assignment of grade points in the registry

MCMLVTopps

No doubt this has been discussed before...however, I see some GLARING discrepancies in the current assigned grade points in at least my registered sets.

Does anyone have a clear understanding of this process, other than rarity, POP, etc? It appears that there is little logic to some of the items I've looked at.

csakers

Based upon my registered sets, there does not seem to be any rhyme or reason for the assignment of grade points. The only trend I tend to notice is that certain users appear to earn higher grade points assigned to items they request having added to the sets. Otherwise, it does not seem to matter the rarity of the card, the graded population, or the amount the card tends to be valued.

ashabby

When I asked this ? To psa they said based on the price of the card. Otherwise all the same weight. I have many sets and no clue other than that.

MCMLVTopps

A couple of examples...

in the Bill Lee master set, the 1970 OPC #279 has a value of 5 points, there is only ONE card graded by PSA. However, the 1972 Venezuelan stamps of Lee has a POP of 3, but a value of 8. Likewise, the 1972 Venezuelan sticker of Lee, also a POP of 3, has a value of 10.

Additionally, the Luis Tiant master set shows the 1972 Venezuelan sticker #201, has a value of 4 points, but there is only ONE graded. In the 1972 Venezuelan sticker puzzle set (4 cards), card 236 has a value of 3 points, but a POP of 2; # 237 has a value of 3, but only ONE graded; # 239 has a value of 3, with two graded...the kicker...card # 240 (the 4th card in the puzzle), has a value of ONE and only ONE graded.

I could cite additional examples, but you get the idea...I have some one of ones, as in the ONLY one graded by PSA, yet it only gets ONE point. Granted, the cards are rare, but nothing seems to make any sense...it pains me to pay benjamins for PSA 1s or 2s, just to complete a master set.

While I own the #1 Luis Tiant master set, I sit at 92% and really, REALLY struggle with popping the coin for the 5 cards to advance my set, which will cost me well over $500 for the 1s and 2s. I need 10 cards to complete, but not sure if I will.

ashabby

<< <i>A couple of examples...

in the Bill Lee master set, the 1970 OPC #279 has a value of 5 points, there is only ONE card graded by PSA. However, the 1972 Venezuelan stamps of Lee has a POP of 3, but a value of 8. Likewise, the 1972 Venezuelan sticker of Lee, also a POP of 3, has a value of 10.

Additionally, the Luis Tiant master set shows the 1972 Venezuelan sticker #201, has a value of 4 points, but there is only ONE graded. In the 1972 Venezuelan sticker puzzle set (4 cards), card 236 has a value of 3 points, but a POP of 2; # 237 has a value of 3, but only ONE graded; # 239 has a value of 3, with two graded...the kicker...card # 240 (the 4th card in the puzzle), has a value of ONE and only ONE graded.

I could cite additional examples, but you get the idea...I have some one of ones, as in the ONLY one graded by PSA, yet it only gets ONE point. Granted, the cards are rare, but nothing seems to make any sense...it pains me to pay benjamins for PSA 1s or 2s, just to complete a master set.

While I own the #1 Luis Tiant master set, I sit at 92% and really, REALLY struggle with popping the coin for the 5 cards to advance my set, which will cost me well over $500 for the 1s and 2s. I need 10 cards to complete, but not sure if I will. >>

ashabby

<< <i>

<< <i>A couple of examples...

in the Bill Lee master set, the 1970 OPC #279 has a value of 5 points, there is only ONE card graded by PSA. However, the 1972 Venezuelan stamps of Lee has a POP of 3, but a value of 8. Likewise, the 1972 Venezuelan sticker of Lee, also a POP of 3, has a value of 10.

Additionally, the Luis Tiant master set shows the 1972 Venezuelan sticker #201, has a value of 4 points, but there is only ONE graded. In the 1972 Venezuelan sticker puzzle set (4 cards), card 236 has a value of 3 points, but a POP of 2; # 237 has a value of 3, but only ONE graded; # 239 has a value of 3, with two graded...the kicker...card # 240 (the 4th card in the puzzle), has a value of ONE and only ONE graded.

I could cite additional examples, but you get the idea...I have some one of ones, as in the ONLY one graded by PSA, yet it only gets ONE point. Granted, the cards are rare, but nothing seems to make any sense...it pains me to pay benjamins for PSA 1s or 2s, just to complete a master set.

While I own the #1 Luis Tiant master set, I sit at 92% and really, REALLY struggle with popping the coin for the 5 cards to advance my set, which will cost me well over $500 for the 1s and 2s. I need 10 cards to complete, but not sure if I will. >>

>>



Yep what I see as well. I have sets like you I have not completed because cost does not make since

DanBessette

A woman at the registry told me those weights are based on the value of the cards in PSA 8. In the event that data doesn't exist, they use other published pricing, usually beckett or SCD. These weights are given when an item is added to the set, but do not change as prices fluctuate or pop numbers increase.

It's not a perfect system. I own a 69 Glendale Stamp of Gino Cappelletti. It's the only copy ever graded. But on the master set, it is given the minimum 1.0 weight, based on a value arbitrarily assigned by Beckett. Meanwhile fairly common basic Topps issues have 4 and 5 weights.

RipublicaninMass

For a more ridiculous weighting, see the auto registry. They just took the same weights as the non signed registry sets

DanBessette

<< <i>For a more ridiculous weighting, see the auto registry. They just took the same weights as the non signed registry sets >>



That's just stupid!!

