Any comments about the recent award change for Modern sets?
MCMLVTopps
Posts: 4,839 ✭✭✭✭✭
So, this year PSA decided to change the rules for Modern sets. In the past, Collector's who attained 95% (or better) in both Vintage and Modern would allow them to be recognized as best set, either basic or master. The rule change is that Vintage sets remain at 95%, while Modern (1972 or later) require a 100% completion to attain best set status in the award domain.
I happened to have two sets that are impacted by this change, one which has a long way to go, the other in the low 90 percentile, with almost no competition to speak of. Depending upon a recent PSA submission, it is feasible that I will reach very close to 95% and should be able to get to 95% within a reasonable time frame. The rub is that it is almost impossible to reach 100%...graded needs are like one or two cards in the POP report, and searching for raw in the past few years has resulted in no advancement.
So, I was wondering if others have been impacted by this decision. Keep in mind that if you get to 99.9%, you are still not gonna find yourself in the award arena. I am fully aware we don't necessarily collect to get an award, but it is a nice way of sharing the accomplishment. If this weren't the case, then why have awards at all?
I have no idea why the rule was changed, but I know in my case, I simply cannot reach 100%. Seems to me that the rule shouldh've been left alone, 95% for both Vintage and Modern.
Anyone else in this "situation"? Comments?
I happened to have two sets that are impacted by this change, one which has a long way to go, the other in the low 90 percentile, with almost no competition to speak of. Depending upon a recent PSA submission, it is feasible that I will reach very close to 95% and should be able to get to 95% within a reasonable time frame. The rub is that it is almost impossible to reach 100%...graded needs are like one or two cards in the POP report, and searching for raw in the past few years has resulted in no advancement.
So, I was wondering if others have been impacted by this decision. Keep in mind that if you get to 99.9%, you are still not gonna find yourself in the award arena. I am fully aware we don't necessarily collect to get an award, but it is a nice way of sharing the accomplishment. If this weren't the case, then why have awards at all?
I have no idea why the rule was changed, but I know in my case, I simply cannot reach 100%. Seems to me that the rule shouldh've been left alone, 95% for both Vintage and Modern.
Anyone else in this "situation"? Comments?
0
Comments
My opinion is simply, that sucks for them & I don't like it. I get why PSA did it... tougher rules to get recognition equals more cards being submitted (at least, theoretically)... but its still kind of a slap in the face to the few with exceptional sets who had to see their streak end for such a rule change.
As the Tiant Master set composition sits, I am of the opinion that nobody will ever reach 100%...why? Because I own 3-4, 1 of 1s...not just 1 of 1s, but the ONLY ones graded by PSA. While I am sitting at 87.50%, I cannot reach 100%, 95% might be doable, but, the cards are simply not there that I need, and I've been trying to put this thing together for years. No raw and the one or two graded cards are never seen on eBay or anywhere else for sale.
Publius...I've had cards added that were 1 of 1s, so that 3 card rule must not apply.
A recent inquiry to PSA has told me that the change will stand. I am told the "change" is very important to Joe...not sure how to interpret that. Aren't we the collectors in the field trying to complete things? The rationale for the change escapes me. If it was 95% for both last year, what would prompt a change? Aren't changes supposed to be made for the benefit of the collectors, NOT management at PSA?
Perhaps those of us stuck in this "situation" should call Joe and express our concern.
captfisch
1980 Topps baseball registry (master and basic x 3)
1975 Topps baseball registry
Significant Snub Awards
- Wade Boggs Basic Set (156 Cards) - Baseball Nut's Hitting Idol Set (97.44%) - 4 previous awards snapped
- Barry Bonds Basic Set (193 Cards) - Hennyman (99.48%) - So close
- Ken Griffey Jr. Basic Set (221 Cards) - Deadman's Ken Griffey Jr Basic Set (99.10%) - 4 previous awards snapped
- Rickey Henderson Basic Set (175 Cards) - MT's Henderson Basic (99.43%) - 5 previous awards snapped
The Dang That Hurts Award
- Gary Carter Basic Set (70 Cards) - mnolan's gary carter basic set (95.71%) - Was overtaken by another in GPA only (also at 95.71%), string of 6 straight awards snapped
Rules Don't Really Apply Awards (Recognizing those award winning sets... that while they got recognition, possibly didn't deserve it because of PSA's "unchanged" rule that cards won't be added to an existing set until someone owns a graded copy and personally requests it!!!)
