A Message from Joe Orlando RE: Weighting

BJ

Joe Orlando issued the following message today:

****************************************

Dear Set Registrants,

In the past two weeks you may have noticed some alterations in the weighting on the PSA Set Registry. We had begun some experimentation with the numbers in order to determine if a new weighting schematic made sense. During this process, you voiced your opinions and the majority of you told us that you viewed the change in the weighting system as unfavorable. After further discussion, it is in our collective opinion that the PSA Set Registry should return to the 1-10 weighting for all sets listed. This scale was part of the original plan and we appreciate your patience during this experimental process.

While the 1-10 scale will not necessarily discern which set is truly the most valuable, it should provide the proper weighting in order to facilitate more competition amongst our loyal registrants and allow more collectors to compete. With a 1-10 scale, the star cards will still receive more substantial weights than the commons, but the scale will take into consideration and reward those collectors who have worked hard to acquire tough commons throughout the balance of their sets. In other words, it will focus on set building more than pure monetary value.

We hope that this news is received well by our loyal customers. The registry is very important to PSA and we want all of you to really enjoy the experience. Good luck and have fun.

Sincerely,

Joe Orlando
PSA VP

****************************************

Today we reversed most of the sets that had been re-weighted. There are just a few more to go and we will take care of those in the next day or so. Your comments that were made on this board and that were sent to Joe and me were thought provoking and very helpful. I have said this before and I will say it again, your feedback counts. There is no question that the set registry is a fabulous marketing tool for PSA. But the only reason it is successful is because of your participation. That is why we listen. So thank you all.

HalleyGator

Dear BJ and Joe: NO PROBLEM!!

As we had initially expected, the 1 - 10 scale can still be based in part upon the SMR values of certain cards, along with POP report figures, etc.

If a card in PSA 8 has a value of $10,000 or higher, then it should be worth 10 points. This "levels" the playing field because a $1,000,000 card is worth the same amount as a $100,000 card and a $10,000 card.

Conversely, the cheapest and most common PSA 8 card (1999 Topps, for example) should be worth only 1 point, since it is worth less than $10 in PSA 8 condition.

Then, to assign weights between 1 and 10 ... we just need a fair scale.

PSA 8 Value between $10 and $50 = 2 points
PSA 8 Value between $50 and $200 = 3 points
PSA 8 Value between $200 and $500 = 4 points
PSA 8 Value between $500 and $1,000 = 5 points
PSA 8 Value between $1,000 and $2,000 = 6 points
PSA 8 Value between $2,000 and $4,000 = 7 points
PSA 8 Value between $4,000 and $7,000 = 8 points
PSA 8 Value between $7,000 and $10,000 = 9 points
PSA 8 Value over $10,000 = 10 points

Under this grading scale, even the most COMMON card in a certain set (1951 Bowman for example) would have a weight of 3 or 4, since the PSA 8 commons are priced in that range.

Thus, the difference in weight between a common and the Mantle rookie is only the difference between a 4 and a 10 ... which is NOT a lot ... but it IS SOMETHING, and "something" is needed.

If NOTHING ELSE ... at least weight the "multi-year" sets this way, since there is just way too much difference between a card from 1887 and a card from 1997. THANKS!!!

Vargha

It is agreed that 1-10 is the lesser of all of the evils. By the time you factor in grade weighting per card as well, things can get extremely complicated. Perhaps a 1-25 scale is more equitable than 1-10. However, 1-1,000 (or whatever it was) is not a reasonable alternative. Thanks again for stirring up interest in the hobby. As you mentioned, it is self-serving to PSA, but benefits the dealers and we collectors as well.

Buckwheat

thanks for the post BJ. And thanks for trying new things. As someone who prefers some change, I can't understand why you didn't listen only to me!!.

While I am sure you must have been blasted with email against the change, please consider that those who have posted were mostly not against weighting more divergently, but felt that scales of 1 to 100 or 500 etc were way too skewed. I still believe that 1-25 or something would be more fair and tolerable, as Vargha agreed to in previous post. Perhaps the problem was not the increased weighting, but the degree of increase. I will attempt to post a poll that people can vote on, and let's see what is preferred.

