Set inclusions - Opinions welcome. . .

csakers

I recently discovered some very rare cards had been removed from a set registry, due to another user "challenging" their inclusion. This was done, as the other user wanted to retain his top ranking and had been unable to locate the cards. When I questioned PSA, as the cards had been a part of the set for years, they simply said the decision was made due to the other member bringing the cards to their attention. I reminded PSA they had accepted my money to grade the cards in question and that I had checked with them regarding inclusion in the registry set BEFORE having them graded. Again, they hid behind their original answer.

I find it quite sad that some members will stoop to such levels to "secure" their top rankings, rather than accept the challenge of actually collecting all the cards in a set. I guess, it is simply easier to have cards removed until they are able to add them to their own collection (then, they are sometimes magically allowed in the set again).

What do you think?

mariotown

I have only ever challenged a card when it is an obscure, possibly back-doored proof card or a card no longer graded. In the case of back-door type proofs, I often request they be made optional. In my mind it also depends on the distribution of the proof. Many proofs are widely distributed, but others are back-doored and make it into the hobby. Back-door proofs or proofs cut from sheets I think should be optional. Other than that, everything should be fair game.

For instance, I just challenged the 1984 Rawlings Hang Tag in the Cal Ripken, Jr. Master Set since they will no longer grade the card. I also challenge cards that can only be authenticated and request they be optional.

Here is another example:

I asked to have the 1982 Fleer Test and 1990 Donruss Blue/White Test cards made optional because they are basically back-doored proofs. The 1992 LK Decal is really on the fence for this since it really isn't a proof, but it was back-doored and cut from a sheet. It is documented well in the price guides though, whereas the 1982 Fleer Test and 1990 Donruss Blue/White Test cards are not. There is certainly some subjectivity to it for sure.

For the record, I had the 1982 Fleer Test, 1990 Donruss Blue/White Test, and 1992 LK Decal when I made the requests.

Kevin

cards651

You asked for opinions.....Some of the sets and cards on the PSA web-site are so obscure that it becomes silly. We used to literally throw away any card that came in a food package yet now 'collectors' mail them to Newport Beach, where they are graded and are then collected and tracked on the PSA web-site where one can show that their set is somehow deemed better than another collector. I'm rambling but I hope you get my point - don't waste time or money on these obscure cards. Very few people ever collected them. Just my opinion. - Kevin M.

csakers

Kevin and Kevin,

THANKS for your insight! I agree with both of you with the points you mention. The rare and hard to find issues should not be included in the sets. . .UNLESS PSA ever agrees to create a TRUE Master Collection for players. However, such a collection would need to include ANY and ALL issues for a player. Some collectors have been pushing for such a collection to be created, while others would be happy to simply continue with the current version of the Master Collections. I see merits for both types of collections.


Mariotown Kevin: The cards to which I refer are the proofs, samples, and promos from various sets, rather than experimental issues (such as the Blue/White Test cards). Additionally, if cards are well documented in Beckett, Standard Catalog, or other respected issues, then the card should be included. This would include issues such as the various Star Card Promos, 1988 Score Proofs, 1987 Sportsflics Dealer Panel, the 1985 Fun Food Button Cardboard Proofs, the All-Star Game inserts, and so forth. While these are not as readily available as a 1988 Topps standard card, they are not impossible to locate.


cards651 Kevin: I believe some collectors request having sets added to the Registry just to have a place to share their collection. In these instances, I have no problem since the collectors just have pride in their sets. However, when PSA wants to add a truly unique card to a Master Collection, then it creates problems. I agree that they truly have no place. . .UNLESS, again PSA moves toward a TRUE Master Collection. However, some of the food issues (such as the Kraft Macroni box cards and the various Hostess box panels to name a couple), are again readily available for people to collect and have graded.


Thanks again for sharing your thoughts!

Have a nice evening,
Chris

NickM

csakers - What were the cards at issue, and what Master Set?
I've requested deletion of a number of cards from master sets before, but all either were post-career or weren't actually of the player (mostly World Series cards).

