<< <i>I think 12 would be way too many to add in one year. maybe we should limit it to 7 like the HOF does. >>
I don't think everyone feels that way. And that should be left up to each individual to vote accordingly. If that is your belief then you only vote for 7 guys here. You voted for 8 yourself! I went with 10, BUT also wanted 2 subtracted who are no longer on the HOF voters radar, for a net of 8. Unfortunately, the majority wants to keep every guy we vote on, even if it ends up that we were incorrect or premature. And if Wayne and Witten are going to go in (IMO too soon), then we very well could end up with a monster set at some point. The good news is, we are going to drop at least 6 guys, both Ray Guy and Lester Hayes will move to the Senior Pool. And we should see at least 4 modern candidates elected.
Maybe next year will be a smaller pool of candidates??
This vote is also just a preliminary vote. It still has to go out via PSA Poll to all the members who collect this set OFFICIALLY to vote for each player being added. These bubble guys may end up without the necessary votes in the official poll. Just depends on how all the other voters chime in when replying to PSA. So for everyone, make sure you vote again when it counts. In reply to the PSA poll that will eventually be sent out for these adds.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I like Derrick Mason as a player. Steady, consistent, reliable, etc. He'll end up with very nice overall numbers, much of which will be a product of a very lengthy career for a WR. Does he belong in the HOF? Absolutely not IMO. But that doesn't take away from what he's done on the field.
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
Troy Polamalu-16 Dwight Freeney-15 Drew Brees-14 Richard Seymour-14 Kevin Greene-13 Julius Peppers-13 Hines Ward-13 Ben Roethlisberger-12 Edgerrin James-11 Jason Witten-9 Ty Law-8 Reggie Wayne-8 Steve Tasker-4 Joe Jacoby-3 Donnie Shell-2 Donovan McNabb-2 Chad Ochocinco-1 Ken Anderson-1
SUBTRACT:
Steve At-water-5 LeRoy Butler-5
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
All players with 9 or more votes will be requested to PSA. All others will be back as nominees next year, with the exception of Ken Anderson unless he makes the finals, as this year was his final year as a modern candidate. He will definitely get my vote as a Senior addition come September.
Derrick Mason is the purest definition of a stats guy. Nice numbers, long career...But only 2 Pro Bowls and 1 First Team All-Pro as a kick returner. The Irving Fryar of the decade..
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I voted yes on all but Whitten. I still think its a year too early.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I thought we were going with the majority? What is the point of having a poll if you are not voting with the majority? So I should have just told PSA which ones I voted to add? Is that not what weve done in the past?
<< <i>I thought we were going with the majority? What is the point of having a poll if you are not voting with the majority? So I should have just told PSA which ones I voted to add? Is that not what weve done in the past?
Dave >>
Dave, it's what we have ALWAYS done. Our vote here is to determine WHO TO REQUEST TO PSA. A way to narrow the nominees to only those players the majority of us here on the message boards think should be added/subtracted. We still have to vote in the PSA poll, and personally I'm not going to vote someone on who I don't think is ready. If you have this year or in the past, that's on you.
Do a search and find any/all of these votes we have done. Never once have I ever said or led on that you are required to vote with PSA for someone that you do not agree should be added.
We had 17 respond here and vote here. There are 48 collectors of the set who will get the OFFICIAL poll in their e-mail. The OFFICIAL poll is what will determine who actually gets added and who doesn't. It's no different than the actual HOF selection process. We vote here publically and select the "finalists", but the final poll, the one that determines who gets added, comes down to the actual responses to PSA to their poll. It is why I always remind everyone to make sure they RESPOND TO PSA when the poll comes out. Failure to do so could end up with your actual vote not being heard.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I guess I always assumed that it was an all or nothing vote. If the majority think Witten should be in the set, I will vote for him even if I disagree. FWIW
<< <i>I guess I always assumed that it was an all or nothing vote. If the majority think Witten should be in the set, I will vote for him even if I disagree. FWIW >>
How can it be all or nothing when only 17 of the possible 48 voted here?
