I was checking PSA's Set Compositions for the Regular 75 Topps set and that of the 75 Topps Mini. Much to my surprise they are vastly different? In the 75 Topps Regular set, all the team cards are weighted 1.5 with the Reds Team card weighted 2.5? The A's were the WS Champs and should have, at minimum, an equal weighting than the Reds Team card? In the 75 Topps Mini set all team cards are weighted 1. This is only one of many differences I noticed. The leader cards in the regular set are weighted 1.5 each vs 1 each in the Mini set. Many semi-star cards are weighted 1.5 or even up to 2.5 in some cases in the Regular 75 Topps and many of these cards are weighted just 1 in the Mini set. Rollie Fingers for example is weighted 1 in the 75 Topps Mini set and 2.5 in the 75 Topps Regular set?
I brought this issue to the attention of PSA several years ago. The cards should be weighted equally in each set! They actually made the changes and the sets were suppose to be equally weighted. Unfortunately errors were made in the process of changing the weights of the 75 Topps Mini cards and this caused a bit of an uproar with 75 Topps Mini Set Collectors. The weights were changed back to as they were. Though I don't think PSA even got that process completed correctly. Many semi-star cards that had a higher weight were weighted 1 when they had been 1.5 or 2. Now the 75 Topps Regular set and the 75 Topps Mini set are very differently weighted which makes little sense.
I realize PSA claims to weight them based on PSA 8 avg. value. It's clear that many of the weighted cards in the regular set sell for less than the lower weighted cards of the 75 Mini set. It has always been my personal opinion that weighting should simply be based on a players status in the era they played. It's not any great mystery who the semi-stars and stars of every era are. Weighting sets in this fashion would simplify the process and make similar sets like the 75 Topps Regular and 75 Topps Mini sets weighted the same, as it should be! (IMHO).
Some have challenged this theory with the arguement, how to grade modern base ball cards where a players status has not yet been established? I say don't mingle that arguement with era's that have already been established and players are no longer active! Leave the present era out of the arguement involving retired players. Once you've gone back far enough in time, it is very clear who the stars and semi-stars are. Even in the current time frame it's pretty clear. Sure a surprise player shows up or develops after several years in MLB. The use of weights based on a players status in the era they played would work far better than the average value of a PSA 8 card, especially when looking at pre-2000 era players.
The current system requires changes as values in cards change. And from what I'm seeing just in the 75 Topps Regular and Mini sets. These changes are not made and the set compositions simply are not accurately weighted. The weighting process would be far more consistent using player status in the era they played. Set Compositions would rarely if ever need changes, especially for PSA sets pre-1990-2000.
If value of the card is the model, then why are rare common player cards not weighted higher based on the present alleged rule used? It's very clear that the value of rare common PSA 8 cards are not consistent with the PSA rule of weighting based on value! How many common player cards can you find with a weighted value of more than 1? In the set I collect there isn't a single one. I'm sure that is a consistent pattern throughout all PSA set compositions.
At the very least, the 75 Topps Regular set and the 75 Topps Mini sets should have the same Set Compositions! (IMHO)
Agreed. It makes no sense that the Regular and Mini are weighted differently. Card weighting should be based on player status. Weightings based on the pop report ,although representative of the set's difficulty to achieve, would be a nightmare.
I guess I disagree to a point. I don't collect the 1975 Topps Regular issue but I do collect the 1975 OPCs in addition to the minis and in my experience there is a lot of variation between the sets and which cards are more condition sensitive. I think an across the board weighting that doesn't take into account the quirks of each set would be ignoring the charm of collecting each set. Also, what about how that would effect player sets? If the weighting is only based on star status then every card in the George Brett player set would have the same weight. Obviously PSA wouldn't go that route on player sets, but then you run into having different weighting systems for company sets, player sets, etc.
Here are the issues as I see them: Using PSA 8 as the weighting standard is meaningless for newer sets when all PSA 8s, regardless of the player, are basically worthless. It is probably worthless for the older sets where finding anything above a PSA 7 is practically impossible too. PSA hasn't developed a way to account for the value of low pop commons. PSA hasn't developed a way to consistently update weights based on changing values.
You bring up good points Chad (at least I think that is your name).
Here are the rules from the registry:
"Set rankings are determined by the grades of the items in the set, the "weight" assigned to each item in the set, and the set's completeness. Each item within the set is assigned a weight based on the value of the item in NM-MT condition. For example, a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle would have a much higher weight than a 1952 Topps common. If the set contains an ultra rarity, the set may be broken down using a 1-10 scale, with 10 being the greatest weight. If the set has little variation in individual item prices, then the scale may be 1-5. Weighting for each set is viewable by clicking on the set composite link found on each set page.
Using the individual item ratings, the grade of each item, the completion percentage and set size, a unique formula is created for each set in the registry. To be specific, the weighted grade point average is determined by multiplying the grade of each item listed in a set by the weight of the item. (Note that for calculation purposes non-graded authenticated items and "Proof" tickets, regardless of the numeric grade, receive a default grade of 1.) Then these totals are summed and divided by the total sum for weights of those items. The final set rating is achieved by dividing the weighted grade sum by the total sum of the weights in the entire set. Now, while this is NOT an exact science, the formula should provide an accurate evaluation of each set registered on our site. This means you can compare your prized sets to the best the hobby has to offer."
____
This wording would lend to your premise that weighting should be based on the difficulty of the card along with star status.....as both tend to lead to "value" in the market. I just think value is a hard variable to keep up with. Look at your SMR Report next month and try to use that for your bidding strategy on e-bay for 8's, 9's and 10's. I just think that player status is much more a consistent and quantifiable parameter to base weightings on. The draw back with this is that the weighting system wouldn't account for difficulty to complete. The current weighting doesn't account for this. What is the weight for an 8 in the #647 card? Uno.
If it currently stands that higher weighted cards are more desirable as they increase the GPA of a PSA graded set. Why would PSA want to establish the weight of a card based on the value of a PSA 8 example? It would seem far more reasonable to base it on a players status in the given era they played?
