Bonus points

captfisch

Anyone have any idea when the 'bonus points' are supposed to populate through the Registry?

MiamiTomTom

They tried it a while back and it was a disaster...don't think they are doing it again until they get the bugs worked out.

kwtoz

<< <i>They tried it a while back and it was a disaster...don't think they are doing it again until they get the bugs worked out. >>



The original implementation was withdrawn because it was too close to the annual awards which made it unfair to some people.

The change is now in effect, and I think its with no changes.

I personally hate it. Set ratings shouldn't be influenced by graded cards of someone else.

captfisch

<< <i>

<< <i>They tried it a while back and it was a disaster...don't think they are doing it again until they get the bugs worked out. >>



The original implementation was withdrawn because it was too close to the annual awards which made it unfair to some people.

The change is now in effect, and I think its with no changes.

I personally hate it. Set ratings shouldn't be influenced by graded cards of someone else. >>




I have to agree. If you have a one of a kind PSA 9 or 10, you already basically have another point than anyone else.

As for sets from the last 20-30 years, basically the top grade is now going to be 11 instead of 10 since so many of those sets have multiple 10's for each card.

effe

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 set now?

edit: 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.

jradke4

<< <i>Personally I think it stinks. Here's a perfect example. My PSA 8 Lake to Lake Spahn (composite weight 3) weighted just the same as pop 1 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 set now?

edit: 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 can see the bonuses in the ticket sets are full tickets are harder to find than stubs at least for pre-2000ish events (now almost everything is scanned). but for sets its way too much work. its hard enough for the registry people (and the people that update the software, as every time they update the software i lose cards in my sets) to keep up with the additions and corrections they had a week ago. furthermore, since PSA grades on a 10 scale it was easy to spot sets that were all 10's. now it won't be and those numbers will keep changing.

nippyj

I wouldn't have bothered with buying or submitting reviews for a lot of the 8.5 upgrades 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 ?

JoeBanzai

<< <i>I wouldn't have bothered with buying or submitting reviews for a lot of the 8.5 upgrades 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 ? >>



Too early to tell, but I am sure some will be happy and some will not.

PSA has other issues that would be of greater importance if they addressed in my opinion.

firedawg45

think it stinks too, my retired set fell cause it not updated with the new bonus points and is better than others, DISLIKE

firedawg45

grote15

I don't care for it personally, but it's a great marketing move by PSA. I remember the backlash here after the implementation of half point grades, and how many submitterts said they were done submitting, and now there are more submissions than ever coming through PSA, and that is not likely to change.

augustaman

My response to the comparison of these new bonus points to the half point grading system
is that at least the half point system was grading CONDITION. The new bonus system bumps
up a card on a "condition" grading scale based on nothing other than "rarity" with the guideline
of "...does anyone else have this card?" To me, that is irrelevant to the actual condition of the
card one owns.
And in case you couldn't tell, mark me down as hating the new bonus points.

csakers

Just throwing this out there:

Why are people against the bonus points for the very low population cards when sellers use this fact to inflate prices for these same cards? When a population one card hits the market, a collector will nearly always have to pay a much higher price than the subsequent ones to finally earn the same grade (if they ever do). If the cost/value is greater, then why not be in favor of bonus points for the scarcity?

The same can be said for those collectors who search the universe trying to locate that final piece to their collection, pay an extremely high price, then have it graded. I think they do deserve to have a little bonus for their time, efforts, and cost.

Remember, the bonus points are lowered once more than one copy exists.

Again, just my thoughts.

augustaman

csakers -
My personal issue is that the bonus points are being applied to a grading scale
on the PSA registry that is supposed to be grading condition.

For example, a 100% complete set where every single card is uniformly graded
PSA NM 7 should have a set grading of 7.0 which means the average set condition
of the cards is near mint.

Now let's assume that every one of those NM 7 cards are POP 1/1 with none graded
higher - this set is now considered a MINT 9.0 set on the registry but not one single
card is graded in mint condition.
Doesn't this now render PSA's current point grading scale completely pointless???

Go back and view PSA's "Grading Standards" page. Not anywhere does it state that
a NM 7 card will become a MINT 9 card if it is the only card that someone has sent in
for grading.

I personally loved the registry as it was. I could look at a set's registry grade and quickly
and accurately get an idea of the set's condition. Now I have no idea if it's a "high condition"
set or if it's just a matter of possibly an obscure issue that nobody has bothered to submit
for grading.

tommythetoilet

I completely agree with augustaman.
I really hope PSA stops this nonsense.
The set ratings are meaningless to me now.
I love looking at a given set's highest possible rating to get a feel for condition sensitivity (especially in old non-sports where u don't see high grade material)

I don't understand why PSA has to tinker with something that works fine.

IMO - no need to give a bonus when...

