<< <i>I guess my question is more in response to previous posters that have said for example, "my set GPA is now over 9.0 and I don't have any cards graded higher than MINT 9."
If this is truly a matter of.... "this NM 7 card is MORE VALUABLE than that NM 7 card because of a lower graded population"..... then why doesn't PSA just adjust the "set composition" grading scales?
They already do that as a '52 Topps Mantle has a weighting of 10 and a common has a weighting of 1. When all is said and done though, if you complete that set with all PSA NM 7 cards, your final Set Rating is 7.0 as I believe it should be. I don't think the grade should be raised because you have some low pop cards in the set. >>
Correct. If you look at my 1967 set, the grade is now 9.140 even though I don't own a single 10. This makes no sense, though I realize some mega sets like 1970s run have always been scored with grade above 10. I just don't like it at all. I'd rather the GPA of my set remain at 8.95, reflecting the average condition of the set and then apply the bonus points to the weighting.
Whatever one thinks of this idea, I'm totally confused by the roll-out. Why do some sets reflect the bonus in their GPA and others do not? Even when I look at my sets while logged in, the bonus points are reflected in the rating of a given card, but not in the overall GPA.
Hatch's '78 set still has a GPA of 10.0. It will never be added to or upgraded. When will the change take effect?
<< <i>I guess my question is more in response to previous posters that have said for example, "my set GPA is now over 9.0 and I don't have any cards graded higher than MINT 9."
If this is truly a matter of.... "this NM 7 card is MORE VALUABLE than that NM 7 card because of a lower graded population"..... then why doesn't PSA just adjust the "set composition" grading scales?
They already do that as a '52 Topps Mantle has a weighting of 10 and a common has a weighting of 1. When all is said and done though, if you complete that set with all PSA NM 7 cards, your final Set Rating is 7.0 as I believe it should be. I don't think the grade should be raised because you have some low pop cards in the set. >>
I don't think PSA sets the weight of cards. Every new set I've created / requested, I was the one who created the weighting, by their request. >>
It has been a long time and I can't remember if it was me or Rob who first put in the request for the Wrestling All Stars sets. I think it was me but not certain. That said PSA is the one who chose the weightings and they have stayed at an equal weight the whole time. When they created the spec for the Mega Set they did create weightings for the cards using the SMR guide but after consulting with me I said to leave the regular sets alone because it would give me first place again on the 1983 set and I wanted to avoid any potential drama.
I just called customer service and then was transfered to the set registry support. It will take about another week for all sets to recalculate she said.
<< <i>I guess my question is more in response to previous posters that have said for example, "my set GPA is now over 9.0 and I don't have any cards graded higher than MINT 9."
If this is truly a matter of.... "this NM 7 card is MORE VALUABLE than that NM 7 card because of a lower graded population"..... then why doesn't PSA just adjust the "set composition" grading scales?
They already do that as a '52 Topps Mantle has a weighting of 10 and a common has a weighting of 1. When all is said and done though, if you complete that set with all PSA NM 7 cards, your final Set Rating is 7.0 as I believe it should be. I don't think the grade should be raised because you have some low pop cards in the set. >>
I don't think PSA sets the weight of cards. Every new set I've created / requested, I was the one who created the weighting, by their request. >>
It has been a long time and I can't remember if it was me or Rob who first put in the request for the Wrestling All Stars sets. I think it was me but not certain. That said PSA is the one who chose the weightings and they have stayed at an equal weight the whole time. When they created the spec for the Mega Set they did create weightings for the cards using the SMR guide but after consulting with me I said to leave the regular sets alone because it would give me first place again on the 1983 set and I wanted to avoid any potential drama. >>
The first set I requested, cannot remember which one it was, they asked me to give them the weights for the cards. So on each set I've requested since, I've prepped the weights anticipating they would ask me for them prior to making the set live. They haven't and each card has been weighted 1.0. But, when I contacted them and said I had the weights for the sets, they quickly adjusted them to my weights.
If your set hasn't changed (and you want it to), add something or at least change something (delete a card or substitute a lower grade from your inventory.) The GPA will adjust to the new levels, then you can change it back to where it was just as easily.
I don't like this idea at all even it it benefits my sets(and it probably will). I think it's just going to create more opportunities for sellers to take advantage of set registry collectors. Lately it seems like everyone in the card industry is coming up with new schemes trying to create more phony, inflated "value" in cards. Can we please just keep things simple? Crap like this just attracts more scammers. It's been mentioned already but it really is a situation like Spinal Tap where "ours go up to 11". If you've seen the movie then you understand how silly that is. It's meaningless.
Personally I think it stinks. Here's a perfect example. My PSA 7.5 Lake to Lake Spahn (composite weight 3) weighted less than a pop 1 PSA 8 common. Really? These new rules really destroyed the registry for sparsely graded regional sets. Take a look at my 1957 Spic and Spans and my 1960 Lake to Lakes. I really benefited on one but screwed on the other. But who the heck is going to want to even start a 1957 Spic and Span registry set now?
If anyone at PSA is listening, this can be fixed by setting a minimum # of graded examples of each card before bonus points are awarded.