This wouldn't lead to each star players card having the same weight. Weights of a given players cards would change over time. Brett's rookie card is weighted 10 in the 75 Topps sets. That doesn't mean his 2nd year card or 3rd year cards receive a weight of 10. Weights of players cards decrease after the years go by. This process fits the rule of weighting based on the status of a player in the era they played. Simplicity and consistency leads to a system you don't have to bother with all the time? The low pop commons will still sell for big bucks, and they will still have a weight of 1, as they do now.
Unless PSA is going to change the weight of low pop commons to fit the existing "written rule" I say they should simply ditch the old rule and base weights on the status of a player in their given era of play. Change seems to be difficult, but in this case it would be the right thing to do. (IMHO)
If nothing else changes, I vote for "consistency" regarding the 75 Topps Regular and 75 Topps Mini Set Compositions
The current weighting is simply lazy and near meaningless by either standard.
If we use a talent weight, explain why vincente romo is the same weight as Rollie Fingers.
If we use a psa 8 price weight, we could have some fun and ask why romo is the same weight as frank taveras
The SMR would also be meaningless as it is also next to useless in this set. When it reflects an accurate price, it is by accident, and it never relays the price of a common. The only price based solution would be to periodically adjust based on VCP psa 8 realized prices and even that would be a little skewed by the vast difference we see paid for strong vs height challenged examples of cards.
It would be an interesting project to take on, to formulate something that makes more sense and is fair. Or, we could simply mimic the regular 75 set, which would also be lazy, but less inaccurate than what we have now.
10 HOF Rookie Card 7 HOF non-rookie card, face card 5 HOF non-rookie card, subset card (e.g., league leaders) 3 Team checklist, set checklist, and first and last card of set that doesn't fit the above 1 Everything else
I'd just like to bring up one other point for discussion. The last time they changed the weighting for the Mini set, most of the outcry was not over which cards received bumps and dumps but over the fact that it changed the rules midway through the game.
I'm not at a point where I can even imagine competing with the top tier sets (and that's not why I collect this set anyway), but for those people who enjoy the competition of the registry, changing the weights of cards in the set after people have spent tens of thousands of dollars on that set makes people feel like they've been cheated. This is especially true since it's not like PSA came to the vast majority of the registry participants and asked for their input or even gave them a head's up on the changes.
If I used the 75 Topps Regular set Composition for my 75 Mini set I'd have a set rating of 9.413. That's almost a point and a half bump for my set. Which equates to about 10 PSA 10 commons. So there is an advantage using the 75 Topps Regular set Composition.
They both should be the same. If not the same, far closer to the same than they are now. No reasonable explaination the team cards and many of the subset commons should be 1.5 or more in the regular set composition and 1 in the Mini set. At least the Regular sets composition acknowledges the fact that there are semi-star cards and gives many of those players a slight bump in weight. There may be a few bumped in the Mini Set Composition, but the Regular Set Comp. is littered with them!
It's pretty clear the weights haven't been distributed properly in the 75 Topps Mini Set Composition.
Chad, The initial change to the composition was littered with errors made by a PSA Rep assigned to the task. The wrong weights were placed on many cards. Caos resulted and PSA reset everything as they thought it had been before the attempted change. If they had entered all the weightings properly. Everyone would have been happy to see a slight bump in their GPA's.
I was the one who initiated the changes in the first place, so I thought. Previously I contacted PSA to get the weightings changed. They asked me to give them the weightings that would make the set more in line with the 75 Regular set. The PSA Rep. said they had been in the process of revamping the weights of many sets already. This left me a bit uneasy, so I specifically asked them if they would be sure to use the weights I had requested. They would have improved even the 75 Regular set!
When they made the change it appeared to me right away that whoever made the changes, clearly didn't have my weights. My guess is, they used whatever weights they had in mind for the change they were going to make before I contacted them? They were far different than the one's I had submitted. What was supposed to be a pleasant surprise for the rest of the Mini Set Holders on the Registry, turned into a nightmare! So much for good intensions?
I agree that the current weighting of the Minis doesn't make sense and that it could benefit from an update. But I'm just not convinced that mirroring the Regular set exactly is the right approach. I guess I'd just rather have it stay the way it is until PSA decides that they want to invest the time and resources into structuring the weights of all of the registry sets in a more common sense fashion.
In my dream world, a set like this would have its weighting based on the value of PSA 9s and those values would be determined every year after the annual awards are passed out. The values would be based on median cost of the cards as captured by VCP. It wouldn't be perfect because, as someone else said, there are always going to be stronger examples that sell for more and vice versa. But that would give a bump to semi-star cards, condition sensitive cards, team cards of teams that are actually popular or historic, and it would allow for the market to determine which cards should be worth more as time and perception changes.
In the short term I'd like to see a more liberal use of the 1-10 weighting throughout the set.
The current system really doesn't have much overall effect regardless of the weight placed on the cards. When the rating points are so close between the grades, sets with 660 cards just aren't going to have the kind of seperation one would expect when looking at a GPA of 7, 8, 9, and 9+. While the values of these sets are dramatically different, the GPA's make them look much closer. To anyone having zero knowledge of the PSA Set Registry, one would think that a set with a GPA of 8.50 would be very close in value to a set of 9.50. When in fact they can have significant differences in value.
I like your idea! PSA could lean toward your train of thought. One way is to change the rating numbers. PSA 9's and PSA 10's could and should have alot more rating value. Lets say you have a PSA 10 George Brett 75 Topps Mini card with a weight of 10. Currently PSA gives that 10X10=100 rating points. This card has so much more value than a PSA 8 and PSA 9 example. It should be given at least 10X50=500 rating points. It actually should get even more. But to keep the set ratings from getting to out of control and end the competitive nature of the whole system, perhaps more would be to much? I agree with you and say put it in realistic terms and rate each set based on it's fair market value.
I'm sure PSA keeps things as they are simply to keep the competitive nature of the Set Registry healthy.
