poll on Weighting

Buckwheat

I guess that the poll feature is not enabled. So this will have to be manual. Here is three choices. I have kept the choices down to reflect keep it the same, versus the change that was temporarily made to a middle ground.

What should PSA do about the set weighting scale?

1)---- Keep the 1-10 scale as it presently exists

2)-----Change the scale to 1-25

3)-----Change the scale to fully reflect SMR at PSA 8, so it could be 1-500 etc.

LuxuryWines

My Vote would be for a 1-25 Weighting I feelthat 1-10 is to narrow and does not reflect the value of High $ cards... It also allows more room for Semistars Rookies and others to differentiated from true commons...Jeff

NickM

I too agree with the 1-25 scale.

Nick

Basilone

I also vote for a 1-25 scale.

John

Vargha

What a bunch of sheep!







































I vote for 1-25 as well.

FB

David,

Actually, I think we're looking more like lemmings....

1 - 25 would probably be the easiest way to cure many of the disparities and still keep it simple enough for everyone to understand wihtout a Phd in Statistics.

zardoz51

I have always despised the herd mentality but.........


1-25

theBobs

1 to PI

mikeschmidt

1-25 would generally work for me, too, I think...

waitilltheytrytosell

1 to 25 if we must, but probably needs to be higher.

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.

Scoop

Baaaaaaaaaa.......

1-25

thegemmintman

I say 1 - 24. This is the Price is Right, isn't it?

z2345

1-25 for sets

1-25 for player sets, because that might be the only feasible way to do this.

...although I must say that the current scale for some of the players, ie Aarons, Mays, are ok now. I plan on registering my Aaron collection, and the difference between the 1954 and 1976 cards are closer to 120 vs. 3 than 10 vs. 1, or even 25 vs.1.

Perhaps it would simply take too much effort for PSA to place value on all factors (SMR value, historic significance, earlier card, population, etc.) but it would be a shame to value Aaron cards for the 70s any closer to the 54 Aaron.

brucemo

1-10 is good enough.

If you are a singles collector, it takes a great many Don Mossi cards to equal a Mickey Mantle.

But the set registry is not a singles registry. It is a set registry. The set registry is about sets. A set with a great Mantle and a crappy Mossi is deficient. The deficiency is aesthetic, but if it is inisisted that numbers be applied to the aesthetics, I say that rather than trying to stretch the scale out, I would keep it compressed. In a set, a good Mossi is worth 1/10 of a Mantle, not 1/25. It doesn't matter than the Mantle *cost* fifty or a hundred times more, what matters is that Mossi is in the set, and if you are going to make a good set, you'd better find a good one.

This more accurately reflects the character of set collecting. A '56 Topps set with all of the HOF'ers in PSA-10 and all of the commons missing is not a great set. A good set is one that is consistent, and the only reason to weight the keys higher is that a set with all of the keys in lower grade is not as good as one with solid keys and a few lower grade commons.

bruce

RayBShotz

Bruce - I am inclined to agree with you on the 1-10. This scale recognizes the key star cards but maintains the clarity of what we are all trying to accomplish; a set of consistent quality.
Collecting a set requires that you have a solid example of every card therein. Just on simple aesthetics and card count, a sweet Andy Etchebarren is just as important as a Roberto Clemente. This may be a myopic view of set collecting, but to me every card acquired is important.

My views apply solely to the single set registry. The HOF set or the Player sets, perhaps, deserve a skewed swing scale to balance card importance, but even here you still need to acquire one example of each card to fulfill the set requirement.

Specific to my 69Topps set, I know I need a Lou Brock card to edge closer to completion, but I also need a Mike Shannon, a Dick Radatz, and a Mike Marshall. Some cards are tough, some aint. Some cards are expensive, some aint. Regardless of which one I grade or acquire next I am still one step closer to a complete set.

Just the way I feel I guess. It flat out gives me a warm feeling every time I add any card towards my goal of completion.

RayB69Topps

brucemo

Correct. This is set collecting, not singles collecting.

