and I can understand why this would not be fun anymore to even someone who has the patience/time/money for this type of set building.

Adam

AISAVDBBALLINPHILLY

Great comments and insights posted on this very productive thread. I voted for #1 because I wanted to keep the manufacturer front and back variations of the '88 Topps LT football stickers, so I am with Publius on that. And I enjoy finding and collecting the oddball Lawrence Taylor stuff that can be put in this master set. Stamps and stamp panels do not exist for my Lawrence Taylor Master Collection, but I can definitely see why people would not want to include stamp panel variations after reading this thread and looking at the pictures. The Lawrence Taylor Master does include hand cut cards from Topps box bottoms, and I would not want hand cut variations of the box bottoms to start popping up here. We probably should put this on the table again in the near future, and leave it open to vote. But whatever is asked should be clarified so manufacturer variations do not get lumped in with variations of hand cut stamp panels, hand cut sticker panels, or hand cut card panels. Although even with those there seems to be some hand cut panel variations that seem acceptable in some sets. Maybe some exceptions could be made. I also like the idea of leaving the vote open to only those who have a certain percentage of a set completed because of vested interest, maybe somewhere in the range of 25%-50% total completion.

John

tunahead08

I think it should be as simple as, if the whole panel as it was produced by the manufacturer can't be slabbed, then only the single cut card of the player is included in the registry. If the full panel is able to be slabbed (i.e. Drake's Panels) then both the panel and the single card of the player are included, no other cut variations would be.

And while I hate the Topps/OPC sticker variations, I can at least accept them as that is the way they were produced by the manufacturer and aren't a variation made by the collector.

AISAVDBBALLINPHILLY

"I think it should be as simple as, if the whole panel as it was produced by the manufacturer can't be slabbed, then only the single cut card of the player is included in the registry. If the full panel is able to be slabbed (i.e. Drake's Panels) then both the panel and the single card of the player are included, no other cut variations would be."
Text

I definitely agree with that tunahead08. If they could slab a whole Topps box bottom panel then I would be willing submit it as well as the single cut card of LT.

DavidPuddy

<< <i>I think it should be as simple as, if the whole panel as it was produced by the manufacturer can't be slabbed, then only the single cut card of the player is included in the registry. If the full panel is able to be slabbed (i.e. Drake's Panels) then both the panel and the single card of the player are included, no other cut variations would be.

And while I hate the Topps/OPC sticker variations, I can at least accept them as that is the way they were produced by the manufacturer and aren't a variation made by the collector. >>



I agree 100%. Well put Tuna.

tunahead08

<< <i>
I definitely agree with that tunahead08. If they could slab a whole Topps box bottom panel then I would be willing submit it as well as the single cut card of LT. >>



They actually do slab these, I've seen a few in player set registries. I think there is one in the Mike Schmidt master.

Griffins

Wow.
I don't have a dog in this race, but I agree with Macadams.
Democracy is overrated (what do you expect from a guy with a Che Guevara avatar )
A benevolent dictatorship is much more functional. This is BS. If the image is in the slab, no matter what configuration, it should count. Once.
Joe, FWIW, I vote to do what you think is right, and use the poll as an advisory. I strongly suspect a lot of the voters were not entirely informed about the implications of their vote.

jackstraw

I am all for letting collectors collect what they want. .

GDM67

<< <i>I think it should be as simple as, if the whole panel as it was produced by the manufacturer can't be slabbed, then only the single cut card of the player is included in the registry. If the full panel is able to be slabbed (i.e. Drake's Panels) then both the panel and the single card of the player are included, no other cut variations would be. >>

Far and away the best idea I've read about this.

CrimsonTider

<< I think it should be as simple as, if the whole panel as it was produced by the manufacturer can't be slabbed, then only the single cut card of the player is included in the registry. If the full panel is able to be slabbed (i.e. Drake's Panels) then both the panel and the single card of the player are included, no other cut variations would be. >>


I assume that 95% of collectors would agree with that.

Bunker

I can at least accept them as that is the way they were produced by the manufacturer and aren't a variation made by the collector.

I strongly agree with this statement. To me it makes sense that if produced by the manufacturer they should be included. Variations made by crafty collectors with scissors should not be allowed.

I also think that a lot of voters did not truely understand what they were voting for and found it easier to keep things the way they are.

hoopguru33

I have worked hard to put together my Larry Bird set. Now it has (3) matchbook variations. More could be added in the future. I and another member who has a highly rated Larry Bird set voted for option #2. There are over 10 variations of the 1980 Liberty Larry Bird matchbooks. They are just different colors. I will no longer be putting together any new player sets.

mcadams

<< <i>I have worked hard to put together my Larry Bird set. Now it has (3) matchbook variations. More could be added in the future. I and another member who has a highly rated Larry Bird set voted for option #2. There are over 10 variations of the 1980 Liberty Larry Bird matchbooks. They are just different colors. I will no longer be putting together any new player sets. >>

ari

If a card or panel has a different color, then both versions should be required in the master set. The sentiment on the boards so far, and I totally agree, is that if a manufacturer creates the variation, then both variations are required. Most people putting together master sets don't mind going after manufacturer variations like different colors. What we want to avoid is a variation created by a collector (see Cal Ripken stamps on top of page 2).

shouldabeena10

I don't know how long ago the vote was taken for this, and I don't even think I voted on the issue? However, if I did somehow vote to keep all of those homemade panel cuts around ... then I'd like to officially change my vote.