I wouldn't have bothered with buying 8.5 upgrades or submitting reviews for a lot of the 8 grades in my registry sets if I knew PSA was going to add bonus points only to just the highest pops. I added a lot of pop 1 or 2 8.5's with only 1 or 2 graded higher... anyone feel like their collecting efforts and sets have been devalued ?
Not sure who was asking for this enhancement, but I'm not a fan. I liked being able to see how my set was rated based on its actual merit. Rarity/difficulty should be kept to the weighting.
The more I think about this bonus point system, the less I like it. Just something not natural about seeing a set with a GPA over 10.0. 10.0 has always represented the highest grade~it's almost akin to a Gem Mint Plus, or PSA 10.5 grade for cards.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I'd have left it status quo. Don't gimmick it up. The way this is set up now I could spin a pretty good conspiracy theory about a grading company and a certain seller of many PSA graded cards. Quite a few of which are Pop 1's. I'm not saying there's collusion, not saying there's not.
<< <i>The more I think about this bonus point system, the less I like it. Just something not natural about seeing a set with a GPA over 10.0. 10.0 has always represented the highest grade~it's almost akin to a Gem Mint Plus, or PSA 10.5 grade for cards. >>
The main things I dislike are:
1. Not being able to easily tell how close to a grade of 10 the set really is
<< <i>The more I think about this bonus point system, the less I like it. Just something not natural about seeing a set with a GPA over 10.0. 10.0 has always represented the highest grade~it's almost akin to a Gem Mint Plus, or PSA 10.5 grade for cards. >>
The main things I dislike are:
1. Not being able to easily tell how close to a grade of 10 the set really is
2. Every 10 being counted as at least 11 >>
Agree with those 2. I would add one thing IF you're gonna do a bonus points system. Now I'd prefer no bonus at all. But if you're gonna give a bonus point to a PSA 10, you gotta limit the pop. I'm getting a bonus point for a PSA 10 with a Pop of almost 200. I don't want it.
Let's make sure to voice disapproval at the National for whom ever will be attending. Let PSA know the easiest thing to do is to apply any bonus to the weighted set composition. This solution would seem to address both issues that people seem to be voicing over and over:
#1. The grade scale of 1-10 remains intact. No cards will grade (be worth) 11 or higher. #2. Collectors with low pop, high value cards, will still be rewarded with additional "weighted value" versus sets without these "trophy cards".
Bill wpkoughan@yahoo.com Collecting 1970-1979 PSA 9 & 10 Baseball Cards
Now that all the sets have been recalculated and Top Pop Bonus points have been added to your set points, we heard from several of you asking for the return of the original Weighted GPA column. The current column makes it difficult to tell what the actual GPA is because bonus points are included.
Therefore, we will be adding a new column to the display page of the PSA Set Registry. This will be the original Weighted GPA statistics which will not include bonus points. So now you will have two columns, one that gives you the Weighted GPA and one that gives you the GPA with bonus points. Look for this enhancement to take place during the fall. Thank you for this great suggestion. This week we are heading to the National in Chicago and looking forward to seeing all our guests who have RSVP’d to the PSA Set Registry luncheon on Friday. Should you have any suggestions, we look forward to talking with you at the show or send us an email to setregistry@collectors.com.
Thank you.
BJ Searls Set Registry & Special Projects Director Collectors Universe, Inc.
Comments
<< <i>I guess my question is more in response to previous posters that have said for example, "my set GPA
is now over 9.0 and I don't have any cards graded higher than MINT 9."
If this is truly a matter of.... "this NM 7 card is MORE VALUABLE than that NM 7 card because of a lower
graded population"..... then why doesn't PSA just adjust the "set composition" grading scales?
They already do that as a '52 Topps Mantle has a weighting of 10 and a common has a weighting of 1.
When all is said and done though, if you complete that set with all PSA NM 7 cards, your final Set Rating
is 7.0 as I believe it should be. I don't think the grade should be raised because you have some low pop
cards in the set. >>
Correct. If you look at my 1967 set, the grade is now 9.140 even though I don't own a single 10. This makes no sense, though I realize some mega sets like 1970s run have always been scored with grade above 10. I just don't like it at all. I'd rather the GPA of my set remain at 8.95, reflecting the average condition of the set and then apply the bonus points to the weighting.
1967 PSA Set
wpkoughan@yahoo.com
Collecting 1970-1979 PSA 9 & 10 Baseball Cards
Hatch's '78 set still has a GPA of 10.0. It will never be added to or upgraded. When will the change take effect?
<< <i>
<< <i>I guess my question is more in response to previous posters that have said for example, "my set GPA
is now over 9.0 and I don't have any cards graded higher than MINT 9."
If this is truly a matter of.... "this NM 7 card is MORE VALUABLE than that NM 7 card because of a lower
graded population"..... then why doesn't PSA just adjust the "set composition" grading scales?
They already do that as a '52 Topps Mantle has a weighting of 10 and a common has a weighting of 1.