I guess I'm not entirely sold on setting the weight of a card or judging a set solely on its $ value. Although one advantage I see with a card weight based on price is that it can be an indicator of card scarcity and popularity or a combination of both, on the other hand, it can be cumbersome to maintain. As we all know, card prices fluctuate, sometimes wildly depending upon demand; one would have to constantly (or nearly constantly) monitor card prices and adjust the weights accordingly. I don't see what's in it for PSA to do this in terms of a benefit relative to the way things are now, unless of course, they charge a hefty fee for set registry maintenance.
The other problem I have with it is that the reasoning behind the $ value of a card varies between the the popularity of the player, scarcity of the card, or some other factor (e.g., emotional bidding in an auction, someone needs the card and needs it now and is willing to pay crazy money, etc). As a mini collector, I am somewhat impressed by a set with a PSA 8 Brett valued at $110, for example, but I'm even more impressed by a set containing a PSA 8 Fred Stanley also valued at $110. I'm sorry, but there is nothing rare about a PSA 8 Brett (or even a 9 for that matter), yet it receives a weight of 10 compared to the Stanley's 1. Now the fix might be to set the Stanley at the same weight as the Brett, but then who would be impressed by the set or be convinced it's worth the same weight as a Brett other than a diehard mini collector?
Perhaps a composite weight that considers card/player popularity (e.g., HOFer, star, rookie, etc) and some measure of rarity other than $ value (e.g., population of PSA 8, 9, and 10 for the card summed and then divided by the total population graded) might be in order.
I don't think a set weighting based on VCP data would be all that difficult for PSA to maintain though. I'm no programmer, but it doesn't seem like it would take much more than an agreement with VCP, a pre-set formula, and an automated data dump once a year.
The benefit to PSA is simply that people would be happier with the set registry if each registry composite made sense to the collectors. And, let's face it, the registry drives a lot of money PSA's way so it benefits them to keep their set participants happy.
In my view, there's no better barometer of a card's value/weight than what collector's are willing to pay for it. Just look at the knowledge of this set that the collectors on this very thread have. No one knows which cards make a set stand out more than the people participating here and backing up those opinions and knowledge with their $$$. Minimaster is correct when he says that there is really a much bigger difference in value between his #1 set at 9.40 GPA than my #5 set at 8.33 GPA. The current system simply can't account for the nuances within this set.
The benefit to PSA is simply that people would be happier with the set registry if each registry composite made sense to the collectors. And, let's face it, the registry drives a lot of money PSA's way so it benefits them to keep their set participants happy.
I agree in theory; however, what does "happier" mean in terms of action? To my knowledge, nobody on the registry is leaving because they're unhappy with the present registry composite. Would greater numbers of new collectors jump in on a mini registry set if the composite better represented card values? I don't know. I suppose it depends on their familiarity with the set's nuances.
Just look at the knowledge of this set that the collectors on this very thread have. No one knows which cards make a set stand out more than the people participating here and backing up those opinions and knowledge with their $$$.
I know what makes a set stand out; however, there is only so much I'm willing to spend on a common card, no matter how much its scarcity boosts my set. For me, I can certainly afford to buy any PSA 8 card in the set, but there are many I won't buy at present $ levels because, in part, the incremental happiness gain I get from having the card in PSA 8 versus PSA 7 doesn't warrant the incremental cost. Again, I still understand and appreciate it's scarcity.
Now I certainly don't fault anyone for paying big bucks for a scarce common, but I think there are relatively few out there that are willing to do so. If the top 3 or 4 individuals fighting for a certain common drive up it's price, does that warrant increasing that card's weighting? Should those 3 or 4 individuals determine the composite for the rest of the registry's members?
Here's something else I think we need to consider. Let's say I'm one of those individuals willing to shell out a decent amount for a certain scarce card, and I win one in 2012 for $125 and it gets assigned a weight of say 10 at the end of the year. Then, 2013 comes along, and the collectors fighting over that card now all have it in their set or perhaps they get distracted by another set and work on it instead that year. The price of the card drops to $75. Is it fair to me to have its weight, which is based on the $ value, drop from 10 down to some lower weight commensurate with the lower 2013 price? That's the problem I see with assigning the card weight based on $ value.
I certainly respect everyone's opinion on the matter, and I think this is an interesting discussion. I just don't see any easy answers.
Terry Hughes - for years he was a $10 8. Then we went three years without one being offered and the first one went off at 391.00. Supply and demand. Now that seven have changed hands in the last 7 months, supply and demand is starting to equalize.
On a hypothetical scale he would have went from a 1 to a 10 and now back down to a 7 or so at the moment.
Find a way to use player status along with the pop report to come up with weighting. The pop report is easier to utilize than VCP and it helps drive the market value of a particular card. The pop report is also much more consistent than VCP as Indy describes in the example from his post. Both the pop report and star status contribute to "value" of a card.
I've seen some great discussions elsewhere on the perils of taking a pop report as gospel and that holds true with this set. How many cards over the years have been low pop because they havent been graded as opposed to being truly difficult?
I can't resist... lets use Toby Harrah... four years ago he the second lowest pop 8 at 13 and sold for a real premium. Today there are 37 of them. I once hit 4 8s on one sub. Just one example
In a 9 we can use Stan Bahnsen. He was a $500 3 pop and is now a $25 15 pop...
As someone who grades a lot of cards, I can tell you that in both this set and others, when there is an abberation common that sells for a lot of money, I am digging through my raw in no time for cards I hadn't bothered grading previously and I am not alone.
Not when it fills the holder and has nice color like this one I decided to pull the trigger on (even though I have another...lol). I've seen far to many of these that don't fill the holder. Could be half the population of 9's or more? So if I'm going to spend $500 on a common PSA 10. I have little issue with buying a really nice example of this Rose (all time hit leader!) for $400. In the over 7 years I've collected this set graded, I have only 2 PSA 9's that fill the holder. I've seen a boat load of them during that time! This was an easy call in my opinion Yeah, it had the print mark above his name.... but I still felt it was one of the nicer examples I've ever had the opportunity to buy.