I don't do HOF or player collecting, but I'd say that the same thing is true there. You identify a domain, and you collect it. Sure, the keys are more important, but if they are all-important, just collect them and not the rest. If you are collecting the whole domain, collect it well. If the registry is supposed to identify those who have collected it well, it's obvious that the keys shouldn't be given overhwhelming weight.

bruce

JH

I think 1-10 is great. I would not be adverse to 1-25, but any range wider than that is just too diverse to acurately what I view as "Set Building". It would place too much emphasis on the few "Star" cards.

z2345

<< <i>I think 1-10 is great. I would not be adverse to 1-25, but any range wider than that is just too diverse to acurately what I view as "Set Building". It would place too much emphasis on the few "Star" cards. >>



I agree with what you are saying. On the other hand, a 1 to 10 scale places much emphasis on accumulating commons. If this registry really catches on, this will drive up the prices of commons and semistars.

It may have the unforseen effect of pushing down the value of the superstars. Many of us are competetive and our egos would love for us to has one of the greatest sets of all time. If the same a collector can achieve the same improvement in his standing by spending less, he may be inclined to do so. In almost every set, the cost of buying ten commons is far less than purchasing a Mantles or Clemente in the same grade.

theBobs

I agree with Bruce -- 1-10.

sixdart

1-10 for the smaller issues (less than 200) and 1-25 for the larger sets (200+). I am working on the 1955 Topps All-American set. The number of cards to complete the set is 100 - so the 1-10 is perfect.

However, I think that more attention needs to be reflect in population report along with the public perception of a "tough" grade or "hard to find" single. A high-grade tough single should count as much as star power within the PSA registry set concept. The is also a reason to weight the stars - popularity and demand of that star; i.e., 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle.

And yes, the sets should be definitely conscience of all important cards and the player and HOF sets should be more star driven.

bosoxphan

I think the 1-10 scale is good enough as is. You know and fellow collectors know how good your set really is. You don't need the registry telling you either way.

koby

1-10 scale would definitely even the playing field for poorer collectors such as myself. So if I collect a nice run and leave out the star, I would be able to compare my set with some of the big boys. That is a cop-out. How can someone who has key cards that are inferior compare with someone with strong key cards? How can someone with inferior key cards be labeled as "one of the best sets of all time"? Proponents of the 1-10 scale are merely making excuses as for those who cannot afford the top specimens.

I vote for a 1-25 scale.

bosoxphan

Not necessarily true. Some of the low population commons in vintage sets are more expensive than the star cards in like grade.

koby

For that reason, more weight should be given to the low population cards. Certainly run-of-the-mill commons are worth less than 1/10 of these cards too. Collectors who find these cards should be rewarded fairly.

yawie99

like sixdart, i think one has to consider the set itself before establishing a weight range for it. a 1-10 scale is sufficient for most sets, particularly those produced over the last 30 to 40 years. but for sets that contain some of the hobby's holy grails, a 1-25 scale is warranted.

a seaver rc, for example, may be the most important card in a '67 set, but it doesn't tower above the other cards in the set the way a '48 leaf satchel paige might. a 10-point scale seems to work pretty well for the '67 set, but it doesn't work so well for the '48 leaf set.

motocrosser

Buck!

Please explain what this is all about (player sets?????) NOT THE ENTIRE REGISTRY I HOPE....

Didn't this start with the Aaron rookie card weighing about a billion and his later issues weighted 1 or 2.

Keep the registry sets at the 1-10....

Player sets 1-25...

Mx'er

jml517-ebay

61 topps 100%

brucemo

I think a T-206 Honus Wagner is a 10 and a T-206 common is a 1. I don't see why there is a problem with this. If you are collecting the set, you have to collect the commons as well as the keys.

bruce

HalleyGator

I think 1 -25 would work the best for "player sets" and HOF sets and other sets that "span time."

I will not weigh in on "annual sets" (1951 Bowman, etc.) since I don't collect any. I will defer to the guys who do.

NickM

bruce - if Wagner is a 10, what is Plank? What is Cobb? What is Three Finger Brown or Frank Chance? How about a Cobb with a Cobb back?

mikeschmidt

Nick M-

Playing Devil's Advocate, let's use the most extreme example here:

Set A: The T-206 Harris Collection -- widely regarded as the finest T-206 collection ever assembled. To boot, let's just randomly throw in a PSA 1 or a PSA 2 Honus Wagner card.

Set B: Brian Seigel's T-206 Honus Wagner PSA 8 card.


Set A: SportsCards Plus sold the T-206 Harris collection for $916,287.50. Let's say that a PSA 1 Wagner will go for about $75,000 and a PSA 2 will go for $175,000. That brings the total "value" of Set A to approximately $1,000,000 to $1,100,000

Set B: Brian Seigel paid $1.265 million for his Honus Wagner card.