Nick

JoeBanzai

I find it's very difficult to get cards ADDED to the Master set. PSA is very inconsistent and stubborn even when it's OBVIOUS the card should be in. I have had to get in contact with Tom Bartsch at SCD for help in this matter.

What I am MOST confused with is the fact that a simple print defect can be a variation and a "wrong back" cannot. The Frank Thomas NNOF and the Pancho Herrera cards are in, and worth HUGE money in high grade because something fell onto the printer plate, but a card with an incorrect reverse is rejected. I fail to see the logic.

I see the problem as one of consistency. I also have a feeling that PSA is "swamped" with business and some of these decisions get made in haste, others get pushed to the "back burner".

Still they are the very best TPG choice we have.

Edited to add; I am curious as to which cards were removed, unless they were obviously put in by mistake, they should not be arbitrarily taken out on one members complaint. You also should get a refund if the card is removed and you inquired about it beforehand.

jay0791

For some of the reasons above I only do basic sets. Collecting should be fun first
and the ability to share that with others is best of all.
Nothing will ever satisfy everyone...so I am a believer that surveys of the people actually collecting the set
should be the final say. PSA certainly would go along with that.

PSA could include a card in thier set contents but leave it weightless so to speak.

bishop

I do not collect graded cards but do try to make all my sets "master" sets. I realize the definition of what constitutes a master set is open to interpretation by different collectors. For me it is having all cards listed in the SCD Standard Catalog, Becketts and the PSA Registry. So when PSA adds something like the 1961 Topps Fairly green smudge in the baseball on the back to it's master list, I "needed" one of them. Obviously a card's inclusion in one of those venues also impacts it's value.

Before he retired at SCD Bob Lemke had begun to narrow his definition of a variant card that would be included in the Book. In that regard he also began removing some variant cards he had previously listed. For example I think he removed several border gap/break cards. The Jeff King card below card below was once in the book as well but it was removed. The last issue of SCD to list post 1980 cards lists the King card with a notation after it "correct use of white"....which makes little sense after the other....all yellow listing... was removed. The no name Pryor has stayed in the book, even though it to, as well as the 1980 yellows are all just print defects.

csakers

NickM,

Both cards were clearly marked with the player, both in picture and name. I would name the actual cards, but I am pretty sure the guy who got them removed would try to have PSA remove me completely from the site. He appears to be VERY insecure about retaining his grasp on the #1 ranking. . .in any method possible.

One card is the 1988 Score Proofs. These cards are available, but expensive due to their nature. He had PSA remove it once before. After I contacted PSA with information pertaining to the cards validity, they admitted it was a mistake to remove. Only a few months later, it has been removed "by request" again.

The other card is a 1985 Fun Food Cardboard Proof. The PSA explanation was that they are no longer grading these, other than as Authentic. However, they could not explain to me why that should result in having the card removed from the collection. Does this mean cards limited to only 500 produced (for example) will be removed from the collections once all existing copies have been graded?

I just find it highly frustrating, as PSA appears to bend over backwards for certain users. I am only looking for fairness to all users. I have spent thousands of dollars on my PSA collections - actually closer to tens of thousands. My voice should count just as much as any other user. Additionally, I checked with PSA before purchasing these items and only paid to have them graded once they CONFIRMED they would be included.

csakers

JoeBanzai,

Both cards (1988 Score Proofs and 1985 Fun Food Cardboard Proof) are clearly marked with the player, both in name and picture. There is no FAIR reason to have removed them from the collections.

I completely agree with you regarding the refund, as I checked with PSA before paying to have the items graded. They assured me they would be included in the collections. PSA would probably fire back that they never guaranteed the items would REMAIN in the collection.

csakers

JoeBanzai,

On the other topic of "error" cards, I believe PSA views these differently. The wrong back issues, appear to simply be viewed as "put together" wrong. Whereas, a printing error (such as the 1990 Topps Thomas) was corrected by the company.