BigKidAtHeart

ok, how much do PSA (and joe orlando) rock??

I just got an email sent out (to all the psa registry members) that explained the same topic.

Well done guys!

Real Customer Service... what a concept!

Scoop

Hally, not a bad scale. But who is going to track the value of commons? SMR doesn't do it, neither does Beckett. I have been screaming for those evaluators to stop clumping commons into groups of print runs or series for the last 5 years. Your scale will only work if someone tracks the trading prices of those commons.

theBobs

Thanks for listening Joe and BJ. I am sure PSA will do the right thing, and I am glad we as a collective group have a voice.

NickM

IMO much of the reason that a 1-25 scale would be preferable is that it would better account for scarce variations. When a '69 Mantle is valued at 10, the white letter variation must be weighted significantly higher. [The same applies for other variations, including the '58 Topps Clemente yellow letters.]

Nick

waitilltheytrytosell

The set registry rewards people for assembling a set containing the finest cards. The finest cards are the big star type of cards of lasting value that everybody has heard of and recognizes that they have value. Gathering up a bunch of raw cheap low pops and common guys that nobody has heard of is certainly a basic requirement for any set. Everybody has to do that, but laying out the big bucks for the best big stars is a significant investment in going for the finest set possible. The low pop commons turn into commons over time - a week, a month, or even years. Stars stay valuable and desirable long after those tough commons are forgotten. Many commons are low pop simply because people haven't bothered to send them in yet. All collectors know who Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays are, recognize they are valuable, and know they are more valuable in high grade. The registry needs to reward people who go out and buy this type of card of lasting value.

The 1 to 10 weighting doesn't place enough weighting on significant upgrades. More emphasis is placed on simply gathering a bunch of commons. The method it was changed over to briefly placed more emphasis on cards harder to find because of the willingness to spend money. This is the way it should be.

On 1951 Bowmans for example, there was talk on here about how weights should be applied, and what kind of set deserves a higher rating.

The top 4 sets based on the current 1 to 10 weighting are:
1 Merkel - 8.31 - 100% - 8.31
2 Branca - 8.26 - 99.38% - 8.19
3 Fogel - 8.08 - 100% - 8.08
4 Vargha - 8.07 - 100% - 8.07

All sets are complete except for the Branca set which is missing 2 minor highs - Murtaugh and Overmire.

The current SMR on a straight 8 set is $68,755.00.

The current SMR value of the contents of each set is:
1 Merkel - $90,215.00
2 Branca - $255,880.00
3 Fogel - $80,590.00
4 Vargha - $69,720.00

The Branca set includes 3 PSA 10's - Coleman, Lanier, Haynes - figured in at the PSA 9 price.

All other cards in the four sets are PSA 8 or better except for:
Branca - Missing the 2 highs mentioned above and contains 4 PSA 7's - Branca, Dilliger, Roy, Johnson.
Vargha - Contains 8 PSA 7's - Chapman, Miksis, ROE, IRVIN, Wright, Meyer, Overmire, MAYS.



UPGRADES
Upgrades to nines and 10's made in the sets, in terms of SMR value of the upgrades picked up.

Branca Set - $233,955.00
70 total PSA 9's and 10's, with 47 common and high number 9's, and 23 stars including
MICKEY MANTLE 9 94000
WILLIE MAYS 9 65000
WHITEY FORD 9 37000
TED WILLIAMS 9 9000
YOGI BERRA 9 6250
ROY CAMPANELLA 9 2500
DUKE SNIDER 9 2500
NELSON FOX 9 1700
PHIL RIZZUTO 9 1500
RICHIE ASHBURN 9 1000
JOE GARAGIOLA 9 775
CARL ERSKINE 9 750
JOHNNY MIZE 9 715
JACKIE JENSEN 9 650
AL LOPEZ 9 525
JOE ADCCOK 9 500
EARLY WYNN 9 450
DON MUELLER 9 450
RED SCHOENDIENST9 400
PREACHER ROE 9 350
HANK BAUER 9 325
ALVIN DARK 9 225
ALLIE REYNOLDS 9 225

