Player Sets

vorthian

How about revamping the player sets to be based on a collector's copies rather than all the copies out there? This would save much time and effort on the set registry's team in inputting every possible card.

One could make a script so that the registrant would enter a serial number and it would spit out the year, brand, grade, etc. There would be a different formula for rank as well, stressing the number of cards.

Just some thoughts as I don't see someone completing a 1000+ card player set in this decade.

rbeaton

If you based it on the collectors copies, then everytime someone got a new card graded, the registry would have to be updated to include the new card. It would also be really difficult to weight if done this way.

I made the list/weights for the player set I wanted (Jim Palmer) and included mostly just the regular issues. Luckily Palmer retired in 1984 so there aren't 1000's of cards.

I submitted my list to BJ on Monday and the set was up on Thursday! Entered some cards last night and they are already there (no 3 days waiting) Added some pics this morning. Thanks BJ!!!

Robert

mikeschmidt

Vorthian-

Your idea isn't a bad one. However, it seems like every creator of post-1950s HOF players set has pretty much lattitude in creating the official "player set collection". As this is such a new idea, it seems like we are given much lattitude in what we include and disclude from the Registry.

Two issues with your idea regard the weighting of cards, and the comparability of sets (e.g. is my 1976 Buckman's Disc Schmidt graded card worth more than my 1992 Kelloggs Schmidt graded card? Frankly, they are worthless to 99.99999% of the world....). Perhaps that is even the same issue. But the only large player set out there currently is Boggs. Most others seem to have a somewhat reasonable line drawn in the sand.

Isn't stressing the number of cards very similar to stressing the completion percentage? I think the Registry handles that pretty well, though a RC is stressed much higher than the last ten card of that same player. And if you start stressing the number of cards, are you going to start letting some of us psychos register multiple copies of the same card? If so, that would be a royal mess!

Alfiewt

vorthian,

I like to have a set checklist for cards I collect, so having the player set registry set up how you are suggesting would not interest me. What drives me is seeing my completion % grow and counting how many more cards I need. I like to have an end in sight. (At least when it come to completion, upgrading is a different story). I think a lot of collectors feel the same way, more so set collectors then player collectors.

My Don Mattingly player set just got listed on the registry. I sent BJ the compostion and weights on Wendsday night, and It's already listed! Thanks BJ. When I made up the compostion I tried to do it similar to the other player sets listed, basicly not including oddball card and inserts. I think if this method is used on other player sets, it would keep the sets down to a fairly low # of cards, even for modern players. Of course there are always the collectors that have to have every single card of a player, so I think complete card runs of players should be listed.

Well I got to go and start registering my Mattingly cards.

Alfred

boggs301012

I didnt want to just use my taste so I left most cards in the list. Almost all of them are the Major Companys cards. So to be fair I opted to leave them when submitting my idea's. I am pondering reducing it to 500 just to make it within reach. I have most , I only need the funds. I noticed some have some refractors and some dont have refractors. I thought to be fair If you include on year you should include them all. Besides I know I will never complete it . But owning the copies I want , graded in the condition I want is fair enuff for me. If I am at 50% in 5 years O'well.