PSA has not taken a definitive stance, as far as I have found. These are just my opinions.

csakers

jay0791,

PSA does include some items in the collections, but has them listed as OPTIONAL. This means they truly have no real value to the overall collection. Actually, this is what PSA has done with the two latest victims of the process in my situation. They are still "included" with the collection, but have been relegated to OPTIONAL status.

Again, the only explanation from PSA was that they were brought to their attention by another user. However, only ONE user benefited from their removal. . .so it is pretty obvious who brought them to their attention in order to maintain their #1 ranking.

cards651

Chris - You have my sympathy on your situation. You track down some obscure cards that are already part of the set, it moves you into the #1 spot and another collector convinces PSA to remove the cards which puts him back in to #1. Not good.

With respect to errors/variations, I think you have most of the issues clear. I would add that PSA has indicated that they only grade variations listed in some sort of baseball card bible. (I'm sure others know the real name and author. I do not.) PSA will never decide for themselves that a card is a variation. I assume some lawyer dictated this standard. It is a funny situation when they turn around and grade a card from 1 to 10. The variation that always gets me is a 1980 Topps basketball card with James spelled Jams and different color letters in pre-corrected versions. To PSA, it's the same card. Crazy. But then we have smudged green baseball variations. Ugh. Issues that turn me away from the hobby. I'm headed back to the real world.... - Kevin M.

NickM

I have several different of the Fun Food proofs. They have been part of Master Sets for lots of players. Having those only graded Authentic now is not a good change IMO, but I think we're stuck there. It's similar to the Ralston-Purina cards - if PSA no longer grades them with numerical grades, they don't make them part of Master Sets.
I don't know enough as to how either these or the Score Proofs made their way into the hobby to say if PSA should give these numerical grades. Basically, if they were released as singles from the company, then they should, but if all came out as part of uncut sheets, then we may have a different situation.
As for the people bringing up wrongbacks, those could swamp player collections - potentially dozens of different wrongbacks exist for each player (everyone else on the same sheet, and the orientation could be right side up or upside down).

Nick

MCMLVTopps

My 2 cents on this subject...

I must say, that what the person did, was "legal" , but, IMO GROSSLY unethical. The name of the set is the Luis Tiant Master Set. At one point I needed just 3 cards to finish, two were fairly easy, one not. I had been putting this set together for a bit over 4 years.

Out of the blue comes an OPC that was not in the composition. I contacted the owner to see if we could work a deal. The price was too high and I declined. Here's the kicker...I had contacted Cosetta about this card and the Topps version. The card was a combo Tiant - Bench card. Cosetta tells me the card would not be added to the composition. This was a few years before the OPC ...yes, that card was now in the composition...I had passed up a bunch of 9s and I'm sure a 10 or two in that timeframe because it wouldn't be accepted.

Then, the guy adds the card to the Master Set. He's NOT collecting the set, but tells me he requested to have the card added to the composition " so I can track my inventory".

Now he gets three 1972 Venezuelan sticker cards, one is a puzzle...all three are PSA 1s and one of them has a MK qual. Yup, each of the three new composition additions are 1 of 1, none higher. I say BS on inventory, there is no doubt in my mind he has done this to only enhance the value of his trashy PSA 1s and pretty much screwed anyone who would attempt to put this set together.

If you care to take the time, look up the Tiant Master set...I own the Teddy Ballgame set that I retired out of disgust. No other collector was remotely close to me...and you will see where that other person is in relation. I too have some 1 of 1s, but, I was collecting the set, not screwing up the composition for monetary gain.

I am beyond disappointed with PSA that this "tactic" could be allowed.

I no longer collect cards.

csakers

MCMLVTopps,

I hate hearing stories like this and believe PSA should hear more of them to help clean up some of the Registry issues!

I did take a look at your set and it is HIGHLY impressive! Out of curiosity, what did you end up doing with the set (you mention you no longer collect cards)?

I agree with your take regarding those who are using the Registry collections to "track inventory," rather than actually build the collections. PSA used to have a rule/policy that a card/item would not fully be included (as mandatory) in a collection until there was a minimum of three graded. Thus, any of the 1 of 1 issues would not arise.