Pop 1 cards always did and always will sell for a premium
A PSA 10 is naturally worth one more point than a PSA 9

If PSA keeps the bonus then I at least hope they have two statistics.
One for real grading based on 10 pt scale (eg a psa 10 set can't be worth more than 10.0)
and a 2nd stat for the best set with bonus which they can base set rankings on

captfisch

Tommy, I think that would be a great compromise! Hey PSA...add another column showing the actual grade of the set. You can keep the weighted GPA for set ranking, but show the actual grade of set so people know what is really out there.

The Registry is supposed to be for the collectors, so this is some collector input.

csakers

I tend to enjoy looking at what people have in their sets, regardless of the overall rating of the collection. Even collections with a low rating tend to have some hidden gems.

Do you think most people ONLY look at collections that have a specific rating?

grote15

<< <i>I tend to enjoy looking at what people have in their sets, regardless of the overall rating of the collection. Even collections with a low rating tend to have some hidden gems.

Do you think most people ONLY look at collections that have a specific rating? >>



Agreed. The set rankings and GPA are insignificant as far as I'm concerned. For me, the fun is in finishing the set

ashabby

Like any change they may need to tweak things to clean up and be fair.

csakers

Corey,

Have you tried contacting PSA to see if they will apply the bonus points to your retired sets?

PaulMaul

I dislike the idea in general. However, what I really hate is that now the ratings are "apples and oranges," with some people having updated their sets to obtain the bonus points, and others not having done so.

Will there come a point when all sets are automatically updated, or will it go on this way, with an undecipherable mish-mash of bonused and un-bonused sets listed together?

csakers

The sets are being automatically updated, but it requires the system time to do so. I contacted PSA about this issue, as I was bumped from the top spot in one set (a spot I have held since 2009) by a guy who just completed his with the bonus points. They explained it would not remain this way. Within a few days, the set order was corrected with the updated points.

augustaman

Let's look at PSA's "set composition weight" for the 1971 Topps Baseball set:

Card #20 Reggie Jackson - set composition weight 7.0
Card #536 Claude Raymond - set composition weight 8.0

One player is a star and the other is a common yet the common card is weighted
greater than the common. Why? Because anyone that collects the '71 set knows
the extreme rarity and value of a highly graded Raymond card.
The "bonus" for having a nice Raymond card is already taken into consideration
in the set weight. Why is PSA now creating a second "bonus"?

PSA, please leave well enough alone.

csakers

Unfortunately, not all set weights have been created in this fashion. I am putting together and have looked at many other sets in which every card simply has a weight of 1 - regardless of the players or difficulty of getting high grades for the cards. In these cases, it is highly beneficial to have the new bonus point system to help differentiate a bit for the time, energy, and cost in putting together a nice, highly graded set.

augustaman

CSAKERS -
I understand that not all sets are weighted and many sets have weighted every single card in the
set with a weight of 1. What I'm saying is that if PSA is putting the time and effort to develop
a bonus point system, then they should focus this time and effort in the weighting area and not
create a whole new system. They already had an existing system in place with the set compositions.
They just needed to go in and update sets that weren't weighted properly.

The true benefit of the weighted system is that a NM 7 card is always a NM 7 card. It doesn't
miraculously become a MINT 9 (if registered into the set registry) simply because it is the only
and highest example only to drop back to a NM 7 card after others have submitted and received
equal/higher grades.

DanBessette

I agree that a little more attention to the weights would be a better solution than this bonus system. I don't hate the bonus for pop 1, none higher. But I've said in other threads that I am disgusted that a PSA 10 with a pop of 180 still gets a bonus. Just awful.

augustaman

I agree with you Dan. The details of bonus points should also be re-examined.

PSA 10 with a pop of 2 - currently 1 bonus point
PSA 10 with a pop of 2,000 - currently 1 bonus point
(not an ideal system)

But with that said, any and all "tweeking" can still be done within the current
set composition weighting system.

topwinner

If PSA would adjust the weights for all sets, reflecting as close as possible their true weight value. IMO, this would bring about a fair solution for all sets. We can adjust weights later as we progress .

csakers

Does anyone have a clear understanding of how PSA determines the weights for various cards?

From your experience, does it appear PSA applies the weighting of cards consistently?

Does PSA ever adjust weights over time to reflect changes in value, rarity, or population of cards?


From my experience, it appears to be determined based upon which collector submits the card. I have very hard to find and low population Mattingly cards that I requested being added to the collection and they tend to receive a weighting of 1.00, whereas a couple other collectors always appear to get weights of 2.00 - 5.00 for any card they request having added.

