Question for Master Player set Collectors

jradke4

For those that collect modern players. What has your impression been as to the cut off for low serial numbered cards.

I have thought that it was a cutoff of at least 5 or more could be included in master sets.

firedawg45

Master set is all cards no matter the pop on them

jradke4

<< <i>Master set is all cards no matter the pop on them >>



I am not talking about pop numbers. Rather cards from packs that are say 1 of 5 ever printed. Something you don't have to deal with on the Rose master set.

Alfiewt

My impression has always been that the cutoff for low serial numbered cards is 5 but unfortunately PSA has never put a hard cutoff on the Registry rules page. I really wish they would and thing it should be greater than 5. Without a doubt, reacquiring all the really low serial #'s cards in master sets decreases interest in master sets because it basically make them impossible to complete. PSA would be much better off by having a strong cutoff of like 10 for required cards and letting collectors list lower serial #'d cards as optional in the sets. Collectors like a challenge but few collectors will attempt to build a set that they know is impossible to complete.

For example it is pretty much impossible to complete a master set of Rickey Henderson because of more than 150 manufactured rarity cards serial #'d to 5 produced at the tail end of his career. I'm sure these low serial #'d cards scare off many potential Rickey Henderson master set collectors off which keeps competition for his master set cards low and in turn leads to fewer submission of his cards.

CNote

When I had my Griffey registry in full swing, I had a few gold xfractors in there- #'d to 10

I never tried anything lower than that.

fur72

I would think the minimum number produced would have to be in the 500 area to give everyone a shot. In the Sandberg registry there is one card numbered to 200. smh.

csakers

I believe 5 is high enough, but many feel that is too low. A good compromise would be any card serial numbered through 10 should be included in the Master Collection.

Additionally, I would like to see PSA expand the MASTER Collections to just that. . .include any card produced for the player. Presently, they do not grade and include the cards from Broder, Investor's Focus, Price Guides, and so forth. A true MASTER Collection would mean ALL cards.

Just my thoughts,
Chris

fur72

Chris I have thought about that but then do we expand for post retirement cards? I almost think it could be a separate set depending on the player.

csakers

For the Master Collection, I have no problem with it remaining during the playing years. I would not mind seeing an additional category to fill ANY and ALL cards ever produced of a player, regardless of year. Presently, these cards can only really be displayed within a Showcase. I believe there are far fewer collectors who truly view others' Showcase(s).

DetroitSquirreL

<< <i>For the Master Collection, I have no problem with it remaining during the playing years. I would not mind seeing an additional category to fill ANY and ALL cards ever produced of a player, regardless of year. Presently, these cards can only really be displayed within a Showcase. How many collectors truly view others' Showcase? >>



ME

miwlvrn

<< <i>For the Master Collection, I have no problem with it remaining during the playing years. I would not mind seeing an additional category to fill ANY and ALL cards ever produced of a player, regardless of year. Presently, these cards can only really be displayed within a Showcase. I believe there are far fewer collectors who truly view others' Showcase(s). >>



It is interesting how the master player set registries are the playing years for the big sports but under the misc. sports and non-sports, it can include any and all years (i.e., boxing, soccer, olympics, etc.). I wonder why the difference? You can add a John L. Sullivan card to the master set registry that is issued this year, about 125 years or so from the beginning of his career, but the baseball sets won't allow things like a player having a coach card a year or couple years later after retirement (e.g., Ed Mathews, Yogi Berra, Ernie Banks, etc.) or cards that came out after retirement such as the 1975 Topps MVP subset cards. I have always wondered why the inconsistency in the rules there.

csakers

When I questioned PSA about this topic, I was informed they have enough trouble trying to keep up with all the items from a player's actually playing career. Apparently, they would need to hire more workers if they were to add ALL items pertaining to a player. I actually fought to have items added to the registry collections issued the year after a player retired (for example, the 1996 items for Don Mattingly after retiring in 1995).

miwlvrn

Considering the new promo they have running right now where they have prizes for the people whose additions hit the registry milestones, it would seem PSA's desired business model would be to add as much as possible to the registry. I think that they are very aware that the registry is a huge portion of their value as a company and a reason many items are graded by PSA rather than BGS, SGC or even graded at all. Therefore, you'd think it would easily be worth the investment in adding another salary position or 2 to update inclusion for more items. When you look at the collections of the #1 leader for each master set, there is some serious money invested there. If all of a sudden there were an option of increasing the master sets to include all items, PSA would clearly stand to make significantly more revenue in grading fees from the expansion of the master sets as compared with the funds it would take in salary for the position created to do the computer work in actually setting up the expansions.

I agree, I think it would make sense to have both a Playing Career set, as well as a Master Set that included all items. Not sure, but I'm guessing it would be generally more popular to rename the master set the career set that would include all odd ball, foreign issue, etc. items but be limited to playing years (current master set rules for the major sports) instead of changing the rules of the basic set to include the more obscure items, and then have the master set include everything post-career as well since that is how things work for all the items under Misc- and Non- sports. I'm betting there are many basic set participants who aren't interested in having to switch to what are currently master set rules in some sport categories.

If I were Joe Orlando, adding this middle-ground, 3rd option while having the master set truly be all-inclusive is how I would set things up.

csakers

What are the registry milestones? I have not heard of a competition. Where could I find more information?

Thanks,
Chris

NickM

In the cases of most of the serious vintage player sets, allowing post-career cards into the Master Set would quickly overwhelm it with cards that most of the people working on it do not collect and may well regard as junk. Example: the Mickey Mantle Master Set has 218 cards in it. The Topps Home Run Heroes inserts of Mantle alone are 536 cards, most of which sell for a dollar or less. PSA would be making many of its collectors furious with a move such as this.