- Ryan Braun Basic Set (19 Cards???) - Lambert Collection (100%) - Ignore the fact that the set composite is missing, at least, 3 available cards that should be in the set that did exist well in advance of the deadline... but when you're the only one competing in the set, kind of easy to control the composite
- Anyone winning an award in the Jason Heyward or Stephen Strasburg Basic Set categories (neither composite appears to have been updated with cards of these new generation players in a year or more)
In my particular Master set, the POPs for a few cards are in the 2s, and one card has a POP of 1. The grades are a bit dismal, the Ovenca Venezuelan card has a POP of 2 - 4s. I was hoping not to be bothered with that card, but, if I want to persue the award level, I have no choice. AND, the only PSA 4 I've seen has an outrageous price of $300.00.
Ironcially, the other Master set I'm working on includes a 1 of 1 (only one graded) that the #1 guy needs to reach 100%. I own that card !!
I guess my biggest heartburn here is the actual availability of the cards I need in these two Master sets, either raw, or PSA graded. Yes, I've searched SGC to crack out, but there just hasn't been much out there in well over 3 years.
So, I either get really jazzed about this and call Joe to see if I can explain what he's done to collectors, or just stay quiet, maybe sell and just get out of the whole collecting thing. There was absolutely no need to change this rule, but change it has. True enough, it's just a nebulous little award thing, but it is nice to share an accomplishment with others.
If anyone can figure out why the change was made, or has a pretty strong opinion, I'd love to hear it.
<< <i>
If anyone can figure out why the change was made, or has a pretty strong opinion, I'd love to hear it. >>
I think you answered your own question in your initial paragraphs. This change will drive the award chasers to a. find and submit more raw items, and b. chase the fewer extant examples even harder, driving more people to submit their lower-grade items.
Working on the following: 1970 Baseball PSA, 1970-1976 Raw, World Series Subsets PSA, 1969 Expansion Teams PSA, Fleer World Series Sets, Texas Rangers Topps Run 1972-1989
----------------------
Successful deals to date: thedudeabides,gameusedhoop,golfcollector,tigerdean,treetop,bkritz, CapeMOGuy,WeekendHacker,jeff8877,backbidder,Salinas,milbroco,bbuckner22,VitoCo1972,ddfamf,gemint,K,fatty macs,waltersobchak,dboneesq
After 12 years of collecting, my 1980 Topps set finally took the top spot at 100% completion even though it was such a tight race with the other guy it wasn't a sure thing! After all of these years I just wanted SOME kind of recognition for my 1980 set so I picked up a couple of "variation" cards and published the 1980 master set with just 2 cards short at 99.47. Like several others out there, since it is a 1980 set and NOT 100 complete it didn't get squat even though nobody else is even close to it!
So why did PSA make the change?!? It's about MONEY, of course!! Now, you have to 100% complete for 1980 and newer or 95% for 1979 and older. Anybody just outside of those percentages will be forced to pick up "filler" cards at lower grades and or/raw submit lesser condition cards just to get over the hump.......IF you are looking for that recognition that is! It actually makes good business sense for PSA so I won't be shocked if they don't change back to the way it used to be. In fact, I am actually surprised it took PSA that long to come up with the idea!! I remember thinking back in 2005 when there was a race between three of us that whoever got to 100% SHOULD get the recognition REGARDLESS of GPA because that person would have spent the extra money to go after those last few cards!
1980 Topps baseball registry (master and basic x 3)
1975 Topps baseball registry
<< <i>
<< <i>
If anyone can figure out why the change was made, or has a pretty strong opinion, I'd love to hear it. >>
I think you answered your own question in your initial paragraphs. This change will drive the award chasers to a. find and submit more raw items, and b. chase the fewer extant examples even harder, driving more people to submit their lower-grade items. >>
I missed this post while typing my own response--you hit the nail on the head!!
1980 Topps baseball registry (master and basic x 3)
1975 Topps baseball registry
BTW, it's 1972 and above for Modern sets.
Some one says money...well lets see they dont send out your little paper certificate for winning best of set for the year unless you ask. So does adding a little icon on a webpage cost that much? I know one will say that they want to drive submission...well then to be honest why should I even keep submitting for my Favre Master set? There is no chance anyone will ever get to 100% on that set. Even if someone does it will go away in a month or two. There are potentially at least 10,000 different Favre cards that could be in that master set, taking out less than 1 of 4's or even lower print run cards. If PSA doesnt think its a nice set that some might have 5,000 different cards graded to even give you a little icon after dropping that much in grading fees, I dont see how it is just about the money.
I think it is more that with all the sets on the registry they just dont want to have to judge all that many sets to start with. Its more about time than money. Then again for most of the awards like best of set awards they dont even get judged its by pure math.
But its PSA's world. Unless we all defect and stop submitting cards they will do whatever they want to for the set registry. However, what it will really become is something that really does end up being for only collectors with deep pockets...or for just small sets.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
i think anything above 95% is a real accomplishment, modern , vintage , subset, whatever.
most sets i work on i dont have major competition, so its not really changing how i collect. but it is nice to see the icon added ....