Additionally, I requested a set be added to the registry. I followed the instructions for having the set added faster by typing out the individual cards included in the set and suggested weights. While the set was added a little faster than normal, it was added with simply a weight of 1.00 for every card - there was no apparent use of my suggested weights.

jradke4

here is why it sucks. take a look at the Favre Rookie set. all the top sets all have PSA 10's. For some reason when they updated the bonus points they only applied it to five sets. for some reason PSA didn't apply the bonus to the others. these issues always tend to happen to PSA when they do major registry updates or changes. now it will take them time to get it all fixed. but only if someone complains. they dont scan the sets themselves to see if things have been updated equally. they just assume that since its a software thing everything gets changed.

csakers

I agree with you there tend to be bumps with anything newly implemented. However, I know from my experience with the bonus points, if you contact PSA about an issue it is fixed. Even if they were scanning the sets themselves, with over 104,000 sets in the Registry, it would take weeks (if not months) to physically scan ever set. This is why you just need to contact them about an issue and it brings it to their attention.

I have had my fair share of frustration with PSA changes, but when I was knocked from the #1 spot with one of my collections by a collector who had "updated" his set with the bonus points, it was corrected once I contacted PSA.

Other than the implementation problem, what is your opinion of the actual bonus point system?

divecchia

<< <i>Other than the implementation problem, what is your opinion of the actual bonus point system? >>



I like the bonus system idea, but I agree with others that have mentioned getting the weights adjusted to better represent the actually rarity of a card or the rarity of a common card in high grade. This would increase the GPA without representing the card as being a higher grade than it actually is, like a PSA 11 or PSA 12. That part just doesn't make sense to me in a 1-10 grade point system.

Donato

jay0791

IMO the new bonus system totally sucks
Why fix something that aint broke

hyperchipper09

Gimmick. Stick with the old system. I wouldn't have changed it.

punchymuffin

I like the idea of a bonus for owning a low pop but whatever formula they are using sucks! Bonus points should be a "bonus" for the owner of the card and not a punishment for everybody else! Changing each set rating within each registry based on low pops is not a "bonus" for anybody but now a "formulated" part of the registry that every member must live with. Set ratings over 10 is dumb, IMO, and what.......once a pop one becomes 2 or 3 does everything revert back to what it once was?? I think the best way to do it is leave all the set ratings the way they were and come up with a formula that adds a minimal bonus to an individual's set rating. There could be a "bonus" line on the bottom of everyone's registry and those that get one do and those who do not don't. As a card becomes more populated, then PSA can just take away the individual's bonus for that card without altering all the sets. Having said that, again, the "bonus" should be minimal. It shouldn't be large enough to make a person need a full grade to overcome it.

packCollector

I didn't know anything about this. I just looked at my 67 red sox sticker set and it now has a rating of 10.8 so silly and not very useful for me. It was easy to know what I needed to get to a perfect set prior, get to a rating of 10. now I am trying to hit a moving target which isn't very fun or useful to me.

maybe this was to encourage people to chase low pops, that already happens , what this does to increase the fun and competitiveness of the registry , I have no idea

gemint

Hopefully PSA hears enough complaints at the National that they backtrack on this again. As I stated a few weeks ago in another thread, my 1967 Topps baseball set now has a GPA greater than 9 even though I don't own a single 10. I used to like looking at my set listings and see where I'm at grade-wise with each set.

Regarding the half point system, I don't see it as being that successful aside from big stars and low pop commons. In fact, half point cards often sell for less than the lower full grade examples typically sell for. You'll see a smattering of sets that mention 'no half grades' in the title, showing how little some collectors regard these cards.

csakers

PSA does listen!

Apparently, the sets will have both averages showing (with and without the bonus points). This way, you can see the actual average and the average on steroids for any set. The message I received from BJ stated it would roll out in the Fall.

MCMLVTopps

my 2 cents...

Bonus points? Are we collecting for points or the joy of collecting? This "tweaking" does not enhance the Registry, IMO, I see no real positive to the Bonus idea. They should have left things alone. We'll see how many "bonus points" I get for my 1 of 1s.

As for the half-point thing...I have posted ad nauseam about this decision. The POP report has been forever devalued because of the plethora of crack outs, re-cracks and re-re-cracks. This has creating so many "ghosts" in the POP report as to make the report stats next to useless. e.g. a person has a "very nice" PSA 7, this person thinks it should hold a higher grade...cracks the slab, tosses the flip and sends it in raw. The raw card comes back a PSA 6.5...whoa, what happened? He cracks it out again and tosses the flip. The raw card comes back a PSA 7...not good enough yet. He cracks it again. The card comes back a PSA 7.5, presto, mission accomplished. Well, guess what. That ONE card has generated four cards into the POP report, but only one exists...the original 7 is a ghost, the 6.5 is a ghost, the 7 is a ghost and the only record PSA has is of the new PSA 7.5.

I forgot to add...imagine this happening hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands upon thousands of times just in the PSA 5 - PSA 7 range!!!