Merkel - $31,875.00
105 total PSA 9's, with 80 common and high number 9's, and 25 stars including
DUKE SNIDER 9 2500
NELSON FOX 9 1700
PHIL RIZZUTO 9 1500
BOB FELLER 9 1500
ROBIN ROBERTS 9 1100
LOU BOUDREAU 9 850
JOE GARAGIOLA 9 775
BOB LEMON 9 750
CARL ERSKINE 9 750
JACKIE JENSEN 9 650
GEORGE KELL 9 625
CASEY STENGEL 9 625
JIM PIERSALL 9 600
LARRY DOBY 9 525
AL LOPEZ 9 525
FORREST BURGESS 9 465
ENOS SLAUGHTER 9 450
EARLY WYNN 9 450
LEO DUROCHER 9 450
BIRDIE TEBBETTS 9 450
LUKE EASTER 9 450
VIC RASCHI 9 325
BILL PIERCE 9 300
GENE WOODLING 9 300
ALVIN DARK 9 225

Fogel - $16,965.00
27 total PSA 9's, with 20 common and high number 9's, and 7 stars including
TED WILLIAMS 9 9000
PEE WEE REESE 9 1800
RICHIE ASHBURN 9 1000
BILL DICKEY 9 1000
FORREST BURGESS 9 465
LEO DUROCHER 9 450
RAY BOONE 9 250

Vargha - $12,560.00
34 total PSA 9's, with 25 common and high number 9's, and 9 stars including
ROY CAMPANELLA 9 2500
NELSON FOX 9 1700
PHIL RIZZUTO 9 1500
JACKIE JENSEN 9 650
AL LOPEZ 9 525
ENOS SLAUGHTER 9 450
LEO DUROCHER 9 450
VIC RASCHI 9 325
DAVE (GUS) BELL 9 250



The new rating based on value which showed up briefly changed the ratings approximately(I didn't save their roundings) to about:
1 Branca - 8.65
2 Merkel - 8.15
3 Fogel - 8.08
4 Vargha - 7.90

This puts Branca at the top and moves Merkel to number two.

Vargha could jump to an 8.05 with the upgrade of his 7 Mays to an 8.

This weighting is a far more accurate reflection of investment in the sum of time money and effort, into assembling the finest set. It's not about if commons are harder than stars, it's all about putting together the finest set. The finest set contains the finest cards. These numbers are a better reflection of what a better set is. Just look at the lineup of stars in the set.

Is there really an argument for the Merkel set being better? Should the Branca set be penalized for having two dozen less commons in 9?

mikeschmidt

Joe:

Thanks for your prompt attention to this matter. Though there is still some disagreement over what is the "best" weighting method -- I think that many of us seemed to agree that the 1 to 500 or the 1 to 1,000 scale was a little to biased in favor of high-dollar star cards. Thank you for re-instituting the 1 to 10 weighting.

I think that the Set Registry is a work-in-progress, and we will have different ideas as time passes. I am sure that from this vocal crowd you will receive a lot of input as to how we think the Registry should evolve -- and I trust that you have the foresight and wisdom to differentiate between our valued ideas and our cokamamie plans to take over the world.

I think perhaps closer to the end of the year, the changes I would recommend would be the following:

1) Allow individual sets to be re-weighted on a 1-25 scale. However, perhaps this re-weighting can be done through the combined efforts of Set Registry participants, with your team having the final say over what changes get made and why.

2) Allow player sets to be re-weighted on a 1-100 or some other similar scale. A 1-25 scale will never truly reflect the disparity between a 1954 Topps Hank Aaron card and a 1974 Topps Hank Aaron card -- though a scale of 1,200 to 1 is perhaps a bit harsh.

