A suggestion regarding registry awards

favoritethings

All of the "set" awards are given to the participant who has the #1 ranking for 1 day - the "award deadline". I suggest that it would be more accurate to give the award to whoever had the #1 spot/set for the greatest number of days in the preceding year. In my opinion it would be a much more accurate reflection of the "better" set. That said, if the new leader holds his/her place for the greatest number of days the next year, they get the award then. I would be interested for other set collectors to weigh in with their opinions.

bobsbbcards

I don't totally disagree with your intentions, but the obvious corollary is:

In a marathon, one runner leads for 26.1 miles, but is passed at the finish line by another runner. Who gets the trophy?

Griffins

Agree with Bob. Award goes to the best set at the deadline.

jay0791

+ 2

Griffins

right about now Cosetta is cringing at the idea of having to keep track how many days someone occupies the #1 spot in 3000 different sets.

ABellPharmD

I disagree with the original suggestion. If your set is the best, it's the best. No awards for leading the most laps. Win the race!

cards651

I like the idea. Many people seem to sit on cards and post on the last day. The marathon analogy does not really fit because you do not start at the same spot - some collect for many years while others go out and buy the top set. It's a simple computer command to calculate this so that's really not a problem. The suggested approach would encourage cards to be added as they are received. There could be some great back and forth with no need to hide cards. That's thinking outside the box. Thanks for the suggestion.

MCMLVTopps

Are you collecting for an award, or the enjoyment of the items? Didn't the "award" thing get changed by PSA requiring a 100% completion level to be attained before a "best set award" is reached? It used to be that the highest rated set was the "best" set...not anymore. The "award" thing is a bit over hyped IMO. Ever wonder why they changed the rule?

It's the chase and achievement to me, not some recognition by PSA who makes ( and changes) the rules on what constitutes a "best" set. So, if your set is lacking just one card, and you have a very nice collection, having spent hours and hours to put together, not to mention cost...PSA gives you zip recognition.

Having had my fair share of "best set" awards...I didn't achieve those seeking recognition by PSA, I did it for personal pleasure...PSA's recognition was merely a by-product of having completed the sets.

hyperchipper09

I focus mainly on the registry sets that I requested be added, Scott Stevens basic and master. I honestly don't care about an award, I just wanted to get his registry up an going. As a Hockey Hall of Famer and one of the best players of the last 30 years it seemed like he should have one even if collecting interest in him isn't that great. I'm sure at some point someone would have requested his set, or maybe not. I'll go at my own leisurely pace in getting my raw cards graded and any other pick ups I make. As long as I'm making an effort on the sets I requested, that's all I care about.

mikeschmidt

Current rules make the most sense.

Also, per the other point, if you're really collecting only for the competitiveness of the award, you're likely not going to be happy with the hobby in the long run.

A decade or so later, I can count a large number of folks who seemed to enjoy buying their way to a #1 Ranking only to stop collecting and sell.

m

favoritethings

I appreciate the dialogue. In my opinion the marathon analogy is a fair one. I am both a core collector AND a registry competitor. The majority of my collection consists of items that aren't even included in the registry - and it has absolutely been a labor of love. That said - regarding the registry awards - I guess I am more irked by the addition of items to the set in a time frame near the awards that doesn't allow someone much time or opportunity to acquire or have graded the newly added item. The marathon analogy would be oh yeah, there was a right turn you missed 1/2 mile ago that wasn't part of the original planned route - but even though your at the very end of the race - you can try to catch up - if not there is always next year.
Like in the marathon analogy - there is a strategy element I can live with even if I think it would be more "accurate" the way I originally suggested. Let's all be clear on the path.

cards651

Continuing the marathon analogy - it's like declaring Rosie Ruiz the winner of the Boston Marathon when she rode the T to the finish line. Yes, she crossed the finish line first but it's really not quite the same as running the race.

bobsbbcards

Let's switch analogies (just to create more argument....er, discussion).

You're bidding in an auction, and you have the high bid for 13 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 54 seconds. Some numbskull (with more money than you) snipes at the end. Who wins the auction?

Everyone is aware of the deadline for the awards and the rules of contest. Since there is no monetary value in the PSA award certificate, nor is there much value in the colorful icon next to your set name, I don't see where there's a whole lot of reason to change the system. I would imagine that all of the people who are at or near the top of a category are quite proud of their achievement, regardless of the number of dime-a-dozen paper awards or icons they have.

bishop

It pains me to agree with Bob, particularly when he starts popping analogies and snipes everywhere, but who can argue with the PSA Collector of The Year.

csakers

My main issue is when items are added to a set at the deadline, which then lowers a collector to less than 100% completion. Thus, they do not qualify for the icon/award/recognition (whichever way you wish to view the situation). While the 100% completion is a nice target, there should be room for exception when new items are added at the "last minute."

Griffins

don't they freeze additions 60 days prior to the award deadline? If that isn't the case you certainly have a legitimate complaint.

mknez

My biggest complaint is when an auction house buys a collection, then relists it under their own name after the original owner has retired the set.

Griffins

that is my pet peeve too. Then the new owner registers it.
The registry isn't supposed to be used for selling, and just having the auction house's name on it does exactly that.

cards651

Oh yes. Absolutely a pet peeve of mine as well. I really don't begrudge the auction houses doing this as it lets you know that the set is up for sale. But if the little guy tries that, I think it would be a different story. I really don't like the sets named BBCARDS4U either. People should be able to use this for selling or not but this 'self-policing' stuff is crazy. In the end, it's just PSA that looks bad.

csakers - That's a rough one as well. No thought going into the whole process it would seem. I assume you're talking about some individual player master set or something along those lines.

Bob - I disagree. Still like the new proposal but I think we are stuck in our respective positions. I'm sure PSA is a long way from changing that one so I think you win. For now....

csakers

Yes, it tends to occur within the individual player sets (especially with some variation card).

Why are users not allowed to utilize the set registry for selling sets/cards? I realize there is a forum for posting for sale/want to buy ads. However, they appear to be very ineffective, especially in comparison to having sets/cards for sale directly to those with shared collecting habits/interests.

JoeBanzai

Current format is fine. I got "beat at the wire" last year and this year learned the rules and took 1st place.

This is one thing PSA got absolutely correct.

Besides, any one who disagrees with both Bob and Al is just a fool.