All we are doing is deciding who to request. PSA still wants to do their own poll and that is the one that determines who gets added and who doesn't. FWIW, I will vote for the guys I think are deserving. Even more so now that it is apparent no one is ever going to get removed (which was SUPPOSED to be an acceptable possiblity when the set was built). Each of us have our own opinions. If it's a majority here, it's also usually a majority in the official poll. But of course not guaranteed.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>I guess I always assumed that it was an all or nothing vote. If the majority think Witten should be in the set, I will vote for him even if I disagree. FWIW >>
How can it be all or nothing when only 17 of the possible 48 voted here?
All we are doing is deciding who to request. PSA still wants to do their own poll and that is the one that determines who gets added and who doesn't. FWIW, I will vote for the guys I think are deserving. Even more so now that it is apparent no one is ever going to get removed (which was SUPPOSED to be an acceptable possiblity when the set was built). Each of us have our own opinions. If it's a majority here, it's also usually a majority in the official poll. But of course not guaranteed.
Jason >>
well i guess the majority in this poll dont see the removal of players as clearly as you do. not sure why you make the statement "which was SUPPOSED to be an acceptable possiblity when the set was built". people might have agreed to remove players from the set as part of the ruels. but may not have the same feeling either about the players put up for removal or might not agree with the feeling of only have 5 years to be a semifinalist. but thats what happens in free elections. one of the reasons the current govt in egypt isnt too keen on free elections. as they know they will be out of power.
Packers Fan for Life Collecting: Brett Favre Master Set Favre Ticket Stubs Favre TD Reciever Autos Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>well i guess the majority in this poll dont see the removal of players as clearly as you do. not sure why you make the statement "which was SUPPOSED to be an acceptable possiblity when the set was built". people might have agreed to remove players from the set as part of the ruels. but may not have the same feeling either about the players put up for removal or might not agree with the feeling of only have 5 years to be a semifinalist. but thats what happens in free elections. one of the reasons the current govt in egypt isnt too keen on free elections. as they know they will be out of power. >>
Very true on all accounts! Great post.
And the main reason why...when voting in a free elections you vote independently, based on truth and logic as you understand it.
Can't fault anyone if that is how they are going about the voting. But I fail to see the logic of someone who votes to KEEP At-water and Butler (0 times semifinalist in 5-7 years), but not to add say a Steve Tasker (4 time semifinalist the last 7 years)...The logic is not based in reality.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
well jerry kramer defies logic too. yet he is always the one that most people point to as being the most overlooked and deserving.
so its all together possible that steve tasker wont make the hof either even though he has been a semifinalist already 4 times (maybe that is the voters way of acknowledging his play but they wont go further than a semifinalist). as we know for a tasker there is a ricky jackson out there.
Packers Fan for Life Collecting: Brett Favre Master Set Favre Ticket Stubs Favre TD Reciever Autos Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>well jerry kramer defies logic too. yet he is always the one that most people point to as being the most overlooked and deserving.
so its all together possible that steve tasker wont make the hof either even though he has been a semifinalist already 4 times (maybe that is the voters way of acknowledging his play but they wont go further than a semifinalist). as we know for a tasker there is a ricky jackson out there. >>
OK. So the argument to keep At-water and Butler but NOT vote to add Tasker and Jacoby isssss....What? Because speculatively they could come out of no where and be finalists? OK..So THEN we add them back to the set. It is/was meant to be a fluid set. NO PLAYER currently listed will stay on the set forever.
Here is what we do know...Without needing to speculate...Since they added the semifinalist process in 2004,here are the players who "came out of nowhere" and were elected to the HOF the FIRST TIME as a semifinalist after having been SKIPPED OVER in past years:
That's right...ZERO...Not one guy who has been elected to the HOF since semifinals started in 2004...Every single "shocker" including Rickey Jackson and Fred Deam were either smeifinalist and/or finalist PRIOR TO the year they were elected..This is not speculation, this is fact..
So the odds of At-water and Butler "coming out of nowhere" and becoming a semifinalist, finalist, and HOF inductee all in one year is ZERO according to the HOF voters...Ed Sabol may be the first to do that this year, and that is because his candidacy is an EXTREMELY unique case..Nothing very unique about Butler or At-water..
So i don't understand why they can't be removed until they actually BECOME likely HOFers...Just because we made a mistake in adding them 5-6 years ago doesn't mean we shouldn;t correct the mistake. The only argument in this situation that makes logical sense is someone who wants them to stay AND wants to add Tasker and Jacoby, who according to the HOF voters are in line in front of At-water and Butler...This is not speculation, this is how they have voted!
