Set Composition Weighting

clayshooter22

What is the process to have a card's weight changed? I've never really put much thought into it as my goal is to get a PSA 10 for every issue but a few weightings caught my eye when I stumbled upon the set composition last night.

I've never looked in to this but I loosely follow the weightings on my Puckett Master set and from what I can tell the weightings change every so often. Does PSA look at past sales or maybe a set registry collector asks for a change?

The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if it is collector initiated because I have seen ratings fall in many of the cards I have in PSA 10 but somehow the one guy above me in the registry has PSA 10's that keep climbing in weighting. I wonder if he is somehow manipulating the weightings.

The realist in me knows there must be some fundamental way to apply the current rule; all cards compared in PSA 8 determines weighting...but I'm at a loss to explain more of the weightings than not using this system.

Is anyone out there actively initiating weighting changes? Thoughts?

Thanks.

FavreFan1971

The weighting is on the SMR of a PSA 8. If you can show PSA that a card is selling higher or lower (VCP stuff) you can have a leg to stand on to raise or lower the weight.

jradke4

the other way to get them to change the weights is if you have proof from ebay sales. they will even take the value from the sale of raw cards to help out. but like with everything you need to show them the data. in general they go by beckett guide prices for odd ball stuff. for your puckett cards i would assume they should be rather stable as there arent many low pop cards out there, compared with more modern players. where i have had the problem is where beckett doesnt give a price due to their being say less than 25 of a certain type of card. i even had psa weight a 1 of 50 higher than a 1 of 25 for this reason. however, since i was able to provide a ebay sales price they were able to change the weight for me.

clayshooter22

So you propose that the changes are collector initiated?

I'm sure the prices of a PSA 8 in the SMR do not make up the registry weightings as that would not be consistant with any of the current or changed weightings. I understand that is the PSA position but it is not supported by the weightings in the Puckett Master set so I'm at a loss here. As an example;

1985 OPC Puckett (his rookie) in PSA 8 has a SMR of $11 yet a weighting of 1.0

1985 Fleer Puckett in PSA 8 has a SMR of $12 and a weighting of 2.0

Almost identical SMR but 100% difference in weightings?

jeffcbay

The whole "weighted from a PSA 8" thing is what throws me off... I mean a 1985 Topps #30 Ripken in PSA goes for $5, but a PSA 10 goes for over $300 (very difficult to find in 10). In my mind that card deserves a MUCH higher weight than 1.5 in the Basic Set. It carries the same weight as the 1986 base card. No way they're the same.

jradke4

having just looked through the set there are some issues.

1992 Donruss Elite at 4 yet a 84 Fleer Update is a 5? Elites arent that hard to find or buy. there were some others that jumped out like the 96 zeinth printers proofs. while i can see some of the higher weights for the 96 select certified cards. as some are low numbered cards to start with.

since your set isnt as large as others, it might be worth your time to try and help psa out if you are all that concerned about the weights. it will take some time. though the fast way might be first to get a month subscription to beckett and and down load all his cards and prices at current values.

whether in raw of psa8 the price wont vary that much more than they do in raw. in general they take the psa8 value to guard against high prices for early low pop psa9 and psa10.

another thing would be to take a look at other master sets from players with the similar playing years and RC's in the same ball park range. i would say a sandberg or gywnn would probably good starting points off my head. keep in mind i dont deal with baseball anymore, but they were playing at roughly the same time and are probably in all the same small insert sets etc.

however, one of the biggest problems with your set will be the small scale of price ranges.

clayshooter22

<< <i>The whole "weighted from a PSA 8" thing is what throws me off... I mean a 1985 Topps #30 Ripken in PSA goes for $5, but a PSA 10 goes for over $300 (very difficult to find in 10). In my mind that card deserves a MUCH higher weight than 1.5 in the Basic Set. It carries the same weight as the 1986 base card. No way they're the same. >>



I get this. I'm not trying to change the basic concept of weighting. I agree with everything you said and wonder if the weightings have any real importance when collecting a PSA 10 set...so I'm just trying to understand the whole basic concept and if the changes or deviations from any norm are collector driven. It appears so and I think the suggestion to track is a good one. I have most of the sales data from cards that I watch from the last 4 years. I have a "VCP" of my own making for Puckett issues.

I guess it boils down to a lot of work without any "real" payoff since anything I "change" is subject to further change by current and future collectors.

I was hopeful that changes were not collector driven so that any changes/corrections would not be subject collector influence.

I guess it is a chicken/egg scenario.

Mike

jradke4

well if you really have the data psa probably wont change it back on just a whim of another collector unless the data has changed.

