Set Weighting Question

cabo

I'm trying to weight the 1959 Topps set and had a quick question.

When weighting a set, do you have to give a 9 for weight? For instance, in the 1959 set the #10 Mantle would get a 10. The SMR on a PSA 8 is $2500. The next nearest price would be $610. Trying to break things out evenly, I would give that an 8. I'm just not sure if you have to use all of the numbers in order to get a true weight.
Thanks.

mikeschmidt

Cabo:

I do think that there should be some card in the 1959 Topps set to get a 9 weight. For example, I would consider giving the Bob Gibson RC a weight of a 8 or a 9. A Hall of Fame rookie card is a very important card to the set -- esp. an overpowering flamethrower. Though the SMR is a good starting point for determining appropriate grade weights -- the high-end of a scale is always going to be off. With a scale of 1-10, you either have to lump the four best cards (Even though they may have wildly different values) in the top grade weights -- otherwise, you are going to end up lumping too many dissimilar cards near the bottom (e.g. minor stars as one, etc.)


For example, in weighting the 1954 Bowman set, no one would really consider giving the Ted Williams card a weight of 10, and then weight Mickey Mantle with a 5 because it is worth less than half of the Ted Williams card. As another example, the 1954 Wilson Weiners set would, based on SMR, give Ted Williams a weight of 10, and everyone else a weight of 1.0 or less. However, there are five other HOF'ers in the set. Even though they are worth much less than the williams, they do require a weight (significantly) higher than the commons. There are probably many more examples to illustrate this point, but hopefully you get the drift.

cabo

Good point and thanks for the info. I had the Gibson rookie as well as the Mantle All Star as 8's. It does make sense to move the Gibson to 9 since it a HOF Rookie.