The senior set is for speculation...Not the modern set..Read the set guidelines..."LIKELY OR DEFINITE" HOFers...and players who cant make the top 25 for 5+ years are not LIKELY OR DEFINITE in any way you want to spin it...
Hey, the voters have spoken...But the vote have gone up each year..Maybe like you say, 10 years is the cut off for others...But at some point, we will be negligent in not removing guys who are PROVEN not to be likely or definite HOF candidates. Guys who arent even in the top 25...
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Why are we using the refractors for Seymour's and Brees's rookie cards in this set, according to the poll?
For LT, we're using the regular Topps Chrome.
Nick >>
For 2001 and 2002 the regular rookies were refractors.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys - Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2 touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL title.
<< <i>Why are we using the refractors for Seymour's and Brees's rookie cards in this set, according to the poll?
For LT, we're using the regular Topps Chrome.
Nick >>
For 2001 and 2002 the regular rookies were refractors. >>
Actually it is just 2001, the Rookie Refractors are the base card. For all other Topps Chrome (including 2002), they have regular Chrome, and then Refractors are a parallel set.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Why are we using the refractors for Seymour's and Brees's rookie cards in this set, according to the poll?
For LT, we're using the regular Topps Chrome.
Nick >>
For 2001 and 2002 the regular rookies were refractors. >>
Actually it is just 2001, the Rookie Refractors are the base card. For all other Topps Chrome (including 2002), they have regular Chrome, and then Refractors are a parallel set.
Jason >>
Thanks for the info, I didn't realize that.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys - Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2 touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL title.
<< <i>OK. PSA should probably use the same terminology for all the 2001 Topps Chrome rookies in the set.
Nick >>
Agreed...
Even with the recent Top 100 NFL Players set that they added. You couldn't add the Tomlinson card for like the first 2-3 weeks, cause it was looking for a regular, non rookie refractor edition that doesn't exist. Unfortunately, the folks at PSA deal with way more cards and sets than we do, and simple aren't as knowledgable about specific card issues as some of us are. Would be like asking me about 1994 Upper Deck Baseball or something...lol
If you see it mislisted somewhere, you should e-mail PSA to fix it. They are usually very accomodating so long as you bring them facts and not opinions on their listings.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Comments
<< <i>I think 12 would be way too many to add in one year. maybe we should limit it to 7 like the HOF does. >>
I don't think everyone feels that way. And that should be left up to each individual to vote accordingly. If that is your belief then you only vote for 7 guys here. You voted for 8 yourself! I went with 10, BUT also wanted 2 subtracted who are no longer on the HOF voters radar, for a net of 8. Unfortunately, the majority wants to keep every guy we vote on, even if it ends up that we were incorrect or premature. And if Wayne and Witten are going to go in (IMO too soon), then we very well could end up with a monster set at some point. The good news is, we are going to drop at least 6 guys, both Ray Guy and Lester Hayes will move to the Senior Pool. And we should see at least 4 modern candidates elected.
Maybe next year will be a smaller pool of candidates??
This vote is also just a preliminary vote. It still has to go out via PSA Poll to all the members who collect this set OFFICIALLY to vote for each player being added. These bubble guys may end up without the necessary votes in the official poll. Just depends on how all the other voters chime in when replying to PSA. So for everyone, make sure you vote again when it counts. In reply to the PSA poll that will eventually be sent out for these adds.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Troy Polamalu
Dwight Freeney
Drew Brees
Richard Seymour
Kevin Greene
Julius Peppers
Hines Ward
Ben Rothlisberger
Ken Anderson
SUBTRACT:
Steve At-water
LeRoy Butler
What does everything think about Derrick Mason?
Rgs,
Greg M.
