Who are the early favorites for...

carkim · March 26, 2002 5:53AM

THE FIRST ANNUAL PSA SET REGISTRY AWARDS?

pinhigh · March 26, 2002 5:56AM

Carkim - Ahh, I just posted the same topic.

carkim · March 26, 2002 6:42AM

Pinhigh,

Great...hmmm...Insane minds think alike.

Carlos

carkim · March 26, 2002 6:48AM

Here is an early favorite for sure...

Honus & Friends

pinhigh · March 26, 2002 6:51AM

Favorite? That set is a given.

carkim · March 26, 2002 9:25AM

Set Registry News
3/26/02
THE FIRST ANNUAL PSA SET REGISTRY AWARDS.
This fall we will recognize those collectors who have registered outstanding sets in the PSA Set Registry. Click Here for details and watch for updates and more information coming soon. (An email was sent out to all set registrants today. If you did not receive your email, please contact bj@collectors.com to update your email account in the registry.)

zardoz51 · March 26, 2002 9:30AM

Carlos

Already clearing space on the wall to hang your certificates?

thegemmintman · March 26, 2002 9:34AM

I should start working on my acceptance speech...

(Tears in eyes), "This award (pause) is so much bigger than me..."

Hey what about the "Best Poem" award (see Sports Board).

zardoz51 · March 26, 2002 9:40AM

Yep,

There are a couple of guys who are slamdunks on this deal.

gemmint,

be sure to thank all the "little people" who made it possible. Also, the residents of Battlecreek.................

carkim · March 26, 2002 10:02AM

zardoz51,

October is a long way away, anything can happen. But to answer your question Already clearing space on the wall to hang your certificates? The answer is YES

Carlos

Alfiewt · March 26, 2002 12:46PM

Kirk should get an award for this set! WOW!!
All but two cards in this set are highest graded, and this set is over 100 years old!

10 of the 11 PSA 9's are in this set!!

The only two cards he could improve on is PSA 7 Capt. Paul Boyton (one higher)
and and PSA 7 Alex Paulsen (1 higher)

Wayne8348 · March 26, 2002 9:31PM

Here's a few of the awards as I see them.

Best 1960's set - Slylaneflyer - the more I look at this set the more impressed I am.

Best name Frank's Funky 75's - I never thought of cards as being funky before this.

Collector with too much time - carkim - Forget the money - who would have the time to buy that many cards.

Most diversified - Davalillo - Is there a set he doesn't own cards in - what a collection!

Worst set - Teddy Ballgame - what's up with registering sets and never entering cards (just kidding you Teddy)

And finally the set of the year (drum roll) - FB 1968 Topps - yes I know he's only 28% complete but I see him making a huge comeback by October and easily achieving 112% completion to be the surprise winner - just like IU will do Monday in the NCAA's.

Wayne

mikeschmidt · March 26, 2002 9:49PM

I'm going to hold judgment until later in the year. I'm almost afraid to see a "Mickey Mantle" player set when that comes online.

I give the nod to Halleygator's HOF set, though. Amazing breadth and completeness. As for completely graded sets? I would give the nod to one of Merkel's 1950s sets. Probably 1952 Topps.

Vargha · March 26, 2002 10:13PM

Merkel's collection is phenomenal.

HalleyGator · March 27, 2002 3:40AM

Thanks for the Kudos, Mr. Schmidt !!!

As soon as I get back the cards I just sent to PSA for grading (1895 Ed Delahanty and 1922 Ross Youngs) ...

then I will be only ONE CARD away from 100% completion of my Hall of Fame set, at which time I can start "upgrading" for the rest of my life!!!

I would love to accomplish 100% completions before the Fall PSA Awards deadline .... so is anyone out there sitting on any doubles of the 1887 Old Judge Bid McPhee card??

mikeschmidt · March 27, 2002 5:21AM

Well I don't know anymore -- it seems as if Vargha is now officially an "Expert Collector", so he might have to get an edge....

HalleyGator · March 27, 2002 5:31AM

Perhaps I would get more consideration if my "icon" was something sexier than a platypus ... ??

carkim · March 27, 2002 6:30AM

Perhaps I would get more consideration if my "icon" was something sexier than a platypus ... ??