Thanks again for all your input and thanks for listening to all of us here on the Registry. As the resident nerd representing the 1955 Bowman set, I enthusiastically believe that this is the "place for cool cards to hang out...."

mikeschmidt

Waitill-

Very interesting analysis. For what it's worth, I would postulate the following idea:

Perhaps their should be "bonus" tiers:

A) Some bonus points added for completion of set in graded form.
Some bonus points added for completion of set in PSA 7 NM or better
C) Some more bonus points added for completion of set in PSA 8 or better


I think the weighting of certain cards with a grade weight of 120 with commons is simply too much. Continuing to use 1951 Bowman as an example, I would choose the following:

Two 1951 Bowman sets:

Set A: Has 1951 Bowman Mays PSA 9, Mantle PSA 9, with every other card in PSA 8 NM/MT
Set B: Has 1951 Bowman Mays PSA 9, Mantle PSA 10, 203 other cards (including all stars and hi-number commons) in PSA 8, and 119 commons in PSA 7 Near Mint.

With the Mantle card weighted at 120, Set B gets the higher weighting in the Registry because the Mantle is PSA 10, even though Set A is complete in PSA 8. I personally think Set A is a better set. Set B may have a slightly better Mantle, but set A is a better set overall -- and the one I would choose if both were for sale and I had just won the lottery.

With the 1951 Bowman set as it is, I think that Branca's set should be penalized for not being complete and also be penalized for not having all 8's and better. I'm not necessarily saying that Merkel's set is better than Branca's -- it definitely is with the Mays and Mantle PSA 9 cards. However, on the other hand, are those two cards (or the total six or seven other cards he has that Merkel does not) enough to validate a conclusion that On weighted average, every card in Branca's set is 1/2 grade point better than Merkel's? I personally don't think so.

Just my $.02

waitilltheytrytosell

Looking at it from a monetary standpoint, it is $200,000.00 better in upgrades than the Merkel set. That's not worth 1/2 point?

He is lacking 2 dozen commons, but does add
MICKEY MANTLE 9 94000
WILLIE MAYS 9 65000
WHITEY FORD 9 37000
TED WILLIAMS 9 9000
YOGI BERRA 9 6250
ROY CAMPANELLA 9 2500

above the

DUKE SNIDER 9 2500 that they both have.

waitilltheytrytosell

I posted this in another thread. It applies here too.

This isn't about making the competition fair or interesting by giving the underdog a handicap. Give me a 100 shots and I just might make an interesting match with Tiger Woods. Give me a 100 pins and bring me an Earl Anthony. This is the real world. It's about putting together the best set. The best set has the best cards, and the best cards cost the most money. If you can't keep up, you don't have the best set. You can't keep change the rules to make it a fair contest.

zardoz51

I think that Vargha should get a substantial number of bonus points fot NOT selling out and becoming a GAI "Mentor". That fact alone should bump him a couple of places in the standings.

In addition, Vargha, did not assemble this collection by picking up the phone and ordering whatever he wanted. The guy is a true collector and has had to make sacrifices to assemble his collection (The PCL set springs to mind). It is unfortunate that factors such as these cannot be considered. As far as I am concerned, Vargha has the finest collection. He has freely shared with us his trials and tribulations in assembling his set, and somehow made us feel a part of his collecting adventure.

I'll get off my soapbox, and hope that others feel the same way I do about his set.

theBobs

I think if two people buy the same card, in the same grade -- the guy that spends more money on the card should get more points.

For example, if I go out and find a raw 1965 Mantle and buy it for $400, then I submit it and get a 9. I should get FEWER points than somebody that spends $5000 for a slabbed Mantle 9. Why? Clearly because the other guy SPENT MORE MONEY.

Moreover, if two people buy the same card same grade, the person spending the more money on the card should get an advantage. Heck, you may see the scenario that a dealer is asking $3000.00 for a card but the collector offers $4000.00 just to get a better rating on the registry.

We could skip the cards all together and simply post bank accounts. I am open to any ideas...

NickM

waitil - your argument applies differently depending on the difficulty of completing the set at all. While most low population cards from the '60s and '70s will have their numbers increase and perhaps cease to be low population, the pre-war cards are not likely to show significant population growth in high grades. Take the T-206 set for example. Finding Hall of Famers in PSA 2 or PSA 3 condition is easy. Finding anyone in PSA 8 condition is hard. Which would you consider a better set?
Set 1: Complete (minus the Wagner/Plank variation/Magie/Nodgrass/Doyle N.Y. Nat'l/other scarce variations) in PSA 3 with Cobb, Speaker, Young, and Johnson in PSA 6
or
Set 2: Complete (minus the Wagner/Plank variation/Magie/Nodgrass/Doyle N.Y. Nat'l/other scarce variations) in PSA 3 with 80 commons in PSA 7

I would take the latter set. Which would you prefer? Which should have a higher Registry ranking?