Sorry to hear of your bad experience, but hope you might one day return to collecting. I will continue collecting, but am growing frustrated with the PSA Registry aspect. I only started collecting PSA graded cards, due to the Registry idea. I thought it was a great way of seeing what collectors had and sharing my items. With the ever changing rules via PSA, it is ending up costing some of us a lot of wasted money.

cards651

Here's the link.

Teddy Ballgame - Luis Tiant Master Set

Wow. Interesting story MCMLV. I appreciate your frustration. Another reason why I just don't collect player sets, especially master player sets. The general public already laughs at us for collecting cards. Can you imagine when you tell someone that you collect a Luis Tiant card from the bottom of a Hostess cupcake box as well as a Luis Tiant baseball card from Venezuela and about 100 other different Luis Tiant items? And that you mail all of these items to some guys in Newport Beach that charge you money to put them in a plastic holder and assign a grade to them? And that you then compare your set against the two other people in the world that collect this stuff? And that the 'winner' then gets a little icon next to their set at the end of each year? Hahahaha is the response when I tell people my collecting habits and I only tell these stories when I'm drunk at a bar. Even Louie Tiant would say we are nuts.

I collect cards sparingly MCMLV. The folks at PSA are nice enough but they really have a long way to go to get this hobby on some sort of reasonable track. When one card can belong to about 12 different sets at the same time and when there are such ridiculously obscure items, I lose interest. - Kevin M.

MCMLVTopps

csakers...

I still have the Tiant cards you see in the registry. I also have a Tiant signed ball, a book about his life and a dvd, which Is very interesting as it shows him returning to Cuba visiting with family...very emotional time for him. Tiant was an enormous fan favorite in Fenway "back in the day". My dad and I really enjoyed watching him pitch. I guess those times were what found me picking up some cards of Tiant here and there, then I went full bore.

I will be selling the lot at some point...I am currently between two houses and kinda have a lot on my plate right now. If anyone is interested, you can find me at ajrs44@yahoo.com.

Not to pile on Cosetta, but I did contact her after the OPC addition. I reminded her of my inquiry to her about the card and she claimed she didn't recall my asking her. We have all had very positive interface with Cosetta...on this issue, perhaps not so much.

FWIW...the OPC card was sold, and the PSA 3 Ovenca Venezuelan in that person's set is (and has been) for sale ...at much too high a price. I think this proves my point. The PSA 4 version of this card had been for sale for well over a year ++ at $300.00 . This was the toughest card for me when I was near completion. I simply found it outrageous to pay that for a PSA 4.

I have no idea how PSA could allow a situation like mine to happen...too many sets to monitor, or maybe they really don't care. Reminds me of the transition to the half point system, which forever screwed the POP report with unending crackouts, which grossly diluted the stats of God only knows how many cards. Nothing but a cash grab for PSA.

NickM

Why shouldn't the 1972 Venezuelans, 1970 Ovenca Venezuela, etc. be in Master Sets? They're scarce, but they were real issues, not backdoored proofs (though the '72 Venezuelans were counterfeited a couple years ago and PSA graded a number of fakes, making a mockery of the pop report). And it's not as if these are unique cards.

Nick

mariotown

<< <i>Why shouldn't the 1972 Venezuelans, 1970 Ovenca Venezuela, etc. be in Master Sets? They're scarce, but they were real issues, not backdoored proofs (though the '72 Venezuelans were counterfeited a couple years ago and PSA graded a number of fakes, making a mockery of the pop report). And it's not as if these are unique cards.

Nick >>



I think they should be allowed as well. I also don't see any issue in adding cards to a set specifically to maximize their value because they are in the registry. If they are allowed in the set and make sense to be there, why not? Everyone should be allowed to maximize the value of what they have as long as they are within the rules to do so. If you own the cards and want to add them to the set, it seems irrelevant what the reason behind it is. I'm surprised 4 Sharp Corners hasn't started this practice.