I thought it was an alien. lol

Carlos

Vargha · March 27, 2002 6:36AM

That's what that thing is! I was thinking along the alien lines as well.

carkim · March 27, 2002 6:40AM

If I was asked to cast a vote, I personally would use this criteria...

1) The set must be complete
2) The set must "at least grade 8.0"
3) There should at least be 150 cards in the set.
4) You should be leading your group by at a 0.50 set rating. (Flexible on this point)
5) The "Key Card" should at least grade an 8 with NQ.

Carlos

What voting standards would you use?

carkim · March 27, 2002 6:48AM

If I was asked to cast a vote, I personally would use this criteria...

1) The set must be complete
2) The set must "at least grade 8.0"
3) There should at least be 150 cards in the set.
4) You should be leading your group by at a 0.50 set rating. (Flexible on this point)
5) The "Key Card" should at least grade an 8 with NQ.

Carlos

What voting standards would you use?

Treetop · March 27, 2002 8:07AM

It could get tricky, but some kind of difficulty factor should be figured in, i.e. current number of graded examples that exist for cards in that year, etc.,

Some of the sets from the later sixties have populations in the 30-40 for 9’s, whereas some sets from the earlier sixties, you are lucky to find one 9 and possibly a handful of 8’s for certain cards.

I think there should be separate awards for the topps regular issue sets (large), and another tier of awards for subsets and non-topps issues (small), therefore the smaller sets can get the recognition they deserve also.

calleocho · March 27, 2002 8:17AM

the way i read the rules ... even my 1992 bowman set will get an award. i dont even have 5% of the set graded. by october it should grow ..but not nearly enough to break 25%. dont get me wrong, i'll take the little diploma but it would seem kinda of empty. some very rare sets might take a long long time before reaching 100% . in those cases special allowances should indeed be made . but for all others it should be at the very least 75%.. dont you guys think so? Ethan

SKOV20 · March 27, 2002 8:36AM

I agree with Carlos on 4 of his 5 criteria. I happen to disagree with the set having to be at least 150 cards. This would take away the first four basketball sets. Those first 4 basketball sets are classics and should also be included in the judging. I agree that the sets are smaller in number, but the are hard to complete. The Tall Boys are as tough as any to get in PSA 8 or better.

Thanks again Carlos for 1976 basketball set I won off you on Ebay.

-------------------------------------------

Always looking for 1969 Topps basketball cards graded PSA 9 and 1970 Topps basketball in PSA 8.

Wayne8348 · March 27, 2002 9:23AM

Perhaps the set should have a minimum set rating since that would account for a set having 50% completion with all commons verses one loaded with stars. I realize not all sets are weighted but hmmmmm... maybe they will be by October. Anyways that could possibly be a factor in deciding.

Wayne

carkim · March 27, 2002 10:31AM

SKOV20,

I hope you enjoy the set as much as I did. I hear what your saying about smaller set sizes [I was going the set the minimum number at 144 (the size of the 1976 Basketball Set) but I just could do that to include myself]. I think Treetop has a could point there should be separate awards for the topps regular issue sets (large), and another tier of awards for subsets and non-topps issues (small), therefore the smaller sets can get the recognition they deserve also. that would settle the minimum size criteria.

Carlos

Vargha · March 27, 2002 10:38AM

As I told my wife, size doesn't matter. (She didn't believe me either.)

NickM · March 27, 2002 10:54AM

I have a problem with Carlos's criteria - they may be appropriate for late 1960s/early 1970s sets, but they are a nightmare for many other sets (and exclude some of the most important sets)
The 150-card criterion knocks out sets like '48 Leaf and Bowman baseball, '51 Topps baseball, '48 and '49 Leaf football, '55 Topps football, the basketball sets previously mentioned, '51-'52 Parkhurst hockey, 1914 Cracker Jack baseball, and many of the specialty sets ('49 Bowman PCL, '64 Topps Giants, etc.). Many of the older sets simply cannot be put together in PSA 8 - looking at the pre-1950s material shows many sets with a finest known grade far lower than that mark. I would take a much more "holistic" approach to the awards - sets like the ex-Vargha '49 Bowman PCL, Hal's HOFers, the T-206 HOFers, or others that are head and shoulders above the rest of the graded sets of that particular set.