ThoseBackPages

i'd like to know why O-Pee-Chee Baseball is not considered part of a "Basic Set" but 85/86/87/88 Leaf Baseball is. Makes no sense.

clayshooter22

<< <i>well if you really have the data psa probably wont change it back on just a whim of another collector unless the data has changed. >>



JRadke4,

All logic suggests that your contention be true but I'm certain that many of the weightings have changed without sales data to support. I know some of these issues aren't even graded PSA 8 so I wonder what caused the change in weighting.

It would help if there was more of a standardized connection between PSA pricing and weighting such as cards of SMR <$5 have a weighting of 1.0, $5-$10 have weighting of 1.5, $10-$20 weighting of 2.0, and so on. At least there would be some baseline for weighting. Although I'm still not sure what we'd do with the cards that are never traded in PSA 8 - which are a majority of modern issues. It seems that the weightings work well for vintage but for modern that are not even sent in unless PSA 9-10...kinda lacks relevance.

I feel like I'm tilting at windmills but I do appreciate the feedback and discussion.

Mike

jradke4

email the registry and ask for the weightings for your puckett set with $ amounts. that list exists but isnt available on line. they will send it to you however. i have an older one for my favre master set somewhere. but they do have one specific for each set.

markj111

I'm confused (insert your own joke). Why does the weight matter? They are useless. Some low pop cards with a weight of one sell for hundreds of dollars, while other cards with the same weight from the same set can be had for $15. The weight factors are fairly random.

CollectorAtWork

I really think that weighings aren't all that important. Just approximate values are enough for me (e.g., as long as all cards aren't given the same weighings like 1). The Registry folks are so busy, I'd rather not have them waste their time on this stuff. (Instead, go process my requests to add cards to player master sets!) I'd be happy if they just had general weighings for all sets with something like: 1 for commons, 2 for minor stars, 3 for minor HOFers, 5 for mid-range HOFers, 7 for major HOFers. 10 can be reserved for really big cards. If it's a Rookie for a non-common, you can bump it up a level.

theczar

JoeBanzai

The weighting system makes no sense to me and I don't need another thing to complain about, but shouldn't population (rarity) mean more than just dollar value? To me, a hard to find card should be given more "weight" in a collection than an expensive, easy to find one.

Joe

theczar

joe,
i politely disagree.

there will normally be far more mantles, mays, aarons, clementes etc. graded due to their popularity.

using a pricing method insures that low pops-which generally cost more due to scarcity will be well weighted using prices.

JoeBanzai

I meant within a players set there are cards that are very hard to find, for example ;1964 VENEZUELAN TOPPS HARMON KILLEBREW PSA6 Weight 18.00, compared to 1967 TOPPS TWIN TERRORS KILLEBREW/ALLISON PSA9 also weighted 18.00.

There's no comparison between these two cards, you can pick up the Twin Terror card fairly easily, it's not even the highest graded. The Venezuelan is rarely found in any grade and the PSA6 is the highest graded. Now if someone came up with a bunch of the Venezuelan's and the population changed the value of this card in a set would be diminished. I don't really see why, what someone is willing to pay for a card, should be a primary factor in it's weight.

Perhaps not that many people are even aware of the Venezuelan cards or just don't care to collect them, the same might be said of the OPC's, much harder to find, but the prices don't seem (to me) to reflect it.

Example #2 1968 O-PEE-CHEE TWINS TEAM 8 8.00, 1968 TOPPS TWINS TEAM 9 13.50. There are 7 of the OPC in PSA8, none higher, there are 47 more PSA9's and 9 PSA10's in the Topps yet the Topps version carries more "Weight". Maybe I just don't get it?

With that all being said this "weight" catagory is probably a very time consuming and not too profitable part of the set competition. I just look at the weights in my set and many leave me scratching my head.

Joe

ludedude

Low population doesn't always mean rare. Sometimes it means nobody cares about them. If they are really rare and everybody wants them, the price should reflect this.

JoeBanzai

What if they're rare and nobody can afford them? In the examples I listed, it clearly shows the harder cards to find are not as popular and so the lack of demand hurts their weight. A older low population card, might be so because they are rare and not generally bought and sold. I think the weighting category is somewhat of a fiasco. Anything based on price is going to be unstable. I tried to find what the definition of weight was but could not. I would like to see what PSA says, if anyone can point me to their definition.

I am also referring to what I collect, older cards. For the newer stuff I would guess the money might be a better indicator, because the cards are more available.

Since I collect only one player, it doesn't really matter to me. I have no intention of selling my set and after 20 years of "chasing" the same player, I don't need any guidance to know what's more or less valuable.

Joe

ludedude

<< <i> I tried to find what the definition of weight was but could not. I would like to see what PSA says, if anyone can point me to their definition.

Joe >>




Grade Points, Set Ratings and Weighting

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.

JoeBanzai

Thanks ludedude! Now I know.

Joe