Kevin

csakers

The main issue I have is with users getting PSA to REMOVE cards from Master Collections, simply due to their inability to track down the card and add it to their own set. Thus, improving/maintaining their hold on a certain ranking. If a card is real, is available to the general public (not a true 1 of 1 production), has been graded by PSA, and has been included appropriately in the past, then they should NOT be removed. . .especially, at the request of another user.

mariotown

<< <i>The main issue I have is with users getting PSA to REMOVE cards from Master Collections, simply due to their inability to track down the card and add it to their own set. Thus, improving/maintaining their hold on a certain ranking. If a card is real, is available to the general public (not a true 1 of 1 production), has been graded by PSA, and has been included appropriately in the past, then they should NOT be removed. . .especially, at the request of another user. >>



I agree 100%. I would make a case to PSA for the card to be included and why. If one person can remove, another can certainly contest it.

csakers

I did once before when it was removed. . .for the same reason. They sent it to the "research department" and agreed with me, so it was reinstated to the collection. This time around, I was simply told it would not be changed and it was due to another user bringing the cards to their attention. They would not touch on my issues surrounding the fact that I checked with them BEFORE sending the cards in to have graded and added. THEY approved, so I spent the money.

cards651

<< <i>The main issue I have is with users getting PSA to REMOVE cards from Master Collections, simply due to their inability to track down the card and add it to their own set. Thus, improving/maintaining their hold on a certain ranking. If a card is real, is available to the general public (not a true 1 of 1 production), has been graded by PSA, and has been included appropriately in the past, then they should NOT be removed. . .especially, at the request of another user. >>



Chris - I'm echoing mariotown. The comments that you have provided are plain common sense. If this is what occurred, I'm betting PSA will fix it. It may take some time but saner heads will prevail. If these are not the facts, all bets are off. The other issue of asking about set compilation before and paying to grade are comparatively minor. IMO stick with your comments above. Good luck. - Kevin M.

Mantlefan

Wrongbacks now ARE graded!!

cougar701

My head hurts

minnewis

I requested the removal of a team card from a master set. It is an easily attainable card but I don't know why it was included. The player is not "featured" on the card in any way and his name is merely placed on the back checklist. Does anyone know the rule for this as PSA does say something about them being mentioned. If that card stands, there are about a dozen more that should be added.

JoeBanzai

<< <i>JoeBanzai,

On the other topic of "error" cards, I believe PSA views these differently. The wrong back issues, appear to simply be viewed as "put together" wrong. Whereas, a printing error (such as the 1990 Topps Thomas) was corrected by the company.

PSA has not taken a definitive stance, as far as I have found. These are just my opinions. >>



The "wrongback" cards were also corrected.

JoeBanzai

<< <i>JoeBanzai,

Both cards (1988 Score Proofs and 1985 Fun Food Cardboard Proof) are clearly marked with the player, both in name and picture. There is no FAIR reason to have removed them from the collections.

I completely agree with you regarding the refund, as I checked with PSA before paying to have the items graded. They assured me they would be included in the collections. PSA would probably fire back that they never guaranteed the items would REMAIN in the collection. >>



The key word here could be "proofs" in the Killebrew Master set there are 4 cards that are in the set but carry no weight that are "uncut" rounded corner cards that still have the square corners. Are your cards in any way similar?

NickM

<< <i>I requested the removal of a team card from a master set. It is an easily attainable card but I don't know why it was included. The player is not "featured" on the card in any way and his name is merely placed on the back checklist. Does anyone know the rule for this as PSA does say something about them being mentioned. If that card stands, there are about a dozen more that should be added. >>



PSA has decided that team cards will be part of master sets for players ostensibly pictured on the cards (I say ostensibly because I doubt anyone is checking carefully to make sure the guy is actually in the picture, and some team cards have used old pictures or pictures that don't include everyone (the '71 Yankees team card is an old enough picture that Mantle is in it).

Many of us (myself included) don't like it, but it was their decision without putting it to users for a vote.

Nick

JoeBanzai

<< <i>Wrongbacks now ARE graded!!

>>



How recently was this graded?

There are MANY wrongbacks that were graded in the past. I had a couple of them rejected last year.