Nick

Scoop

Waitill, your concept is correct in general; and in theory, you are correct in your analysis of big ticket stars to commons. But there are flaws in your argument.

The term common really refers to your basic average ballplayer. When opening up a wax pack back in the 50's, we set-builders would refer to them as got 'ems or need 'ems. Since they were plentiful, one could always trade got 'ems for need 'ems, thus the word common was coined.

Today, the emphasis is on condition. Sure, one can build even the oldest sets fairly easily without regard to condition. But when you start hunting for 50-year old and older cards in NM-MT or higher condition, it becomes very difficult and challenging, and 'common' has become a misnomer.
No set builder wants to 'settle' for a card that is below his set standards, but due to competition, many may have to. And even though commons as singles are unpopular, as part of sets, they will definitely hold their value (the rarer ones especially).

The challange shouldn't be based on how many Vargha- or Branca-bucks you have, but in the overall quality of your set as Mikeschmidt points out in his preference of which set is more desirable.

The huge disparity in value between PSA 8's, 9's, and 10's also shows the fault in your agument.
High-end 8's can easily substitute for 9's (anyone who submits and resubmits regularly can attest to this).

Anyway, this is about the SET registry, not the STAR registry. I would be willing to concede your argument in the HOFer and player registries, but not the sets themselves.

waitilltheytrytosell

nickm - Set 2 would be my preference and I would think it should "weigh" more, based simply on 80 commons in 7 having more value than the 4 guys in PSA 6 that you mention.

As far as the Mike Schmidt example goes -
Set A: Has 1951 Bowman Mays PSA 9, Mantle PSA 9, with every other card in PSA 8 NM/MT
Set B: Has 1951 Bowman Mays PSA 9, Mantle PSA 10, 203 other cards (including all stars and hi-number commons) in PSA 8, and 119 commons in PSA 7 Near Mint.

If I hit the lottery, I would buy set B and then sell just the PSA 10 Mantle. With that money, I would then buy Set A and have them throw in another Mantle in PSA 8.

Vargha

Thanks for all of the kind words. Merkel and Branca both have nicer sets than I do. If I had their money, then I would probably do the same as they do. Despite my scraping and finagling to build this set, there shouldn't be any extra points for effort. Results are really the bottom line.

As far as certain scenarios go, I would much rather have a bunch of high grade "commons" at the expense (in the short-term) of having a high-grade superstar. That is why I still have Mays in a PSA 7 (there are over 40 PSA 8's) while I have added more than a dozen PSA 9 cards to my set this year. Obviously if money were no object, then I would have both.

Vargha

BTW -- I think I only have 34 PSA 9's, but I did go to public school and my math may be a little suspect.

waitilltheytrytosell

vargha - You are correct of course on the count. I included your 8 sevens in my count of 42. I corrected it above.

Every one of these sets are the end result of a great deal of time, effort, and money. Other collectors looking at these sets know this, and are envious of these sets. When you start measuring them, weighing them, and comparing them against one another to put them in order of "overall quality", you do perhaps put more value on the money aspect than you do on the effort put forth. Money is easy to measure. The degree of effort somebody put in is difficult to measure.

NickM

waitil - I'd take the second T-206 set too. Assuming the commons are worth one point apiece, it has a 320 point edge from the commons being in PSA 7, to be offset by whatever points the 4 HOFers in PSA 6 from the other set are worth. I figure those, being among the biggest stars, should be maximum points apiece. If the maximum points are 10, the HOFers total 120 points in offset, leaving a 200 point edge for set #2. If the maximum points are 25, the HOFers total 300 points, and the edge for set #2 is 20 points. [If Cobb, et al. are worth 30 or more points apiece, set #1 would have the edge.] How many points should Cobb be worth? And for that matter, how many points should Honus Wagner be worth?

Nick