Can anyone explain why we need to have Finest with and W/O coatings in registry?

clayshooter22

To me, either you have the card or not...there is no true variation, right?

If you like 'em peeled or not peeled, great! ...but it is the same card.

Is it easier to get a PSA 10 in a peeled version? I suppose.

Am I missing something? Please explain why we need both?

Is this standard practice across the different player registry sets?

Mike


18 1996 FINEST KIRBY PUCKETT
18 1996 FINEST KIRBY PUCKETT W/COATING
79 1996 FINEST KIRBY PUCKETT
79 1996 FINEST KIRBY PUCKETT W/COATING
271 1996 FINEST KIRBY PUCKETT
271 1996 FINEST KIRBY PUCKETT W/COATING
18 1996 FINEST KIRBY PUCKETT REFRACTOR
18 1996 FINEST KIRBY PUCKETT REFRACTOR W/COATING
79 1996 FINEST KIRBY PUCKETT REFRACTOR
79 1996 FINEST KIRBY PUCKETT REFRACTOR W/COATING
271 1996 FINEST KIRBY PUCKETT REFRACTOR
271 1996 FINEST KIRBY PUCKETT REFRACTOR W/COATING

MULLINS5

Agree. Seems like the 1980 Topps hockey set should be separated in the company and player registry to distinguish between "scratched" and "unscratched" -- it is on the flip, but not the registry.

vladguerrero

i like the notation, a unpeeled psa 10 holds much more value in my eyes than a peeled card. For Registry purposes however, it's kind of dumb....

nam812

Has the Set Registry forum disappeared?