PaulMaul

For all of the wacky packages sets, everything is weighted equally even though values vary tremendously. I guess they just do that if they don't feel the set is important.

In the 1967 set, for example, a PSA 8 common is worth maybe $175, while a PSA 8 Ratz is worth likely between $4000 and $8000. Yet they are all weighted equally.

PowderedH2O

I've never understood the 1-10 point mentality. Do you mean to tell me that if I pick up eleven PSA 7 1963 commons for under $10 each (which can certainly be done) that I should have more clout in the registry than a guy that shells out $1500 for a PSA 7 Rose rookie? And I won't even begin to question the 1952 set. Good grief. I think 1-100 points would be more realistic in most sets. This would allow for more subtle differentiation, and a bit more realism in the registry.

MCMLVTopps

I think that much like the move to the half-point system, which has all but made MANY POP reports beyond invalid...we have also gone down the rabbit hole with this "weight" assignment of cards. Just looks like they were chosen willy-nilly, with no logic.

Yeah, I too heard the PSA 8 nonsense...I could easily...EASILY cite dozens of examples of how bogus the weight system appears to be applied.

Crazy, illogical and no explanation from anyone at PSA how or why this was done. I have some 1 of 1s, as in the only one ever graded by PSA that languish at a paltry 1.00. Don't believe me? Check out the POP of the 1978 SSPC All Star Gallery Bill Lee Hand Cut, #167. I own that card...it's a PSA 9 and has a POP of 1 and 1 only...weight...1 point. There are more!!

I often thought of attending the annual PSA meeting at a convention and ask Joe directly, but I think it would embarrass him beyond words.

If any PSA person is reading this I do hereby challenge you to make sense of this stuff...if you get through that, and would like to go for the daily double, I'm up for a discussion on the POP reports and what the move to the half-point system has done to the validity of YOUR numbers. Wanna go for the trifecta...we'll talk SMR, that should polish off the day.

ashabby

I have suggested a few ways to improve this. I have not received much back as this a good idea or let us look into this. I think as a group we come up with a positive way to improve this may look at. Just need a more organized effort

MCMLVTopps

ashabby...

The "situation" has become incredibly convoluted and would be just about impossible to fix/repair. Way too many registry sets to plow through and more added each day.
I used to be a heavy collector of 1955 Topps and put 3 sets together, one of which got as high as #14...finally realize I had much, too much $$ tied up in them and I finally sold them, made my profit and moved on...the points assigned in that set are a little whacky as well.

There is simply no solution IMO.

perkdog

When I was into the 1952 Bowman Large football registry I was dumbfounded by some of the GPA, I think alot of the sets are not updated with alot of current pricing, at least several years ago anyways.

MCMLVTopps

Well, it would sure lick the red off a lot of collector's candy, BUT, the only way I see to fix this GPA stuff is to reset ALL sets to 1 point for each card. Then have a fair an unbiased analysis of all cards within the Registry using a logical formula to assign points and fix this mess.

The chance of that happening are absolutely ZEEEEEEEEERO

It is pertinent however to keep in mind that if you (PSA) are putting out a product...ie ratings of sets, SMR, POP reports, it is incumbent upon you as a business person to provide a product that is fair, equitable and clearly on the up and up as humanly possible. I'd say they have fallen short in the examples I've cited. And YES, I can defend my position.

ashabby

One idea I floated was start with the most expensive cards and adjust them first since have the most value...Also cards do cross sets so would adjust all sets when that one card got tweaked. Then just work thru them over time. Any new sets would have to have the new rules based on that.

MCMLVTopps

With well over 100k registered sets, absolutely nothing is going to happen or change. It is of course fair to say that many collectors do not care about point assignments...however, I would venture that many do, as there is an established "pecking order" in the Registry. The silence of the masses indicate little or no concern over this issue....thus, why would PSA expend the effort to make the "system" function more fairly? I wonder who really assigns these points...

Sadly, like the insanity of the half-point decision, which has led to the complete collapse of the POP report in many areas...and I do mean MANY, nothing is, can, or will be done on this topic alone. A simple example for anyone reading this and not quite understanding this subject, I offer an "example". Someone has a card that is graded PSA 7, they really believe the card warrants a PSA 8, or at the very least, a bump to PSA 7.5. The owner cracks the card, tosses the red flip in the trash and sends in the card...presto, the card comes back as a PSA 7.5. You now have a new PSA 7.5, and a ghost PSA 7. Ponder that since the half-point was instituted many years ago what has happened to the validity AND VALUES of many cards? With an ever increasing rise in certain PSA grades, say within the 5,6,7 range, just how many non-existent cards have driven down the values of some cards and obviously driven up false POP data?

Well, what happened to the original PSA 7? It no longer exists, but as far as the POP report is concerned it does indeed exist. Think of what happens to cards that are cracked and recracked and recracked again?? The "orphans" live forever in the POP reports, but no longer really exist.

FULL DISCLOSURE I once cracked a low graded SGC card that came back a 1of1 PSA 8.5, a very sweet increase in $$$...at least it was an SGC. I also once sent in my entire 1955 Topps graded set...yes, all 207 cards for review. They were still slabbed in PSA holders...I made out quite nicely, as I got some 30 bumps to 8.5 and one to a 9!! A very nice submission for me...but, they were slabbed, not raw.

I really don't want to waste time on the SMR values.

JoeBanzai

No real rhyme or reason. I think a dartboard is used. LOL