Comment/Suggestion

taul166

Congratulation to all of the 2015 winners!

Has PSA ever considered creating 2 divisions for participants in the set registry. The "average Joe" small time collector who participates and competes, who has limited resources, cannot compete with the Donald Spence's and Charles Merkel's of the world.
I am not taking anything away from these two gentlemen (and others like them) and their sets are truly outstanding. But the small time collector does not have the resources to compete with these collectors. Thus, the playing field is not level.
An analogy is various sports leagues have multiple divisions. I am not sure how you distinguish between who plays in "Division A" vs. "Division B", but assume some criterion could be defined.

Just a thought.

milbroco

I guess I would fit in the division.........buy this card or feed my kids today. My kids win every time.

taul166

Yea, if one has limited resources and yet wants to participate in and seriously compete on the set registry......it is difficult to do some when you have folks who have vast financial resources, who buy thousands of high grade raw cards, send thousands to PSA for grading thus getting a leg up on those of us who like the set registry but have more limited resources, buy fewer cards, send fewer cards to PSA, etc. It is like me trying to compete with NBA players in a one-on-one league. Ain't going to happen. But if I am in a lesser, second division I can compete on a more level playing field with others with comparable playing skills. I am not trying to play class warfare here and these folks who seem to have unlimited resources who compete in set registries have truly amazing collections that should be recognized and admired. But isn't there room for a secondary collector group who can compete in a more comparable group. If I am crazy in raising this or if this has been talked about before please let me know. I am still relatively new to the set registry. Again I have no idea on how you decide in who competes in what group of peers. Maybe it would be too unwieldy to administer.

Dpeck100

How would you determine what goes in the B division?

One of the tough things about the registry is that even lower priced raw sets can have cards that command big money graded because they are either super condition sensitive or player collectors want certain athletes.

It is not realistic for most collectors to compete in the big sets with the major cards and while I get your logic I am not sure how you could implement this and still not alienate the collector on a tight budget.

What are the sets you currently collect?

charrigan

The registry isn't all about competition.

I love it for:

a) creating set lists for easy reference

b) allowing me to view my cards at any time via the site - I can pull up my phone or computer and take a look - like the album/virtual library

c) helping me visualize and clarify needs and collecting goals - it is nice to connect specific cards with population counts all in one place and to visually see gaps of cards you need

There isn't even a point to the competitive aspect other than pride. You get a animated-90s-GIF-like 1st place icon? Who cares.

You're right, the playing field is not even. It has never been even and never will be even. Creating a "rich" registry and a "poor" registry won't really fix that.

DanBessette

<< <i>The registry isn't all about competition.

I love it for:

a) creating set lists for easy reference

b) allowing me to view my cards at any time via the site - I can pull up my phone or computer and take a look - like the album/virtual library

c) helping me visualize and clarify needs and collecting goals - it is nice to connect specific cards with population counts all in one place and to visually see gaps of cards you need >>



This. I look at it like a Facebook page for my Yaz or Gino player collection.

Edit to add: how would you segregate it? Everybody submits a pay stub when they sign up?

grote15

<< <i>The registry isn't all about competition.

I love it for:

a) creating set lists for easy reference

b) allowing me to view my cards at any time via the site - I can pull up my phone or computer and take a look - like the album/virtual library

c) helping me visualize and clarify needs and collecting goals - it is nice to connect specific cards with population counts all in one place and to visually see gaps of cards you need

There isn't even a point to the competitive aspect other than pride. You get a animated-90s-GIF-like 1st place icon? Who cares.

You're right, the playing field is not even. It has never been even and never will be even. Creating a "rich" registry and a "poor" registry won't really fix that. >>



+2

The badges and rankings mean nothing to me. It's all about collecting and putting together a set that you enjoy. I've actually replaced 9s with lower eye appeal with 8s that I liked better.

LarkinCollector

<< <i>+2

The badges and rankings mean nothing to me. It's all about collecting and putting together a set that you enjoy. >>


+3 That said, there are some badges that can be bought cheap (~$60) if that's what floats your boat.

markj111

<< <i>The registry isn't all about competition.

I love it for:

a) creating set lists for easy reference

b) allowing me to view my cards at any time via the site - I can pull up my phone or computer and take a look - like the album/virtual library

c) helping me visualize and clarify needs and collecting goals - it is nice to connect specific cards with population counts all in one place and to visually see gaps of cards you need

I agree with all of the above. I have some really nice sets, but I will never have the best, or even close to it. It does not bother me at all.

OTOH, I have no problem with those competing for the top spots. I wish them the best.

CollectorAtWork

Well, with the Coin Set Registry (for PCGS), they have Low Ball sets, where the set ratings are calculated in inverse order, so the lowest graded cards get the most points. Not sure how popular that would be with cards.

As others have said, I think a lot of people like myself mostly use the set registry for checklist purposes and to see how much of the set you have completed and what gaps you have. Even if you can't compete the with Don Spences of the world grade-wise, you can still try to get as close to 100% completion on your set as possible and have your cards in uniform, eye appealing condition.

KbKards

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Should_all_children_recieve_a_trophy_or_medal_in_sporting_events_despite_losing

MULLINS5

I think this is already done with "Basic" sets of issues and players.

And I agree with Charrigan.

MULLINS5

<< <i>http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Should_all_children_recieve_a_trophy_or_medal_in_sporting_events_despite_losing >>



Yes. Nothing wrong with participatory recognition, especially for kids, however, the "winner" trophy/certificate/plaque/etc. should reflect the accomplishment.

Stone193

For some completing a set in the Registry is reward enough. That's just about how I see it.

The suggestion kind of lead me to thinking about the idea of giving everyone a trophy in kid's sports today.

I guess I'm a bit old school, there's nothing that needs to be modified with the Registry in that vain.

edit: I do have one question. Does PSA send some kind of accolade to those who hit "100%?" Recognizing people at the luncheon who have reached 100% - usually after years of collecting would be noteworthy. I will be going to the luncheon and if this isn't being done? I will suggest it.

maddux69

I don't necessarily agree that everyone should be on a level playing ground, such is life. I do believe that the rules are skewed somewhat and the time and attention collectors put into their sets should be recognized across the board. Here are the rules:

"Best of the Registry" award icon by their set which meet one of the following criteria:
95% complete for vintage sets pre-1970
100% complete for modern sets (1970-present)
1,000 or more cards registered in player and mega sets

If someone would have have told me that I get a banner for my Greg Maddux Rookie Set (which consists of 3 cards), but not for my Greg Maddux Master Set (773/1780 which is almost 2X that of the next published set) I would told them that they are crazy. I looked for a company set that I felt would be deserving and came across one that has 667/668 and a high number of lop pop cards with none higher:

1986 Donruss Master Set

WrongWayAponte, you deserve recognition for the painstaking detail you put into completing your set.