References:
Onlychild, Ahmanfan, fabfrank, wufdude, jradke, Reese, Jasp, thenavarro
E-Bay id: greg_n_meg
Total Voters: 17
ADD:
Troy Polamalu-16
Dwight Freeney-15
Drew Brees-14
Richard Seymour-14
Kevin Greene-13
Julius Peppers-13
Hines Ward-13
Ben Roethlisberger-12
Edgerrin James-11
Jason Witten-9
Ty Law-8
Reggie Wayne-8
Steve Tasker-4
Joe Jacoby-3
Donnie Shell-2
Donovan McNabb-2
Chad Ochocinco-1
Ken Anderson-1
SUBTRACT:
Steve At-water-5
LeRoy Butler-5
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Derrick Mason is the purest definition of a stats guy. Nice numbers, long career...But only 2 Pro Bowls and 1 First Team All-Pro as a kick returner. The Irving Fryar of the decade..
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
<< <i>Just got the poll from PSA. I voted yes.
I voted yes on all but Whitten. I still think its a year too early.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Dave
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
<< <i>I thought we were going with the majority? What is the point of having a poll if you are not voting with the majority? So I should have just told PSA which ones I voted to add? Is that not what weve done in the past?
Dave >>
Dave, it's what we have ALWAYS done. Our vote here is to determine WHO TO REQUEST TO PSA. A way to narrow the nominees to only those players the majority of us here on the message boards think should be added/subtracted. We still have to vote in the PSA poll, and personally I'm not going to vote someone on who I don't think is ready. If you have this year or in the past, that's on you.
Do a search and find any/all of these votes we have done. Never once have I ever said or led on that you are required to vote with PSA for someone that you do not agree should be added.
We had 17 respond here and vote here. There are 48 collectors of the set who will get the OFFICIAL poll in their e-mail. The OFFICIAL poll is what will determine who actually gets added and who doesn't. It's no different than the actual HOF selection process. We vote here publically and select the "finalists", but the final poll, the one that determines who gets added, comes down to the actual responses to PSA to their poll. It is why I always remind everyone to make sure they RESPOND TO PSA when the poll comes out. Failure to do so could end up with your actual vote not being heard.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
<< <i>I guess I always assumed that it was an all or nothing vote. If the majority think Witten should be in the set, I will vote for him even if I disagree. FWIW >>
How can it be all or nothing when only 17 of the possible 48 voted here?
All we are doing is deciding who to request. PSA still wants to do their own poll and that is the one that determines who gets added and who doesn't. FWIW, I will vote for the guys I think are deserving. Even more so now that it is apparent no one is ever going to get removed (which was SUPPOSED to be an acceptable possiblity when the set was built). Each of us have our own opinions. If it's a majority here, it's also usually a majority in the official poll. But of course not guaranteed.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>I guess I always assumed that it was an all or nothing vote. If the majority think Witten should be in the set, I will vote for him even if I disagree. FWIW >>
How can it be all or nothing when only 17 of the possible 48 voted here?
All we are doing is deciding who to request. PSA still wants to do their own poll and that is the one that determines who gets added and who doesn't. FWIW, I will vote for the guys I think are deserving. Even more so now that it is apparent no one is ever going to get removed (which was SUPPOSED to be an acceptable possiblity when the set was built). Each of us have our own opinions. If it's a majority here, it's also usually a majority in the official poll. But of course not guaranteed.
Jason >>
well i guess the majority in this poll dont see the removal of players as clearly as you do. not sure why you make the statement "which was SUPPOSED to be an acceptable possiblity when the set was built". people might have agreed to remove players from the set as part of the ruels. but may not have the same feeling either about the players put up for removal or might not agree with the feeling of only have 5 years to be a semifinalist. but thats what happens in free elections. one of the reasons the current govt in egypt isnt too keen on free elections. as they know they will be out of power.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>well i guess the majority in this poll dont see the removal of players as clearly as you do. not sure why you make the statement "which was SUPPOSED to be an acceptable possiblity when the set was built". people might have agreed to remove players from the set as part of the ruels. but may not have the same feeling either about the players put up for removal or might not agree with the feeling of only have 5 years to be a semifinalist. but thats what happens in free elections. one of the reasons the current govt in egypt isnt too keen on free elections. as they know they will be out of power. >>
Very true on all accounts! Great post.
And the main reason why...when voting in a free elections you vote independently, based on truth and logic as you understand it.