There are less than half the stated pop of PSA 9 #320 Rose cards in existence. I have cracked and resubbed the same two like five times EACH. So there are several phantom 9s in the pop report. A full and centered mini #320 is a diesel card.
Makes me wish I didn't sell one of my two beauts (I still have the better one) for the low price of $190. I feel like a major effen ass right now.
Words really can't describe how pissed I am about the price I sold it for now.
Hey Guys: Well, I just received the results of my latest sub of 25 mini's. Not surprisingly based on other's recent experiences with grading mini's, I received my first N6's. As far as the 7's go, I'm only surprised by the 7 for the Angels Team; I'm not sure what I missed there. I knew I was pushing the limit on centering on the other 7's, and in fact, I count my blessings on the Brock, Lis, Odom, and Oliver as those could have gone either way. I'm very happy with the Cosgrove 9, and actually somewhat surprised that it graded that high. The colors on it are bold and corners sharp, but it's borderline 8/9 centering.
Of the 25 cards, two were crack outs. The Brock was in a 9OC holder, and the Lis was in an 8 ST holder. The stain on the Lis was wax residue on the card face, which was very easily removed by one of those fabric softener dryer sheets.
The Tolan is the only card I need to finish my Padres team set, which would be my first completed registry set. Fortunately, after sending this sub in, I found a nicer Tolan at a local card show. I sent it in on a free registry set voucher; it should pop any day now. I really hope I get an 8 on it.
41 1 19919657 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1975 TOPPS MINI 2 '74 HIGHLIGHTS LOU BROCK Card 42 1 19919658 N6: MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT 1975 TOPPS MINI 18 TIGERS TEAM RALPH HOUK, MGR. Card 43 1 19919659 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1975 TOPPS MINI 27 KEN REITZ Card 44 1 19919660 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1975 TOPPS MINI 41 CESAR GERONIMO Card 45 1 19919661 N6: MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT 1975 TOPPS MINI 65 DON GULLETT Card 46 1 19919662 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1975 TOPPS MINI 69 JOHN ODOM Card 47 1 19919663 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1975 TOPPS MINI 86 JOE LIS Card 48 1 19919664 MINT 9 1975 TOPPS MINI 96 MIKE COSGROVE Card 49 1 19919665 NEAR MINT 7 1975 TOPPS MINI 109 GEORGE HENDRICK Card 50 1 19919666 N6: MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT 1975 TOPPS MINI 162 WILLIE MONTANEZ Card 51 1 19919667 N6: MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT 1975 TOPPS MINI 173 STEVE ROGERS Card 52 1 19919668 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1975 TOPPS MINI 183 MEL STOTTLEMYRE Card 53 1 19919669 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1975 TOPPS MINI 235 JACK BILLINGHAM Card 54 1 19919670 NEAR MINT 7 1975 TOPPS MINI 236 ANGELS TEAM DICK WILLIAMS, MGR. Card 55 1 19919671 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1975 TOPPS MINI 269 DOUG RAU Card 56 1 19919672 NEAR MINT 7 1975 TOPPS MINI 308 R.B.I. LEADERS J.BURROUGHS/J.BENCH Card 57 1 19919673 NEAR MINT 7 1975 TOPPS MINI 344 BEN OGLIVIE Card 58 1 19919674 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1975 TOPPS MINI 372 JOHN D'ACQUISTO Card 59 1 19919675 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1975 TOPPS MINI 376 STEVE YEAGER Card 60 1 19919676 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1975 TOPPS MINI 400 DICK ALLEN Card 61 1 19919677 NEAR MINT 7 1975 TOPPS MINI 402 BOB TOLAN Card 62 1 19919678 MINT 9 1975 TOPPS MINI 413 MARTY PATTIN Card 63 1 19919679 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1975 TOPPS MINI 494 PETE La##K Card 64 1 19919680 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1975 TOPPS MINI 555 AL OLIVER Card 65 1 19919681 MINT 9 1975 TOPPS MINI 643 BRENT STROM Card
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
And yes, I'm surprised I didn't get a couple of 8.5's, namely on the Geronimo and Billingham. Those are dead-centered. I sometimes wonder if they simply forget that the .5 is available.
I don't know for sure. I think somebody asked the question about OPC issuing a mini pack in 1975, and the answer on the main forum was no, they never did. The packs in a Topps mini box, as I recall, were arranged as 9 stacks of 4 rows for a total of 36 packs. The dimensions of a mini pack are about 2-3/8 inches wide by 3-1/4 inches tall. So if the top flap of your box is about or very slightly more than 3-1/4 inches wide by 2-3/8 inches x 4 packs = 9-1/2 inches long, you might have a mini box. Sorry I can't be of more help. Perhaps the guys that have boxes in their collections could weigh in with the dimensions of their boxes?
So, the Bay is a heck of a crapshoot on raw, particularly sets... had one come in the mail today that I won for just under $500. Had a good feeling about it... more to come, but thought I would share the first scan:
If I didn't know better, I would suggest that the red/yellows have been photoshopped! Assuming they are full size...Unbelievable centering and lack of print marks across the tops.
To answer the question above: 1975 OPC cards came in wax packs only (no racks or cellos), and there wasn't a mini version. Since the 75 OPC wax packs contained just 8 cards per pack instead of the 10 that came in the Topps pack, the 75 OPC wax box contained 48 packs instead of 36.
Edit to add: If you think 75 minis are tough on centering and condition sensitive, try pulling gradable cards from a 75 OPC wax pack...it's an exercise in utter frustration.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
There was discussion in this forum a month or two ago about red/yellow cards consistently having the "crackle" finish at the top; I find it rather amazing that the entire lot you have scanned are free of that common print defect.
