Hank Aaron player set

rbeaton

I was just looking at the weights of the Hank Aaron Player Set and the 54 topps has a weight of 120! Weights are really all over the place. I thought that they were supposed to be 1-10.

Robert

curmudgeon

I was wondering the same thing. The only thing I can guess is that a registered player "set" that spans several years should be treated differently than the traditional set of one year, because (I guess) any one card from a specific year and manufacturer is only at most ten times more difficult or desirable than another, but a 1954 Aaron rookie is 120 times more difficult than a 1976 Aaron Isaly disk. Of course this is still artificial and I'd like to know why they pick 120 instead of 100 or 150, etc., but I think they're wrestling with an apples and oranges situation instead of the ususal apples and apples. My two cents.
Regards.................... Todd

mikeschmidt

They did the same thing to the Willie Mays player set.

When I put the Mike Schmidt set together, I tired to keep everything 1-10.

Basilone

Didnt they mention that they would be adjusting the weights on some rare? vintage cards...this may the first step in the process.

John

mikeschmidt

If so, I think it is a step backwards. The weighting of the Aaron and Mays player sets basically boils down the set registry equation to this:

He with the most money wins. I mean, Tom Candiotti and his PSA 10 Aaron rookie alone probably eclipse every other Hank Aaron card collection in existence.

Or let's put it a different way.

If there were certain collector(s) out there who focused their collection on PSA 9 and PSA 10 rookie cards of Hall of Famers, their single card collections per Hall of Famer will very automatically be considered among the best ever simply by their ability to purchase one card.

Look at Willie Mays. His 1973 Topps card is a major rarity in PSA 9. However, it has a grade weight of two whereas Willie Mays' rookie card has a grade weight of two hundred. It just doesn't make sense, I'm sorry.

Basilone

In other words 11 1973 PSA 9 Mays = 1 Mays Rookie in PSA 1 condition...in terms of weight.

Alfiewt

Vargha can't be happy with these new grade weights. Look at the 1951 Bowman set. His set GPA dropped down below 8.00 because of the weighting system. The Mantle in the set has a weight of 337!!
Branca shot into first place because of he has both Mantle and Mays in a 9.

I agree the new weighting system favors the people with the most money. Yes, Branca's set is more valuabe, but witch set took more time and work to put together. I think Vargha's set is more of an acomplishment, Branca's is more just a function of money.

Buckwheat

I agree that a scale that goes from 1 to the 300+ is a little out of balance, but then a scale limited to 1-10 is too narrow. It tremendously underweights the star cards, and I think that has hurt the prices of Star Cards. If you are trying to build the best set, then why spend thousands or tens of thousands on a card when you can get the same effect by spending a few hundred upgrading a common card.

I realize that everyone "collects for their own enjoyment and ignores the set ratings" but in reality, most everyone looks at them, and a lot of discussion time is spent on the board discussing these issues which proves that they do matter.

Dropping prices on star cards are bad for everyone in the business, and if this helps even a little, then I think it is worth doing.

mikeschmidt

Frankly, Vargha (and others) got screwed.

This is simply a way to cater to the ultra-rich who have super egos and want their sets and what not inflated. This is not the proper way to handle the registry, and I am very unclear of what caused such an inappropriate change.

I understand, to some extent, the need to have a scale of something more than 1-10 for grade weights. However, having star cards with weights of 100, 300 and more is just absolutely ludicrous.

The registry is basically saying now that a 1951 Bowman Mickey Mantle PSA 8 has a higher grade weight than every common in the entire set graded PSA 8 or PSA 9. I absolutely guarantee you that it costs more money to get every common in PSA 8 or PSA 9 than it does to have the Mickey Mantle in PSA 8. No doubt at all.

I find this change offensive.

Basilone

MS-

Good points...looks like they are limiting the "new" weights to the 50's key cards...at least for now. It will be interesting to track the market activity of the key cards if this trends up to the 60's sets. I am not sure why PSA would be catering to the super rich as many of these collectors (sans Branca) are "advisors" to GAI.

I am very interested on how they came up with these weights...were they collector inspired or do they have a intensive, high-level statistical model developed by mathematicians.

John

mikeschmidt

John:

You give them too much credit.

1951 Bowman PSA 8 common = $55 SMR
1951 Bowman Mantle PSA 8 = $18,500 SMR

Multiple = 336
Multiple in registry = 307


Here's questions number 2 and 3.

2) Are they basing their new registry weights on multiples of PSA 8, or some other grade? Because with PSA 9s, it is not a clear picture at all (esp. since SMR is so backward on that. For PSA 9's from 1951 Bowman, their is basically a 10 multiple over the PSA 8 price. Sometimes slightly less, often more. However, for the star cards, the multiple is around 5 times or something like that. Somtimes less, sometimes more. So it seems like they are making their grade weights on the basis of PSA 8 SMR. Not sure if that is entirely appropriate given the number of 9's in most of the high $$$ sets.

3) Star cards in high grade have always been the most volatile part of our hobby. If a 1933 Goudey Babe Ruth gets reweighted to be something like 300 whereas commons have a weight of 1, what happens when/if the Ruth card in PSA 8 declines 20 - 40% in value over the same time period? Presumably nothing, but it certainly skews the analysis then. Since the high $$$ cards typically are very volatile, I think it is very tricky basing your assumptions on those cards.

MS

Basilone

MS & the Board,

So if they are using the "SMR 8 theory" wouldn't the Mantle have a weight of 336? The downside is that you cannot keep changing the weights based on market conditions...ideally they should be based on a rock-solid mathematical calculation that can withstand market swings.

In my opinion PSA should come forth and explain the changes, their rationale, and how they calculated the weights....at the very least as good faith gesture to the high-end collectors (Vargha and others) who have promoted PSA and the Registry by displaying their amazing accomplishments.

John