Nick

csakers

Introduction of a new set format should not make any of the collectors upset, as they do not have to choose to participate with the new format. While I elect to participate with Master Collections, I do not participate with Basic Collections. I have nothing against the other formats, but simply selected not to participate. The same should be true with the introduction of a new format, which would include ALL issues of a player - during playing years and post playing career. The new format would not have to be named the Master Collection, as that name is already being used. I would not mind seeing it named the All Inclusive Collection or something along those lines. . .if PSA would even consider such a new format.

miwlvrn

<< <i>What are the registry milestones? I have not heard of a competition. Where could I find more information?

Thanks,
Chris >>



This promotion is the first front & center thing on the opening/home page for PSA, #1 under the spotlight section

Here is the link when you click on the PSA ad:

Sweepstakes

miwlvrn

<< <i>Introduction of a new set format should not make any of the collectors upset, as they do not have to choose to participate with the new format. While I elect to participate with Master Collections, I do not participate with Basic Collections. I have nothing against the other formats, but simply selected not to participate. The same should be true with the introduction of a new format, which would include ALL issues of a player - during playing years and post playing career. The new format would not have to be named the Master Collection, as that name is already being used. I would not mind seeing it named the All Inclusive Collection or something along those lines. . .if PSA would even consider such a new format. >>



I agree with much of what you've got here. The problem I have is with the inconsistency associated with the "Master Set" nomenclature; if the Master Set player sets for the big sports are to stay named as is, then the Master Sets found under the Misc. Sports and Non Sports categories require a change in name since they allow post-career cards in those master sets (i.e., boxing, soccer, famous personage, etc., as I described in earlier posts). Otherwise, the master sets in the major sports need a new name for a category differentiating between career-inclusive vs. any & all cards that include post-career. Creating a separate, additional player set registry category that includes post-career should not upset any master set participants since it doesn't affect them; they simply need not participate, same as with your example about the basic sets participants vs. master sets.

cards651

<< <i>I would think the minimum number produced would have to be in the 500 area to give everyone a shot. In the Sandberg registry there is one card numbered to 200. smh. >>



I agree with this comment. Something with only 5 ever made is simply not a 'collectible', especially a baseball card. It borders on absurdity. Don't let these card companies take your hard-earned money with the rarity angle. - Kevin M.

miwlvrn

<< <i>

<< <i>I would think the minimum number produced would have to be in the 500 area to give everyone a shot. In the Sandberg registry there is one card numbered to 200. smh. >>



I agree with this comment. Something with only 5 ever made is simply not a 'collectible', especially a baseball card. It borders on absurdity. Don't let these card companies take your hard-earned money with the rarity angle. - Kevin M. >>



At first instinct, this sounds completely fair for modern issue serial numbered cards; however, perhaps popularity or enrolled participation should be considered in some sort of weighted avg. for master sets? There are some master sets out there that have just one participant where that collector might be a very die-hard enthusiast of a player that almost no one else collects. I sort of understand if in a situation like that, he might be the only guy collecting the lower serial number issues and might desperately want to add all his cards, where in all practicallity there might never be anyone else starting on that master set to join in the competition. The player with the highest quantity of master set participants is Nolan Ryan, at 95. Realistically, how many more people will start a Ryan collection? And how many cards does he have from his career years that were serial numbered less than 500? I'm sure there are some of his odd-ball and foreign issued cards that are on the registry that have less than 500 copies truly available to be found by collectors, such as the Venezuelans for example. Most other player master sets don't have anywhere remotely near that many participants, although the low serial number printings are more relevant for current or recently retired players than a bit older ones. I think that analyzing the quantity of participants should play into the quantity of serial number prints for making the cut on the master set registry. The most popular master set of a current player is Jeter w/ 61. Nearly every other player who might actually have serial numbered cards issued during their playing years have a whole lot less participants. All this being considered, I think that a case could be made for limiting it to #/100 for the registry. I think what it comes down to really is not the quantity printed, but the percentage of the total printed that become available. How many of a total printing of cards ever actually do make it to the secondary market once ripped from hobby & retail packs? If only one fifth of them do, then a printing of 500 would yield secondary sales of 100, and therefore what I would consider a reasonable amount of cards available for registry participants. If half of the cards come up for sale or auction, then I think the cutoff number would be more like a print of #/200. Not sure what the answer to this question I am asking here is, but wanted to mention these thoughts.

I wonder what the realized available population for many cards on master set registries are though, not just the basic sets? There are a lot of pre-war player sets that have some cards that I would bet don't have that many left out there to acquire at all, but are still easily accepted as part of the registry composition.

cards651

I agree with most of your comments but it then begs the question - What is the whole point of a Master Player Set collection? If there are only one or two people working on a set, it's more like writing poetry than collecting baseball cards. It may be a worthy individual pursuit but it's simply not part of mainstream collecting.

gregmo32

I am a poet and a Master Set collector, and I don't understand the analogy. Not bothered, just don't get it.

cards651

Far from a perfect analogy by any means and it was not intended to bother anyone. It was a quick response to another person's comments who said there were only one or two people working on certain master player sets. My point is that some of these sets being created by PSA at the request of collectors are so unique that they appeal only to that individual collector. It becomes an individual pursuit with no one else really interested. I have a few friends that write poetry solely for themselves and this Master Player pursuit struck me as somewhat comparable. For me, part of the fun of collecting cards was that others (kids in the neighborhood) were also pursuing a similar goal. It's a very different form of collecting today.