Alas, Tommy's dandruff is alive and well, so he will remain a white whale in a 9 for now... take a look at the printg quality on the 624, one of the hardest cards in the set imho. The brett is nice, but centered a little left. perfect reverse, so it has a shot at a 9. The Yount is too far oc to grade. Here are a few more, including a great Fingers which we were just talking about:
Don't know if you guys caught it on the main thread, but pmcollectour pulled a PSA 10 of #618 ROOKIE PITCHERS from the recent box break. A nice run of 9's too. Here's hoping everybody does as well...
I asked about these earlier and now have a pic of them. Both are in pretty nice shape with just general wear. Can you guys help me out with some type of value on each box.
One is an OPC box...these seem very tough to locate.
One is a standard size Topps box...seems they are much more difficult to find than the mini, not sure why that is?
As far as value goes, I'd estimate the value of each box at around $15-$20. The OPC is the tougher of the two to find, but OPC has a much more limited collector base, so all said they value of each is about equal, imo. Although 75 minis were a test issue and released to limited markets back in 1975, they are more plentiful than their full-size counterparts, as a search on ebay for unopened packs will reveal that there are far more mini wax packs available than regular size wax packs. That is why a full size 75 wax box will retail for more than twice the amount of a mini wax box.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
That and the fact that a full size box is far more likely to yield gradable cards.
I've always found it interesting that if we make it simplistic and use graded card populations, regular 75s are 2.6x more common, yet unopened mini supply dwarfs regular.
Obviously a large part is the conlon effect, releasing so much of the existing product to the market in later years, as opposed to 1975. I also strongly suspect that the conlon effect leads to an abundant supply of nice boxes and wrappers which leads to much of what you see on ebay, further inflating supply...
Full circle, I think the fact that unopened mini has a significant chance of being resealed plays a part in the discount as well.
I would agree that regular size 75 wax packs will yield (on average) more gradable cards than the average mini wax pack, though I can think of no other set from the mid to late 70s besides the 75 mini that offers more bang for the buck, should you be fortunate enough to get a well-centered box, as the prices for lower pop regular size 75s pale in comparison to the low pop minis.
I do think that people just saved more of the mini boxes because of their unique size as even before the passing of Conlon mini wax packs were more plentiful than regular size wax packs/boxes.
Conversely, mini cellos and especially rack packs are far more scracer than regular size 75 cellos and racks, and the value of those, rack packs in particular, are higher than regular size cellos and racks.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Well, that and the fact that I have ripped every single rack pack I have been able to get my hands on over the years, save the one I sold you... :-)
I'll admit it.. I feel just a little guilty when I rip one....
On a serious note with that, it has been my own personal experience, nothing more, that cards (mini) from rack have been better centered and have graded better overall.
LOL, Jim...I've managed to somehow accumulate about 6 mini racks over the years without busting open any of them...someday I will muster the strength to test your theory--I will probably feel just slightly guilty, too, unless I pull a perfectly centered mint low pop common or gem mint Brett RC...if not, I will feel even worse!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
The first PSA 9 Etchebarren came about that way. It was on back and well centered. I took a chance and ripped the rack. The card paid for the rack (Thank you Matty)
Comments
I brought this issue to the attention of PSA several years ago. The cards should be weighted equally in each set! They actually made the changes and the sets were suppose to be equally weighted. Unfortunately errors were made in the process of changing the weights of the 75 Topps Mini cards and this caused a bit of an uproar with 75 Topps Mini Set Collectors. The weights were changed back to as they were. Though I don't think PSA even got that process completed correctly. Many semi-star cards that had a higher weight were weighted 1 when they had been 1.5 or 2. Now the 75 Topps Regular set and the 75 Topps Mini set are very differently weighted which makes little sense.
I realize PSA claims to weight them based on PSA 8 avg. value. It's clear that many of the weighted cards in the regular set sell for less than the lower weighted cards of the 75 Mini set. It has always been my personal opinion that weighting should simply be based on a players status in the era they played. It's not any great mystery who the semi-stars and stars of every era are. Weighting sets in this fashion would simplify the process and make similar sets like the 75 Topps Regular and 75 Topps Mini sets weighted the same, as it should be! (IMHO).
Some have challenged this theory with the arguement, how to grade modern base ball cards where a players status has not yet been established? I say don't mingle that arguement with era's that have already been established and players are no longer active! Leave the present era out of the arguement involving retired players. Once you've gone back far enough in time, it is very clear who the stars and semi-stars are. Even in the current time frame it's pretty clear. Sure a surprise player shows up or develops after several years in MLB. The use of weights based on a players status in the era they played would work far better than the average value of a PSA 8 card, especially when looking at pre-2000 era players.
The current system requires changes as values in cards change. And from what I'm seeing just in the 75 Topps Regular and Mini sets. These changes are not made and the set compositions simply are not accurately weighted. The weighting process would be far more consistent using player status in the era they played. Set Compositions would rarely if ever need changes, especially for PSA sets pre-1990-2000.
If value of the card is the model, then why are rare common player cards not weighted higher based on the present alleged rule used? It's very clear that the value of rare common PSA 8 cards are not consistent with the PSA rule of weighting based on value! How many common player cards can you find with a weighted value of more than 1? In the set I collect there isn't a single one. I'm sure that is a consistent pattern throughout all PSA set compositions.
At the very least, the 75 Topps Regular set and the 75 Topps Mini sets should have the same Set Compositions! (IMHO)
Here are the issues as I see them:
Using PSA 8 as the weighting standard is meaningless for newer sets when all PSA 8s, regardless of the player, are basically worthless. It is probably worthless for the older sets where finding anything above a PSA 7 is practically impossible too.
PSA hasn't developed a way to account for the value of low pop commons.
PSA hasn't developed a way to consistently update weights based on changing values.
Here are the rules from the registry:
"Set rankings are determined by the grades of the items in the set, the "weight" assigned to each item in the set, and the set's completeness. Each item within the set is assigned a weight based on the value of the item in NM-MT condition. For example, a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle would have a much higher weight than a 1952 Topps common. If the set contains an ultra rarity, the set may be broken down using a 1-10 scale, with 10 being the greatest weight. If the set has little variation in individual item prices, then the scale may be 1-5. Weighting for each set is viewable by clicking on the set composite link found on each set page.