When all is said and done though, if you complete that set with all PSA NM 7 cards, your final Set Rating
is 7.0 as I believe it should be. I don't think the grade should be raised because you have some low pop
cards in the set. >>
I don't think PSA sets the weight of cards. Every new set I've created / requested, I was the one who created the weighting, by their request. >>
It has been a long time and I can't remember if it was me or Rob who first put in the request for the Wrestling All Stars sets. I think it was me but not certain. That said PSA is the one who chose the weightings and they have stayed at an equal weight the whole time. When they created the spec for the Mega Set they did create weightings for the cards using the SMR guide but after consulting with me I said to leave the regular sets alone because it would give me first place again on the 1983 set and I wanted to avoid any potential drama.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I guess my question is more in response to previous posters that have said for example, "my set GPA
is now over 9.0 and I don't have any cards graded higher than MINT 9."
If this is truly a matter of.... "this NM 7 card is MORE VALUABLE than that NM 7 card because of a lower
graded population"..... then why doesn't PSA just adjust the "set composition" grading scales?
They already do that as a '52 Topps Mantle has a weighting of 10 and a common has a weighting of 1.
When all is said and done though, if you complete that set with all PSA NM 7 cards, your final Set Rating
is 7.0 as I believe it should be. I don't think the grade should be raised because you have some low pop
cards in the set. >>
I don't think PSA sets the weight of cards. Every new set I've created / requested, I was the one who created the weighting, by their request. >>
It has been a long time and I can't remember if it was me or Rob who first put in the request for the Wrestling All Stars sets. I think it was me but not certain. That said PSA is the one who chose the weightings and they have stayed at an equal weight the whole time. When they created the spec for the Mega Set they did create weightings for the cards using the SMR guide but after consulting with me I said to leave the regular sets alone because it would give me first place again on the 1983 set and I wanted to avoid any potential drama. >>
The first set I requested, cannot remember which one it was, they asked me to give them the weights for the cards. So on each set I've requested since, I've prepped the weights anticipating they would ask me for them prior to making the set live. They haven't and each card has been weighted 1.0. But, when I contacted them and said I had the weights for the sets, they quickly adjusted them to my weights.
I don't like this idea at all even it it benefits my sets(and it probably will). I think it's just going to create more opportunities for sellers to take advantage of set registry collectors. Lately it seems like everyone in the card industry is coming up with new schemes trying to create more phony, inflated "value" in cards. Can we please just keep things simple? Crap like this just attracts more scammers. It's been mentioned already but it really is a situation like Spinal Tap where "ours go up to 11". If you've seen the movie then you understand how silly that is. It's meaningless.
Bernie Kosar collector
If anyone at PSA is listening, this can be fixed by setting a minimum # of graded examples of each card before bonus points are awarded.
My registry sets
collecting 1977 topps baseball in psa 9 and psa 10
<< <i>I see the ratings on my sets have changed tonight. The bonus points have kicked in. >>
Mine changed yesterday. I wonder if they're finished?
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>The more I think about this bonus point system, the less I like it. Just something not natural about seeing a set with a GPA over 10.0. 10.0 has always represented the highest grade~it's almost akin to a Gem Mint Plus, or PSA 10.5 grade for cards. >>
The main things I dislike are:
1. Not being able to easily tell how close to a grade of 10 the set really is
2. Every 10 being counted as at least 11
<< <i>
<< <i>The more I think about this bonus point system, the less I like it. Just something not natural about seeing a set with a GPA over 10.0. 10.0 has always represented the highest grade~it's almost akin to a Gem Mint Plus, or PSA 10.5 grade for cards. >>
The main things I dislike are:
1. Not being able to easily tell how close to a grade of 10 the set really is
2. Every 10 being counted as at least 11 >>
Agree with those 2. I would add one thing IF you're gonna do a bonus points system. Now I'd prefer no bonus at all. But if you're gonna give a bonus point to a PSA 10, you gotta limit the pop. I'm getting a bonus point for a PSA 10 with a Pop of almost 200. I don't want it.
Let's make sure to voice disapproval at the National for whom ever
will be attending. Let PSA know the easiest thing to do is to apply
any bonus to the weighted set composition. This solution would seem
to address both issues that people seem to be voicing over and over:
#1. The grade scale of 1-10 remains intact. No cards will grade (be worth) 11 or higher.
#2. Collectors with low pop, high value cards, will still be rewarded
with additional "weighted value" versus sets without these "trophy cards".
wpkoughan@yahoo.com
Collecting 1970-1979 PSA 9 & 10 Baseball Cards
Therefore, we will be adding a new column to the display page of the PSA Set Registry. This will be the original Weighted GPA statistics which will not include bonus points. So now you will have two columns, one that gives you the Weighted GPA and one that gives you the GPA with bonus points. Look for this enhancement to take place during the fall. Thank you for this great suggestion.
This week we are heading to the National in Chicago and looking forward to seeing all our guests who have RSVP’d to the PSA Set Registry luncheon on Friday.
Should you have any suggestions, we look forward to talking with you at the show or send us an email to setregistry@collectors.com.
Thank you.
BJ Searls
Set Registry & Special Projects Director
Collectors Universe, Inc.