Sure -- Seigel's card is the most important card in the hobby. And it clearly has a higher value than the Harris Collection. Nonetheless -- it is not a SET. It is just a single card. If you weight your sets purely based on SMR -- than Seigel's single card would appear to be the better "set" of the two choices. But in reality, The Harris Collection is a better set -- even if it *only* has a marginal Wagner card. A set is a set -- and holds intrinsic value for its completion and aesthetics. I am not going to rehash the argument of 1-10, 1-25, or whatever, but it seems clear to me that if you weight only based on SMR, then you are going to get a very skewed analysis on some "sets" that have but a single card.....

sixdart

Singles within a set should incorporate weights based upon the importance and the scarcity. This could be a high-demand star with adequate population numbers or a nobody common that can not be found in any grade that rarley exceeds a PSA 7.

What is worth more to the set - the star in a PSA 9 or the common in a PSA 9? The difference in the star value will always be the interest in the single card from outside collectors (non-PSA registry set collectors). With that said, you have 100 collectors, the PSA set and non-PSA set collectors, going after a 50 population PSA 9 star card, and, 20 collectors, just PSA set collectors, going after a the 1-2 population PSA 9 common. This incorporates the theory of supply and demand with actual scarcity of individual cards.

Which card is more valuable to the set? Tough call - I would rather acquire the common first.

RayBShotz

Sixdart - I have always been an advocate of purchasing or grading the tough commons just for your stated reason. The star cards will always be available, even in high grade. It is only a function of money to add them to your set.
It takes persistence, a good eye for grading, patience, right place/right time and sometimes a bit of luck to land those elusive high grade commons. For my buck this is where the heart of set collecting lies. The fun of construction adding each and every common as well as the needed keys.
If the goal is a complete set (It is for me), then it doesnt much matter how I get there.
I reiterate my vote for staying pat at 1-10 scale.

RayB69Topps

Buckwheat

The poll has been up for two days now, and here is the results so far as I count them.

1-10 6
1-25 13
1-smr 0

A couple of the 1-10 voted for 1-25 on the player sets. My vote would be for 1-25, which makes the total 14-6-0. Nobody has voted for the "New Coke".

My rationale for the 1-25 is less about fairness, or what makes the best set, but rather results from my concern about what the effect of the low scale has on the prices of star cards. I think that the price softness of stars is a serious problem for the hobby. It is where the dealers make their money. (I am not a dealer) I don't buy that the soft prices are a result of the economy, because common cards certainly haven't suffered in price.

The Set registry has had the expected effect of increasing demand for commons. But it has been at the expense of the Star cards. While many people say that the registry is not important, or stupid, I think that the response to this issue on the boards shows that it is important to many people.

Why do over 1000 people register their sets if it is not important?? David Vargha said it best when he said he would spend scarce money on a large number of common nines than spend it on one star. Others are making the same decision every day. It is easy to see a lot of sets on the board that have the lowest graded cards the star cards. That I believe is partially due to the fact that you get much less "bang for your buck" in the registry weightings with a star. Increasing the scale will probably result in increased demand for high grade stars, and thus increase prices again.

Those with an opinion that haven't voted, please do so. I am sure that BJ is watching!

Buck

Wayne8348

Good post buckwheat - I agree with you. I would go 1-25 as well and I would also make psa 8's worth 9 points, psa 9's worth 12 points, and psa 10's worth 15 points.

Wayne

Alfiewt

I vote for 1-10 just because I think the commons will always be much harder to find then the star cards. Its a lot harder to put together a run of high grade common cards then a run of high grade star cards. Getting the star cards is just a function of money in most cases.

I think the set that is the hardest to assemble should be ranked highest on the registry. The set that is the hardest to assemble isn't always the one that is worth the most money.

NickM

mikeschmidt - I fully agree with you that SMR is not the way to go for weighting. I favor expanding the scale to 1-25 because I don't think 1-10 captures the desirability difference between certain cards in the same set adequately.

Nick

HalleyGator

I already voted ...

but since then I have polled my three young children, and they are also in favor of a 1 - 25 scale.

They cannot understand how a ONE CENT common from the 1999 Topps set could possibly be weighted as worth 10% of what the $1,200,000 T206 Honus Wagner card is worth.