Using the individual item ratings, the grade of each item, the completion percentage and set size, a unique formula is created for each set in the registry. To be specific, the weighted grade point average is determined by multiplying the grade of each item listed in a set by the weight of the item. (Note that for calculation purposes non-graded authenticated items and "Proof" tickets, regardless of the numeric grade, receive a default grade of 1.) Then these totals are summed and divided by the total sum for weights of those items. The final set rating is achieved by dividing the weighted grade sum by the total sum of the weights in the entire set. Now, while this is NOT an exact science, the formula should provide an accurate evaluation of each set registered on our site. This means you can compare your prized sets to the best the hobby has to offer."
____
This wording would lend to your premise that weighting should be based on the difficulty of the card along with star status.....as both tend to lead to "value" in the market. I just think value is a hard variable to keep up with. Look at your SMR Report next month and try to use that for your bidding strategy on e-bay for 8's, 9's and 10's. I just think that player status is much more a consistent and quantifiable parameter to base weightings on. The draw back with this is that the weighting system wouldn't account for difficulty to complete. The current weighting doesn't account for this. What is the weight for an 8 in the #647 card? Uno.
This wouldn't lead to each star players card having the same weight. Weights of a given players cards would change over time. Brett's rookie card is weighted 10 in the 75 Topps sets. That doesn't mean his 2nd year card or 3rd year cards receive a weight of 10. Weights of players cards decrease after the years go by. This process fits the rule of weighting based on the status of a player in the era they played. Simplicity and consistency leads to a system you don't have to bother with all the time? The low pop commons will still sell for big bucks, and they will still have a weight of 1, as they do now.
Unless PSA is going to change the weight of low pop commons to fit the existing "written rule" I say they should simply ditch the old rule and base weights on the status of a player in their given era of play. Change seems to be difficult, but in this case it would be the right thing to do. (IMHO)
If nothing else changes, I vote for "consistency" regarding the 75 Topps Regular and 75 Topps Mini Set Compositions
If we use a talent weight, explain why vincente romo is the same weight as Rollie Fingers.
If we use a psa 8 price weight, we could have some fun and ask why romo is the same weight as frank taveras
The SMR would also be meaningless as it is also next to useless in this set. When it reflects an accurate price, it is by accident, and it never relays the price of a common.
The only price based solution would be to periodically adjust based on VCP psa 8 realized prices and even that would be a little skewed by the vast difference we see paid for strong vs height challenged examples of cards.
It would be an interesting project to take on, to formulate something that makes more sense and is fair. Or, we could simply mimic the regular 75 set, which would also be lazy, but less inaccurate than what we have now.
ebay id Duffs_Dugout
My Ebay Auctions
7 HOF non-rookie card, face card
5 HOF non-rookie card, subset card (e.g., league leaders)
3 Team checklist, set checklist, and first and last card of set that doesn't fit the above
1 Everything else
Discuss. :-)
I'm not at a point where I can even imagine competing with the top tier sets (and that's not why I collect this set anyway), but for those people who enjoy the competition of the registry, changing the weights of cards in the set after people have spent tens of thousands of dollars on that set makes people feel like they've been cheated. This is especially true since it's not like PSA came to the vast majority of the registry participants and asked for their input or even gave them a head's up on the changes.
They both should be the same. If not the same, far closer to the same than they are now. No reasonable explaination the team cards and many of the subset commons should be 1.5 or more in the regular set composition and 1 in the Mini set. At least the Regular sets composition acknowledges the fact that there are semi-star cards and gives many of those players a slight bump in weight. There may be a few bumped in the Mini Set Composition, but the Regular Set Comp. is littered with them!
It's pretty clear the weights haven't been distributed properly in the 75 Topps Mini Set Composition.
I was the one who initiated the changes in the first place, so I thought. Previously I contacted PSA to get the weightings changed. They asked me to give them the weightings that would make the set more in line with the 75 Regular set. The PSA Rep. said they had been in the process of revamping the weights of many sets already. This left me a bit uneasy, so I specifically asked them if they would be sure to use the weights I had requested. They would have improved even the 75 Regular set!
When they made the change it appeared to me right away that whoever made the changes, clearly didn't have my weights. My guess is, they used whatever weights they had in mind for the change they were going to make before I contacted them? They were far different than the one's I had submitted. What was supposed to be a pleasant surprise for the rest of the Mini Set Holders on the Registry, turned into a nightmare! So much for good intensions?
In my dream world, a set like this would have its weighting based on the value of PSA 9s and those values would be determined every year after the annual awards are passed out. The values would be based on median cost of the cards as captured by VCP. It wouldn't be perfect because, as someone else said, there are always going to be stronger examples that sell for more and vice versa. But that would give a bump to semi-star cards, condition sensitive cards, team cards of teams that are actually popular or historic, and it would allow for the market to determine which cards should be worth more as time and perception changes.
The current system really doesn't have much overall effect regardless of the weight placed on the cards. When the rating points are so close between the grades, sets with 660 cards just aren't going to have the kind of seperation one would expect when looking at a GPA of 7, 8, 9, and 9+. While the values of these sets are dramatically different, the GPA's make them look much closer. To anyone having zero knowledge of the PSA Set Registry, one would think that a set with a GPA of 8.50 would be very close in value to a set of 9.50. When in fact they can have significant differences in value.
I like your idea! PSA could lean toward your train of thought. One way is to change the rating numbers. PSA 9's and PSA 10's could and should have alot more rating value. Lets say you have a PSA 10 George Brett 75 Topps Mini card with a weight of 10. Currently PSA gives that 10X10=100 rating points. This card has so much more value than a PSA 8 and PSA 9 example. It should be given at least 10X50=500 rating points. It actually should get even more. But to keep the set ratings from getting to out of control and end the competitive nature of the whole system, perhaps more would be to much? I agree with you and say put it in realistic terms and rate each set based on it's fair market value.
I'm sure PSA keeps things as they are simply to keep the competitive nature of the Set Registry healthy.