Nick

thegemmintman · March 27, 2002 11:21AM

NickM - excellent point. I e-mailed BJ and Joe Orlando earlier that there should be an award for smaller sized supplemental or independent sets. There are many of these out there (ie 1954 Red Heart,1963 Fleer, 1964 Topps Stand Ups, 1964 Topps Giants, 1969 Topps Supers, 1970 Kellogg's). These are just a few examples. I mean how could any of these sets compete with a graded '52 Topps Set. There should be another category.

Vargha - Aren't you disappointed with all of this? Your PCL set was guaranteed a certificate. Add that certificate to your auction for prestige, and you're pulling down some serious $$$

.

thegemmintman · March 27, 2002 11:31AM

Carkim - you're, you're nothing but a big set bully

.

Vargha · March 27, 2002 1:07PM

I know . . . I sold the #2 All-Time Finest 1949 Bowman set as well as the #1 All-Time Finest 1949 Bowman PCL set so I could "beef-up" the #4 All-Time Finest 1951 Bowman set

carkim · March 27, 2002 7:20PM

Gemmint,

I have two small sets 1976-77 Topps Basketball (144) and 1974 Topps Traded Baseball (44). But, I do enjoy the larger sets. I like building sets a lot more than upgrading them.

Also, did Joe or BJ email you back?

And Vargha, I know . . . I sold the #2 All-Time Finest 1949 Bowman set as well as the #1 All-Time Finest 1949 Bowman PCL set so I could "beef-up" the #4 All-Time Finest 1951 Bowman set

No Soup (certificates) for you!!!

Carlos

HalleyGator · March 27, 2002 9:35PM

The only minor disagreement I would have with Carlos' criteria is that it would be physically impossible to get the HOF set to grade at 8.00 .... unless you "cheated" and filled up the 30 or so 19th century guys with "modern reprints" from 1961, etc.

Thus, while agree that a card should be at least 8.0 if it is from 1952 forward .... there must be some "slack" for those collections that require 128 and 126 year old cards of which NONE OTHERS have ever been graded, thereby making my PSA 1 and PSA 3 the highest examples. The same is true for all the 115 year old Old Judge cards that simply do not exist in PSA holders in any high grades except in very rare instances.

PS - If I can't find a Bid McPhee card before November ... then I might disagree with you on the 100% completion requirement as well.

I would have to argue that 99.5% completed should get "rounded up." !!

mikeschmidt · March 27, 2002 9:56PM

I think that there must be some leeway on the "The set must at least grade 8.0", too.

Perhaps some sort of amendment to that would be appropriate. Something like "The set must grade within 0.75 of the finest possible", or something like that. There is simply too much variability in each set to make a minimum grade a fair standard. Some sets have a finest possible grade of nearly 10 (1969 Topps Super), some have a finest possible grade over 9 (1956 Topps, 1948 Bowman), whereas there are others that are much closer to 8.5 (1955 Bowman, 1950 Bowman, 1933 Goudey).

thegemmintman · March 27, 2002 10:09PM

Carkim - we all know that the two small sets you maintain are just "token" sets to keep all the small set activists off of your back

.

I e-mailed BJ extensively on it, and she forwarded it to Joe O. asking him what he thought. This was done Wednesday so stand by...

carkim · March 28, 2002 12:26AM

Gemmint,

I wouldn't call them "tokens"...The Traded set is a by-product of my 1974 regular issue and the 1976-77 Basketball set was going to an investment, but I fell in love with the set and just can't part with it now.

Halley & MS

And as far as my 8.0 criteria...I'm sticking to it. If I said it should be 7.0 then there would be a reason that number wasn't attainable. MY VOTE CAN NOT BE BOUGHT!!! NOR WILL I BE LOBBIED AGAINST!!!

Carlos

thegemmintman · March 28, 2002 12:32AM

Carkim - I was joking. You know, like a "token" hiring at a company. I'm sure they're great sets.

dude · March 28, 2002 12:53AM

I haven't chimed in yet, but there's one thing that bothers me: the best vintage and best modern set. I feel they should have broken vintage up into decades or eras. It's a shame that a great T-206 set goes head-to-head against a '52 Topps set.

It will be interesting to see if this brings out any "closet collectors", because there are a lot of great sets not registered.