This was nothing more than a money grab, not well thought out IMO. So, using the POP report is really a crap shoot at best.

Please, somebody show me where I'm wrong.

aro13

<< <i>Bonus points? Are we collecting for points or the joy of collecting? This "tweaking" does not enhance the Registry, IMO, I see no real positive to the Bonus idea. They should have left things alone. We'll see how many "bonus points" I get for my 1 of 1s. >>



If you are collecting for competition then the bonus points is a good thing for you. If you are collecting for the joy of collecting then the Bonus points do not affect you as they will not influence or change your buying habits.



<< <i>As for the half-point thing...I have posted ad nauseam about this decision. The POP report has been forever devalued because of the plethora of crack outs, re-cracks and re-re-cracks. This has creating so many "ghosts" in the POP report as to make the report stats next to useless. e.g. a person has a "very nice" PSA 7, this person thinks it should hold a higher grade...cracks the slab, tosses the flip and sends it in raw. The raw card comes back a PSA 6.5...whoa, what happened? He cracks it out again and tosses the flip. The raw card comes back a PSA 7...not good enough yet. He cracks it again. The card comes back a PSA 7.5, presto, mission accomplished. Well, guess what. That ONE card has generated four cards into the POP report, but only one exists...the original 7 is a ghost, the 6.5 is a ghost, the 7 is a ghost and the only record PSA has is of the new PSA 7.5. >>



The POP report is still a good indicator of the toughest cards to get in a high or mid-grades even with all of the crackouts. In theory if the POP reports are wrong because they list two many cards available that should be good for collectors as it keeps the price lower if the supply is alleged to be higher. It is not good for dealers.




<< <i>This was nothing more than a money grab, not well thought out IMO. So, using the POP report is really a crap shoot at best. >>



Probably. But making money is why PSA is in business - if it makes them more money and collectors keep buying their product good for them.

kerryville

As already discussed bonus points suck, but it keeps the hobby moving. Look at stamps, coins and to some extent comic books after so much stuff gets slabbed very little high grad is left in slabbed which leaves an imbalance. This causes the market to lock up because you can no longer move higher in set ranking and therefor have gridlock in thecset registry. By doing bonus points it causes movement in the registry and prices get to keep increasing. Otherwise nothing moves and commons stay common. Commons with low pop now become a huge incentive to registry participants and makes grading even more important. Just My two sense.

augustaman

kerryville -
I'm not sure I understand your point. If one is building a registry set, the incentive is
always there to find and add low pop common cards to the set. It's not like a set builder
says to himself or herself, "I was planning to build a set with only the high pop cards
but now that I know I will receive extra bonus points I will also include the low pop
cards it the set."

If one's building a complete set, one needs ALL the cards regardless of whether or not
bonus points are applied.

kerryville

<< <i>kerryville -
I'm not sure I understand your point. If one is building a registry set, the incentive is
always there to find and add low pop common cards to the set. It's not like a set builder
says to himself or herself, "I was planning to build a set with only the high pop cards
but now that I know I will receive extra bonus points I will also include the low pop
cards it the set."

If one's building a complete set, one needs ALL the cards regardless of whether or not
bonus points are applied. >>


To clarify,
By adding bonus points it isn't for the new set builder only. It is for the number 1 guy in each set also. Number 1 can now be passed by bonus point set so this puts big fish back into the pond. Which means more bidders. which means higher prices. Hope that helped.

aro13

<< <i>To clarify,
By adding bonus points it isn't for the new set builder only. It is for the number 1 guy in each set also. Number 1 can now be passed by bonus point set so this puts big fish back into the pond. Which means more bidders. which means higher prices. Hope that helped.

<< <i>

I agree with that. I have had a few sets that I was recently passed on. I had a higher percentage completion - plus a higher average GPA. However, I was passed because the other person had all of their modern RC's in PSA 10 so they got bonus points. I only have 9's in those cards. If I wanted to re-take my top spot - I would have to upgrade those 9's to 10's.

I am happy with having nines of those cards so I do not worry where my set ranks BUT if I wanted to get the top spot, the best way would be to upgrade my modern cards to PSA 10's.

By giving automatic bonus points for a 10 - it keeps the prices of 10's artificially high.

csakers

Keep in mind, the bonus points are NOT simply for cards in PSA 10 grade. The bonus points are for the HIGHEST grade of a card, which is extremely important to note when it comes to the rare and hard to find cards in high grade (some do not exist yet). Thus, a collector must pay more for a card in PSA 8 grade than they would another card in PSA 10 grade. Since collectors must pay more to obtain the low population cards, then I am fine with the bonus points for these cards. Where it does seem a bit silly is when you have a population of 500 in PSA 10 grade and they are all receiving bonus points simply for being the highest graded.