The other problem I have with it is that the reasoning behind the $ value of a card varies between the the popularity of the player, scarcity of the card, or some other factor (e.g., emotional bidding in an auction, someone needs the card and needs it now and is willing to pay crazy money, etc). As a mini collector, I am somewhat impressed by a set with a PSA 8 Brett valued at $110, for example, but I'm even more impressed by a set containing a PSA 8 Fred Stanley also valued at $110. I'm sorry, but there is nothing rare about a PSA 8 Brett (or even a 9 for that matter), yet it receives a weight of 10 compared to the Stanley's 1. Now the fix might be to set the Stanley at the same weight as the Brett, but then who would be impressed by the set or be convinced it's worth the same weight as a Brett other than a diehard mini collector?
Perhaps a composite weight that considers card/player popularity (e.g., HOFer, star, rookie, etc) and some measure of rarity other than $ value (e.g., population of PSA 8, 9, and 10 for the card summed and then divided by the total population graded) might be in order.
The benefit to PSA is simply that people would be happier with the set registry if each registry composite made sense to the collectors. And, let's face it, the registry drives a lot of money PSA's way so it benefits them to keep their set participants happy.
In my view, there's no better barometer of a card's value/weight than what collector's are willing to pay for it. Just look at the knowledge of this set that the collectors on this very thread have. No one knows which cards make a set stand out more than the people participating here and backing up those opinions and knowledge with their $$$. Minimaster is correct when he says that there is really a much bigger difference in value between his #1 set at 9.40 GPA than my #5 set at 8.33 GPA. The current system simply can't account for the nuances within this set.
I agree in theory; however, what does "happier" mean in terms of action? To my knowledge, nobody on the registry is leaving because they're unhappy with the present registry composite. Would greater numbers of new collectors jump in on a mini registry set if the composite better represented card values? I don't know. I suppose it depends on their familiarity with the set's nuances.
Just look at the knowledge of this set that the collectors on this very thread have. No one knows which cards make a set stand out more than the people participating here and backing up those opinions and knowledge with their $$$.
I know what makes a set stand out; however, there is only so much I'm willing to spend on a common card, no matter how much its scarcity boosts my set. For me, I can certainly afford to buy any PSA 8 card in the set, but there are many I won't buy at present $ levels because, in part, the incremental happiness gain I get from having the card in PSA 8 versus PSA 7 doesn't warrant the incremental cost. Again, I still understand and appreciate it's scarcity.
Now I certainly don't fault anyone for paying big bucks for a scarce common, but I think there are relatively few out there that are willing to do so. If the top 3 or 4 individuals fighting for a certain common drive up it's price, does that warrant increasing that card's weighting? Should those 3 or 4 individuals determine the composite for the rest of the registry's members?
Here's something else I think we need to consider. Let's say I'm one of those individuals willing to shell out a decent amount for a certain scarce card, and I win one in 2012 for $125 and it gets assigned a weight of say 10 at the end of the year. Then, 2013 comes along, and the collectors fighting over that card now all have it in their set or perhaps they get distracted by another set and work on it instead that year. The price of the card drops to $75. Is it fair to me to have its weight, which is based on the $ value, drop from 10 down to some lower weight commensurate with the lower 2013 price? That's the problem I see with assigning the card weight based on $ value.
I certainly respect everyone's opinion on the matter, and I think this is an interesting discussion. I just don't see any easy answers.
Terry Hughes - for years he was a $10 8. Then we went three years without one being offered and the first one went off at 391.00. Supply and demand. Now that seven have changed hands in the last 7 months, supply and demand is starting to equalize.
On a hypothetical scale he would have went from a 1 to a 10 and now back down to a 7 or so at the moment.
ebay id Duffs_Dugout
My Ebay Auctions
I can't resist... lets use Toby Harrah... four years ago he the second lowest pop 8 at 13 and sold for a real premium. Today there are 37 of them. I once hit 4 8s on one sub. Just one example
In a 9 we can use Stan Bahnsen. He was a $500 3 pop and is now a $25 15 pop...
As someone who grades a lot of cards, I can tell you that in both this set and others, when there is an abberation common that sells for a lot of money, I am digging through my raw in no time for cards I hadn't bothered grading previously and I am not alone.
ebay id Duffs_Dugout
My Ebay Auctions
ebay id Duffs_Dugout
My Ebay Auctions
Makes me wish I didn't sell one of my two beauts (I still have the better one) for the low price of $190. I feel like a major effen ass right now.
Words really can't describe how pissed I am about the price I sold it for now.
Of the 25 cards, two were crack outs. The Brock was in a 9OC holder, and the Lis was in an 8 ST holder. The stain on the Lis was wax residue on the card face, which was very easily removed by one of those fabric softener dryer sheets.
The Tolan is the only card I need to finish my Padres team set, which would be my first completed registry set. Fortunately, after sending this sub in, I found a nicer Tolan at a local card show. I sent it in on a free registry set voucher; it should pop any day now. I really hope I get an 8 on it.