At least with a 1 - 25 scale, the ONE CENT common would only be worth 4% of the most expensive card in our hobby.

1954

I think the 1-10 weighting works fine. What does not work fine is throwing in all the commons as a "1" when those are the harder ones to come by in high grade. Many times you will see a listed star with a "10" rating structure just because of who it is, and not the difficulty in obtaining that in high grade. I believe that regardless if you use 1-10 or 1-30 tier, PSA needs to have a person with great knowledge of the set to weight it correctly.

Buckwheat

Culling out multiple posts, hanging chads, minors, etc, I have the vote as follows

1-10 ----8 votes
1-25-----15 votes
1-SMR----0 votes

I will continue to count until Monday night if you still would like to vote.

koby

BJ?

Joe?

Are there more changes on the horizon?

Buckwheat

<< <i>Culling out multiple posts, hanging chads, minors, etc, I have the vote as follows

1-10 ----8 votes
1-25-----15 votes
1-SMR----0 votes >>



Just a followup on this topic. It seems that by a 2-1 margin on this very unscientific poll. people favor expanding the range of weighting. No one favored the expansion to SMR levels that could result in weighting of 300+ that was tried. I was going to post an open letter to Joe and BJ, but instead will leave the topic here. It seems that they may be already instituting something like this, as new sets seem to go from 0.5 to 10, which is the same as 1 to 20. Perhaps the older sets will be reweighted also. There does not seem to be an uproar over the 0.5 to 10.

Another thought would be down the road to post both an unweighted and weighted grade. this would allow people to use whichever way they like to look at the rankings.

Again, I want to publicly thank Gayle, BJ, Joe and all the rest of the PSA crowd for doing such a great job with the registry. Keep up the good work.

Buck

theBobs

<< <i>Good post buckwheat - I agree with you. I would go 1-25 as well and I would also make psa 8's worth 9 points, psa 9's worth 12 points, and psa 10's worth 15 points. >>



A little twist on Wayne's suggestion:
What about adding a multiplier to the weight, the following numbers are just an example. Say that a PSA 8 is a 1x, PSA 7 is a .9x, a PSA9 is a 1.2x and a PSA 10 is a 1.5x.

Think about it conceptually. This would work regardless of the 1-10/1-25 debate and reward higher conditioned cards.

Just brainstorming...

Buckwheat

I agree that a PSA 8 is more than 14% better than a 7, and a 9 is more than 12% better than an 8, etc., which is what you are trying to account for.

I imagine it would be very difficult to work it out. while you could get total score easy enough, how would you calculate set grade, and highest possible grade, etc. That is, if you multiplied the 10 by a number greater than 1, then your average grade could be greater than 10, etc. I think the complexity would increase several fold, and I am not sure that it would give all that much of a better discriminator.

theBobs

I don't believe that the Average Weighted Grade formula would change at all under the preceding scenario. The grade is the grade, and the cards are weighted 1-10 (or .5-10, or 1-20, whatever).

My suggestion would only deal with the Set Rating. Currently the set rating is the product of Grade x Weight at the single card level. This suggestion would simply add a multiplier to this formula recognizing at the macro level that 10s are more difficult than 9s and so on.

In 65 Topps, a Mantle is weighted 10. Here is a 8, 9, and 10 NQ breakdown:
psa8 8 x 10 = 80
psa9 9 x 10 = 90
psa10 10 x 10 = 100

Adding the following multipliers 1x, 1.1x, and 1.25x we get:
psa8 8 x 10 x 1 = 80
psa9 9 x 10 x 1.1 = 99
psa10 10 x 10 x 1.25 = 125

So which is more accurate of the three cards value to a set? 80, 90 100 or 80, 99, 125?

The Set Rating number works because it is all relative -- as long as each set on the registry uses the same formula, a relative ranking of each set is possible. By adding a multiplier to Set Rating, a non-linear benefit to upgrading is received.

If I am collecting to build my rating, then what will motivate me more to spend the cash to upgrade -- 80, 90 100 or 80, 99, 125? The multiplier would promote upgrades, and support price levels of higher graded cards. Plus this is consistent with prices realized for higher grade cards, and the multiplier reinforces the value of star cards over commons. Mantle would go 80, 99, 125 while Mack Jones would go 8, 9.9, and 12.5.

I think its something to consider...

If I am collecting for the love of collecting, then none of this matters.