2004 spx
1989 topps psa 10
1959 phillies
Phillies of the 70's
I agree with the articles post and even if they don't get around to updating it in the SMR at least maybe revise it in the heading of the selected set on the registry. You know...........in the paragraph under the "view set composition" heading where at the end it states, "to read an in depth article, click here". At LEAST update that!! Heck, I know they did an article on the 1980 set back in 2008 in SMR and they don't even HAVE such a heading on their registry heading!
For everybody who is upset about the change it could be worse. What if PSA decided that everyone who unpublished a set for whatever reason would lose any and all of its award icons previously issued? The thought being that if every set ever awarded an icon remained on the registry it may give another collector a "target" or a "goal" to strive after on his way up the ladder. I know........I know.....just throwing it out there!
1980 Topps baseball registry (master and basic x 3)
1975 Topps baseball registry
<< <i>So this really makes sense. My Favre Game Starts Ticket collection won Ticket set of the year in 2010. The next year it won its best of category. This year it wont win anything because it isnt 100% complete. Though the reason its not at 100% is that the four tickets that I dont have in the set have never been graded as of yet by PSA. Turns out I will be sending one of the four in leaving me 3 short but how does this really make sense.
Some one says money...well lets see they dont send out your little paper certificate for winning best of set for the year unless you ask. So does adding a little icon on a webpage cost that much? I know one will say that they want to drive submission...well then to be honest why should I even keep submitting for my Favre Master set? There is no chance anyone will ever get to 100% on that set. Even if someone does it will go away in a month or two. There are potentially at least 10,000 different Favre cards that could be in that master set, taking out less than 1 of 4's or even lower print run cards. If PSA doesnt think its a nice set that some might have 5,000 different cards graded to even give you a little icon after dropping that much in grading fees, I dont see how it is just about the money.
I think it is more that with all the sets on the registry they just dont want to have to judge all that many sets to start with. Its more about time than money. Then again for most of the awards like best of set awards they dont even get judged its by pure math.
But its PSA's world. Unless we all defect and stop submitting cards they will do whatever they want to for the set registry. However, what it will really become is something that really does end up being for only collectors with deep pockets...or for just small sets. >>
It's 100%... or minimum 1000 cards registered for the big, big sets! So there is still a glimmer of hope for that Favre Master Set
I don't collect to get an award, but, the award side of this game is a way to showcase your accomplishment...some would interpret that as bragging, I do not. When the rules get changed by management without allowing the collectors to have a voice with which management can then decide if it's best for the collector or not, I take issue with that kind of decision making. Having pondered all this a while, I can only conclude that it has to be money driven...as a poster above stated basically to force more raw into the system to attain the 100% level, thus generating more grading fees. However, if the raw isn't there, how can you move up? If there is a 1 of 1 ever graded by PSA and you need that ONE card to reach 100%, how do you get there? Sitting at 99.47% and no competition anywhere near you and not being recognized as the best set, is just not logical in any sense.
Some Master Sets are mired in a situation where there simply aren't any opportunities to move up...others have a plethora of cards, both raw and graded from which to bid-buy. Those that have been recognized at award time in the past (because they were at 95% or better), are now locked out till they meet the new standard. The award system of PSA is touted as a recognition for having accomplished quite a feat by amassing enough cards/stubs, whatever as being the best of the best...many have now been relegated to "also rans", or "has beens".
If 95% is good enough for Vintage, 95% should be good enough for Modern. Or, to put it another way, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
As someone pointed out , they raised ' The Bar ' for set completion ! In my case , I had 95.97% completion on my Lou Brock Master Set , with a 8.01 GPA ...........149 cards in the set presently....................and no award icon ! Brock's playing years are 1962 to 1979..............thus they felt the need to put him in the Modern Player Sets because he played 8 years before 1970 ( 62-69 ) and 10 years after ( 70-79 ) ! I'm sure that there are many others that were denied a award on this revamping of the Player Sets and raising it to 100% ! Seems unfair , but it is what it is ! I had a run of Award icons from 2009 to 2011 broken ! There's no crying in Baseball !
I have to agree that this whole matter is driven by bringing more money into Psa ! I also agree that it has made it almost impossible for many of us to ever attain the 100% on a lot of these Sets !
Robbie
1963 Fleer
Lou Brock Master Set
Pls take a moment to check out the Bill Lee Basic set. You will notice that the guy (Coop) has 100% completion, but has received no award...although he has from 2011 and prior. Why is this? Well, my set (Teddy Ballgame) happens to have a set rating higher than his, so, set rating trumps completion I guess.