41 1 19919657 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1975 TOPPS MINI 2 '74 HIGHLIGHTS LOU BROCK Card
42 1 19919658 N6: MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT 1975 TOPPS MINI 18 TIGERS TEAM RALPH HOUK, MGR. Card
43 1 19919659 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1975 TOPPS MINI 27 KEN REITZ Card
44 1 19919660 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1975 TOPPS MINI 41 CESAR GERONIMO Card
45 1 19919661 N6: MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT 1975 TOPPS MINI 65 DON GULLETT Card
46 1 19919662 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1975 TOPPS MINI 69 JOHN ODOM Card
47 1 19919663 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1975 TOPPS MINI 86 JOE LIS Card
48 1 19919664 MINT 9 1975 TOPPS MINI 96 MIKE COSGROVE Card
49 1 19919665 NEAR MINT 7 1975 TOPPS MINI 109 GEORGE HENDRICK Card
50 1 19919666 N6: MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT 1975 TOPPS MINI 162 WILLIE MONTANEZ Card
51 1 19919667 N6: MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT 1975 TOPPS MINI 173 STEVE ROGERS Card
52 1 19919668 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1975 TOPPS MINI 183 MEL STOTTLEMYRE Card
53 1 19919669 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1975 TOPPS MINI 235 JACK BILLINGHAM Card
54 1 19919670 NEAR MINT 7 1975 TOPPS MINI 236 ANGELS TEAM DICK WILLIAMS, MGR. Card
55 1 19919671 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1975 TOPPS MINI 269 DOUG RAU Card
56 1 19919672 NEAR MINT 7 1975 TOPPS MINI 308 R.B.I. LEADERS J.BURROUGHS/J.BENCH Card
57 1 19919673 NEAR MINT 7 1975 TOPPS MINI 344 BEN OGLIVIE Card
58 1 19919674 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1975 TOPPS MINI 372 JOHN D'ACQUISTO Card
59 1 19919675 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1975 TOPPS MINI 376 STEVE YEAGER Card
60 1 19919676 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1975 TOPPS MINI 400 DICK ALLEN Card
61 1 19919677 NEAR MINT 7 1975 TOPPS MINI 402 BOB TOLAN Card
62 1 19919678 MINT 9 1975 TOPPS MINI 413 MARTY PATTIN Card
63 1 19919679 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1975 TOPPS MINI 494 PETE La##K Card
64 1 19919680 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1975 TOPPS MINI 555 AL OLIVER Card
65 1 19919681 MINT 9 1975 TOPPS MINI 643 BRENT STROM Card
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Something is definitely wrong when there are more N6's than half grades.... N6's on non-green/yellows are rampant.
Bosox1976
I just picked up a couple of empty 75 boxes for my collection.
One is an OPC with a 48ct and $.10 per pack...
One is a Topps with a 36ct and $.15 per pack...
How can I tell if these are REGULAR or MINI boxes???
Thanks Guys
Jeff
And yes, I'm surprised I didn't get a couple of 8.5's, namely on the Geronimo and Billingham. Those are dead-centered. I sometimes wonder if they simply forget that the .5 is available.
I don't know for sure. I think somebody asked the question about OPC issuing a mini pack in 1975, and the answer on the main forum was no, they never did. The packs in a Topps mini box, as I recall, were arranged as 9 stacks of 4 rows for a total of 36 packs. The dimensions of a mini pack are about 2-3/8 inches wide by 3-1/4 inches tall. So if the top flap of your box is about or very slightly more than 3-1/4 inches wide by 2-3/8 inches x 4 packs = 9-1/2 inches long, you might have a mini box. Sorry I can't be of more help. Perhaps the guys that have boxes in their collections could weigh in with the dimensions of their boxes?
Nick
ebay id Duffs_Dugout
My Ebay Auctions
ebay id Duffs_Dugout
My Ebay Auctions
Way to pull the trigger on that one!
ebay id Duffs_Dugout
My Ebay Auctions
ebay id Duffs_Dugout
My Ebay Auctions
To answer the question above: 1975 OPC cards came in wax packs only (no racks or cellos), and there wasn't a mini version. Since the 75 OPC wax packs contained just 8 cards per pack instead of the 10 that came in the Topps pack, the 75 OPC wax box contained 48 packs instead of 36.
Edit to add: If you think 75 minis are tough on centering and condition sensitive, try pulling gradable cards from a 75 OPC wax pack...it's an exercise in utter frustration.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
There was discussion in this forum a month or two ago about red/yellow cards consistently having the "crackle" finish at the top; I find it rather amazing that the entire lot you have scanned are free of that common print defect.
So...show us the Tommy D.
ebay id Duffs_Dugout
My Ebay Auctions
Some nice, clean color there!
Don't know if you guys caught it on the main thread, but pmcollectour pulled a PSA 10 of #618 ROOKIE PITCHERS from the recent box break. A nice run of 9's too. Here's hoping everybody does as well...
Bosox1976
I recently pulled this Don Sutton, but it is OC TB holding it from being a 9 Im guessing?
ebay id Duffs_Dugout
My Ebay Auctions
I asked about these earlier and now have a pic of them. Both are in pretty nice shape with just general wear. Can you guys help me out with some type of value on each box.
One is an OPC box...these seem very tough to locate.
One is a standard size Topps box...seems they are much more difficult to find than the mini, not sure why that is?
Jeff
As far as value goes, I'd estimate the value of each box at around $15-$20. The OPC is the tougher of the two to find, but OPC has a much more limited collector base, so all said they value of each is about equal, imo. Although 75 minis were a test issue and released to limited markets back in 1975, they are more plentiful than their full-size counterparts, as a search on ebay for unopened packs will reveal that there are far more mini wax packs available than regular size wax packs. That is why a full size 75 wax box will retail for more than twice the amount of a mini wax box.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I've always found it interesting that if we make it simplistic and use graded card populations, regular 75s are 2.6x more common, yet unopened mini supply dwarfs regular.
Obviously a large part is the conlon effect, releasing so much of the existing product to the market in later years, as opposed to 1975. I also strongly suspect that the conlon effect leads to an abundant supply of nice boxes and wrappers which leads to much of what you see on ebay, further inflating supply...
Full circle, I think the fact that unopened mini has a significant chance of being resealed plays a part in the discount as well.
ebay id Duffs_Dugout
My Ebay Auctions
I do think that people just saved more of the mini boxes because of their unique size as even before the passing of Conlon mini wax packs were more plentiful than regular size wax packs/boxes.
Conversely, mini cellos and especially rack packs are far more scracer than regular size 75 cellos and racks, and the value of those, rack packs in particular, are higher than regular size cellos and racks.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I'll admit it.. I feel just a little guilty when I rip one....
On a serious note with that, it has been my own personal experience, nothing more, that cards (mini) from rack have been better centered and have graded better overall.
ebay id Duffs_Dugout
My Ebay Auctions
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
ebay id Duffs_Dugout
My Ebay Auctions