It looks pretty obvious (from the responses here) that everyone didn't fully understand what they were voting for ... or against.

I'm also not real crazy about the suggestions to weigh future votes based upon set registry rankings, because that could open up a whole new can of worms if the top few collectors ever decided they wanted to do something silly (like maybe add in these homemade cut variations).

A few years ago, I had the #1, #2, and #3 ranked sets of 1976 FB Crane Discs all at the same time . Just imagine the type of evil power I could have unleashed on that poor set if given majority voting rights.

Davalillo

If Shouldabeena is voting on one side, count my vote for the other.

Take my word for it, he is capable of unleashing evil power--especially if he wants to dominate a registry set!

Dav

NickM

Jim - this could infect vintage cards too - including DiMaggio, Musial, and Williams Master Sets.

Each of those players appears in the R423 set, which was issued in 13-card (horizontal) perforated strips. The cards are tiny (3/4" by 1/2"). Imagine if every different permutation out of a 13-card strip containing one particular card were required for the Master Set. If the card is in the 7th spot on the strip, you're talking about a total of 49, including the full strip (assuming PSA holders can accommodate it) and the single card. And if PSA ever decided to recognize the back color variations (they were issued with green, orange, and purple backs), that could be 147 spots in the Master Set for that card alone. Making it worse, some cards appear on multiple different strips.

Nick

swartz1

sounds like some people are taking their ball and going home...



You can please all of the people.......none of the time.

Davalillo

Nick,

Good points--have not focused on it.

Just trying to needle shouldabeena who is o0verdue for helping me complete a vintage foodball set.

Jim

tunahead08

<< <i>sounds like some people are taking their ball and going home... >>



I don't really think that's the case, I think there have been some good posts in a fairly productive thread.

mcadams

<< <i>

<< <i>sounds like some people are taking their ball and going home... >>



I don't really think that's the case, I think there have been some good posts in a fairly productive thread. >>



I agree, I don't think its the case that people are taking their ball and going home. At the same time, I think its very important that we let Joe and Cosetta know that the current path they've chosen WILL result in lessened interest in master set collecting, at least at PSA. This much is obvious given CU thread commentary to date. We must continue to push Joe to make this right. Its not right as of today and he still has some work to do. As I've stated several times before, Joe is the President of PSA and its his responsibility to make the big decision here and make this right. He's been so right on so many other things in the past, which is why this mysterious "my hands are tied" attitude is so puzzling on such a clear-cut issue.

KatsCards

I voted #1 because I do believe that factory variations of all sorts should be considered. But like many who have posted, the thought of variations made by collectors depending on how they cut or seperate tha cards/stamps make it scary...

swartz1

<< <i>

<< <i>sounds like some people are taking their ball and going home... >>



I don't really think that's the case, I think there have been some good posts in a fairly productive thread. >>



you are correct...I find it comical though how some want to "pick and choose" what should be accepted and what not...

different collectors different flavors...obviously a tough call on Joe's part...

I made that statement because "some" others were stating "I am not starting any more player sets"...

tunahead08

<< <i>

you are correct...I find it comical though how some want to "pick and choose" what should be accepted and what not...

>>



I'm all for a master set including all variations (even those annoying Topps/OPC stickers) as long as they are manufacturer created variations and not collector created variations.

HITKING

Joe,

After reading this thread there is only one real solution to the issue at hand. Remove the panels which you as President feel should not be included in the Player Registry Sets. Then offer for PSA to buy back any of the deleted PSA graded panels at the documented cost to the owner. The auto industry has "Cash For Clunkers" so PSA can now have "Cash for Panels". Unfortunately PSA created this monster by grading the panels in the first place. Now PSA has to step up to the plate and do what's right for your customer base.

You have a chance to make a tough decision which may negatively impact PSA's bottom line in the short term but will be right for your PSA collecting world for decades to come. A number of years ago Johnson and Johnson pulled Tylenol off the shelves in order to protect the public from possible product tampering. A desirable trait found in world class leaders includes the skill to take a decisive course of action. My strong recommendation is for PSA to immediately stop grading these panels and delete all from the PSA Registry. Simultaneously roll out the "Cash For Panels" program. At all cost, do not let your customer, the PSA collector, be left holding this toxic PSA product with no recourse. You must make the collector whole while getting this unfortunate situation behind you post-haste.

Jeff Korth
#1 Pete Rose Master Set

swartz1

What % of the posters make up CU ?

someone here knows...

tunahead08

<< <i>What % of the posters make up CU ?

someone here knows... >>



I think the more accurate question is: What % of the posters make up the CU player set registries?