To me, Coop should have gotten the 2012 award for best set...weirdly, you will notice my set, which is one card short of completion says next to Teddy Ballgame "The Number One Finest Set of All Time". So, I guess that's kindofa back door award for achieving a higher set rating than the guy who has really reached 100% completion. Or, perhaps it should say "The Number One Finest Set Rating of All Time"
As mentioned elsewhere, I am responsible I guess for keeping Coop from reaching award status in the Bill Lee Master Set, which he previously was recognized for...oddly, I have the one and only card graded by PSA that he needs, a 1978 SSPC PSA 9.
<< <i>So, I have discovered a slight twist to this saga...having 100% for a Modern set will not garner you award status. How could that be, weren't we informed that Modern sets require 100% completion as dictated in the composition? Au Contraire...
Pls take a moment to check out the Bill Lee Basic set. You will notice that the guy (Coop) has 100% completion, but has received no award...although he has from 2011 and prior. Why is this? Well, my set (Teddy Ballgame) happens to have a set rating higher than his, so, set rating trumps completion I guess.
To me, Coop should have gotten the 2012 award for best set...weirdly, you will notice my set, which is one card short of completion says next to Teddy Ballgame "The Number One Finest Set of All Time". So, I guess that's kindofa back door award for achieving a higher set rating than the guy who has really reached 100% completion. Or, perhaps it should say "The Number One Finest Set Rating of All Time"
As mentioned elsewhere, I am responsible I guess for keeping Coop from reaching award status in the Bill Lee Master Set, which he previously was recognized for...oddly, I have the one and only card graded by PSA that he needs, a 1978 SSPC PSA 9.
That's not a twist at all, not even a slight one. The award is for the best set, it's just that to receive the recognition for a modern set, it must also be 100% complete (versus the old minimum of 95%). A 100% complete set in PSA 6 is nowhere close to as fine a set as a 95% complete set in PSA 9... it's not nicer, it's simply more complete. GPA is the standard, always has been... completeness is merely a qualifier.
Personally, I don't like the rule change... but mainly for the reason that I think it sucks for the folks that are so close to 100% and had a streak of consecutive years snapped because of the rules change... but that's really about it. In fact, the more I think about it, I'm in favor of the change! I know for the one particular set I care about, that I did complete, I enjoyed the challenge of having to complete it in it's entirety. It was a fun challenge, and really... it's just an Icon (and a piece of paper if you so choose to request one)... so why not?!?!?! It does suck for those who just missed out, and they are arguably the minority with respect to the Registry as a whole... but for them, now, the hunt continues... which, dare I say, is half the fun in building these sets!
<< <i>I thought that for an item to be added it had to be requested by someone working on that set? >>
This is correct. A person has to have the card in his inventory before he can request that particular slot be added to the set composition. Once PSA adds it to the composition, THEN the person can add it to his set....it's not an automatic thing. One of those two other collects will add them shortly.
Here's the funny part. The guy only had 1 card toward the master set, and then added two separate 1 of 1 Postcards. PSA didn't even label them correctly. *Sigh*
------
stupid print dots
<< <i>Thanks. You are correct. The set was updated with two 1 of 1 cards, but the person didn't add them to their registry for a few days.
Here's the funny part. The guy only had 1 card toward the master set, and then added two separate 1 of 1 Postcards. PSA didn't even label them correctly. *Sigh* >>
Just wondering what is wrong with the label? what is the correct way?
I don't believe for a minute that both of those postcards, as well as every Sabres postcard ever graded by PSA, are all from 1973.
Style wise, they look nothing alike. And Perreault has an "A" on the light version but not on the other. The "light" version Perreault just sold on ebay as a full team set (via capsports2000), and it was listed as a 1974-75 set. And that dating makes sense, since Schoenfeld has the "C" on his uniform, which he didn't get until 1974-75. Given that the "light" version of the Perreault is found with this team set, and sall these cards are the same style (i.e., light background), I have to believe the "light" is a 1975, not 1973.
I haven't been able to figure out what year the "dark version" is as I haven't seen any of this style before. I have two other postcads, from what I'm pretty sure are 1971 and 1972. So my best guess, right now, on the "dark version" is 1973 or 1974.
The Sabres definitely issues post cards, as well as 8 x 10 photos, over many years in the 1970s. They aren't all from 1973. Until a few more teams sets show up, or groups of singles, it'll be pretty hard to date them though.
http://www.beckett.com/hockey/1974-75/sabres-postcards/17-gilbert-perreault-1243825
http://www.beckett.com/hockey/1972-73/sabres-postcards/13-gilbert-perreault-1239719
All this to say that it again leads me to strongly believe that PSA is just guessing on the years for these postcards. These both can't have been issued in 1973 - that just doesn't make sense.
PS: If you are looking to update your Dionne MasterSet, I might have one or two of interest to you....