Can't fault anyone if that is how they are going about the voting. But I fail to see the logic of someone who votes to KEEP At-water and Butler (0 times semifinalist in 5-7 years), but not to add say a Steve Tasker (4 time semifinalist the last 7 years)...The logic is not based in reality.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
so its all together possible that steve tasker wont make the hof either even though he has been a semifinalist already 4 times (maybe that is the voters way of acknowledging his play but they wont go further than a semifinalist). as we know for a tasker there is a ricky jackson out there.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>well jerry kramer defies logic too. yet he is always the one that most people point to as being the most overlooked and deserving.
so its all together possible that steve tasker wont make the hof either even though he has been a semifinalist already 4 times (maybe that is the voters way of acknowledging his play but they wont go further than a semifinalist). as we know for a tasker there is a ricky jackson out there. >>
OK. So the argument to keep At-water and Butler but NOT vote to add Tasker and Jacoby isssss....What? Because speculatively they could come out of no where and be finalists? OK..So THEN we add them back to the set. It is/was meant to be a fluid set. NO PLAYER currently listed will stay on the set forever.
Here is what we do know...Without needing to speculate...Since they added the semifinalist process in 2004,here are the players who "came out of nowhere" and were elected to the HOF the FIRST TIME as a semifinalist after having been SKIPPED OVER in past years:
.............................................................
That's right...ZERO...Not one guy who has been elected to the HOF since semifinals started in 2004...Every single "shocker" including Rickey Jackson and Fred Deam were either smeifinalist and/or finalist PRIOR TO the year they were elected..This is not speculation, this is fact..
So the odds of At-water and Butler "coming out of nowhere" and becoming a semifinalist, finalist, and HOF inductee all in one year is ZERO according to the HOF voters...Ed Sabol may be the first to do that this year, and that is because his candidacy is an EXTREMELY unique case..Nothing very unique about Butler or At-water..
So i don't understand why they can't be removed until they actually BECOME likely HOFers...Just because we made a mistake in adding them 5-6 years ago doesn't mean we shouldn;t correct the mistake. The only argument in this situation that makes logical sense is someone who wants them to stay AND wants to add Tasker and Jacoby, who according to the HOF voters are in line in front of At-water and Butler...This is not speculation, this is how they have voted!
The senior set is for speculation...Not the modern set..Read the set guidelines..."LIKELY OR DEFINITE" HOFers...and players who cant make the top 25 for 5+ years are not LIKELY OR DEFINITE in any way you want to spin it...
Hey, the voters have spoken...But the vote have gone up each year..Maybe like you say, 10 years is the cut off for others...But at some point, we will be negligent in not removing guys who are PROVEN not to be likely or definite HOF candidates. Guys who arent even in the top 25...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
For LT, we're using the regular Topps Chrome.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
<< <i>Why are we using the refractors for Seymour's and Brees's rookie cards in this set, according to the poll?
For LT, we're using the regular Topps Chrome.
Nick >>
For 2001 and 2002 the regular rookies were refractors.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
<< <i>
<< <i>Why are we using the refractors for Seymour's and Brees's rookie cards in this set, according to the poll?
For LT, we're using the regular Topps Chrome.
Nick >>
For 2001 and 2002 the regular rookies were refractors. >>
Actually it is just 2001, the Rookie Refractors are the base card. For all other Topps Chrome (including 2002), they have regular Chrome, and then Refractors are a parallel set.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Why are we using the refractors for Seymour's and Brees's rookie cards in this set, according to the poll?
For LT, we're using the regular Topps Chrome.
Nick >>
For 2001 and 2002 the regular rookies were refractors. >>
Actually it is just 2001, the Rookie Refractors are the base card. For all other Topps Chrome (including 2002), they have regular Chrome, and then Refractors are a parallel set.
Jason >>
Thanks for the info, I didn't realize that.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
<< <i>OK. PSA should probably use the same terminology for all the 2001 Topps Chrome rookies in the set.
Nick >>
Agreed...
Even with the recent Top 100 NFL Players set that they added. You couldn't add the Tomlinson card for like the first 2-3 weeks, cause it was looking for a regular, non rookie refractor edition that doesn't exist. Unfortunately, the folks at PSA deal with way more cards and sets than we do, and simple aren't as knowledgable about specific card issues as some of us are. Would be like asking me about 1994 Upper Deck Baseball or something...lol
If you see it mislisted somewhere, you should e-mail PSA to fix it. They are usually very accomodating so long as you bring them facts and not opinions on their listings.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.