HalleyGator · March 28, 2002 12:57AM

I agree with the Dude (this sounds like a Big Lebowski reference)....

I think they should give awards for best set of the 1900-1910 range ... best set in the 1911-1920 range ... best set in the 1950's, etc., etc.

Then they should also have awards for other sets that span all the time frames, like the HOF set, certain player sets, etc.

Sounds fair to me.

thegemmintman · March 28, 2002 1:06AM

Dude, I was thinking the same thing.

At the very least, they should have an award for Best Pre War Vintage and Best Post War Vintage, but I like the Best Per Decade Award better.

Halley - Agreed. In addition to Best of the Decade Set, there should be a Best Supplemental or Smaller Set, Best HOF Set, Best Player Set.

HalleyGator · March 28, 2002 2:51AM

Heck ...

They should just send us ALL an award !!!

They print the darn SMR magazine ... so they don't have to pay for advertising space ... so they should just devote 10 pages each issue listing all of our names and how great we all are!!

NickM · March 28, 2002 5:02AM

The '74 Topps Traded cards should not be considered a separate set. They are simply a subset that has a different numbering system. The same thing goes for the '76 Topps Traded cards (and the 1988 through 1991 Donruss MVP cards). They weren't scarcer in packs than other cards (or limited to 1 per pack), so they weren't an insert.

Nick

carkim · March 28, 2002 6:47AM

Just like Baseball Hall Of Fame voting there are certain milestones that must be reached for automatic induction. Such as 3000 hits (-Pete Rose not eligible) or 300 wins.

Again, If I was asked to cast a vote, I personally would use this criteria...

1) The set must be complete
2) The set must "at least grade 8.0"
3) There should at least be 150 cards in the set.
4) You should be leading your group by at a 0.50 set rating. (Flexible on this point)
5) The "Key Card" should at least grade an 8 with NQ.

Being the inaugural induction ceremony...What criteria would you use to cast your vote (If you had a vote). Remember this is the PSA set registry Hall of Fame. Only the greatest of all-time should be inducted.

Carlos

NickM · March 28, 2002 7:41AM

There is only one specific requirement from a player's career to being voted into the Hall - he must have played at least 10 seasons. Whether a player had to hit any other specific milestones is purely in the voter's discretion.

Nick

carkim · March 28, 2002 8:48AM

Being the inaugural induction ceremony...What criteria would you use to cast your vote (If you had a vote). Remember this is the PSA set registry Hall of Fame. Only the greatest of all-time should be inducted.

If I was voting for years of service than Jim Kaat or Minnie Minoso would be a lock. But my criteria inducts the greatest like Babe Ruth and Cy Young.

Carlos

carkim · August 25, 2002 10:39AM

The time is getting closer...Who are some of the favorite now???

Carlos

MickeyC · August 25, 2002 11:53AM

One of my favorite subjects....

Eddie Murray - shoe in 500/3000, most dominant slugger of the 70's and 80's.

Ryne Sandberg - One of the best 2b of all time, and could hit too!

Gary Carter - came so close in '02, this is his year.

Sadly, those will probably be the only 3 voted in this year, though there are several others deserving of it (Blyleven, Rice, Murphy).

Mark

skylaneflyer · August 25, 2002 12:32PM

Wayne,

Thanks for the kind words about the 67 Set, the challenge becomes increasingly more difficult every day. There are approximately 35 different 1967 Sets on the Registry now.

All the collectors who have dedicated so much time and effort to their sets deserve an award.

Thanks again,

Sky

Basilone · August 25, 2002 12:39PM

<< <i>All the collectors who have dedicated so much time and effort to their sets deserve an award. >>

Joel (Sky)-

You are one of the true gentlemen in the hobby...no doubt about it! Best of luck with your upgrades.

John

PlayBall · August 25, 2002 2:34PM

I didn't realize that Murray/Sandberg/Carter had sets registered on the PSA registry. Learn something new everyday.

FB · August 25, 2002 8:36PM

Oh - nice going Wayne!!!

Here I was - planning to stun the card collecting world and take over the #1 spot in 68 Topps in late October and you go and spoil the surprise!!! Well... I might as well go back to using these as coasters again...

Who are the early favorites for...

Comments