need a little help with adding a variation to a set..

olb31

psa is telling me that for the 1977 topps basketball set that "the standard catalog" lists the prices of both the gray back and white back as the same, thus they will not list the variation. So, some of you knowledgeable people out there lend me a hand, please. see if there are other issues with different color backs that the standard catalog does not say there is any price differences, but that psa already recognizes.

here are just a few variations that I know about that have different color backs:

1954 topps
1956 topps
1962 topps green tint (front of card)
1981 opc
1980 topps super baseball and i think even football.

let me know if you find anything or even others that i am not aware of.

JoeBanzai

Ridiculous answer. Price shouldn't have anything to do with it.

It seems to me that they are resisting adding variations.

Good luck........................you'll need it.

LarkinCollector

See last week's discussion on this topic: Link

DanBessette

<< <i>Ridiculous answer. Price shouldn't have anything to do with it. >>



+1

olb31

<< <i>See last week's discussion on this topic: Link >>



I did read some of that one. I guess it's just confusing as to why they would recognize certain colored backs like 1980 topps super, which is an off-brand set and not recognize a variation from a main topps set like 1977 topps.

LarkinCollector

<< <i>

<< <i>See last week's discussion on this topic: Link >>



I did read some of that one. I guess it's just confusing as to why they would recognize certain colored backs like 1980 topps super, which is an off-brand set and not recognize a variation from a main topps set like 1977 topps. >>


Plenty of other mainstream sets were mentioned in that one as well, though I did make a mistake (91 Stadium Club reference should have been 92 Stadium Club). It all boils down to money (and probably a lack of familiarity when starting to grade all these issues) for a publicly traded company:
I think a lot of it comes down to the quantity already graded since these variations were not noted from the start. They would be getting tons of MECH ERROR returns to get everything labeled correctly, without any accompanying revenue. Though I do think it would drive more new submissions as well with people trying to complete registries, it's probably not enough to offset all the freebies.
I'm sure the shareholders of CLCT appreciate them not correcting all these flips for free, but as a collector I find it very frustrating as well. It makes it harder for me to keep my inventory chasing all the variations when they aren't noted on the flip, back scans aren't provided on far too many raw/graded card sales, and no with no notation on the flip most sellers aren't even aware of what to look for.

PSA even notes in their set profile for 1960 Topps Notable variations include cards #375-440, which can be found with backs printed on either white or grey cardboard, with the white stock being less common., but don't differentiate on the flip.

vandweller

An easy fix would be to allow MECH ERROR returns only within a certain time window after the particular cert number was submitted. Say three months or whatever. If a new variation was recognized after the fact, folks who wanted their existing flips to reflect the new variation would have to pay for the privilege. I certainly would pay. This would actually be a short-term source of revenue for CU.

olb31

<< <i>An easy fix would be to allow MECH ERROR returns only within a certain time window after the particular cert number was submitted. Say three months or whatever. If a new variation was recognized after the fact, folks who wanted their existing flips to reflect the new variation would have to pay for the privilege. I certainly would pay. This would actually be a short-term source of revenue for CU. >>



I agree why not just charge a reholder fee $5 or whatever, change the flip, put in the pop report and move on. No one would need to regrade the card, just the slab. This appears like this would be easy money for PSA, especially leaving the grading process out of it.

JoeBanzai

There is no logic to this. I have three completely different (not printing defects or card stock color variations) 1967 Punch out cards, same "Captain" different lineup of players. PSA refused to add the 2nd and 3rd cards as variations. I got Tom Bartsch from SCD to inform PSA (per PSA's guidelines) that the three cards were indeed variations. PSA relented and added them and then a year(?) or so later changed their minds and said that only one of the three would go in the master set. I spent a lot of time and money acquiring these cards and getting them into my set, so I was very disappointed.

Good luck with your efforts.

vandweller

I think it's a long term win for PSA to recognize as many variations as it possibly can. If I need four graded versions of one card, that fact alone stimulates demand for someone to go out and submit more cards. PSA just needs to come up with a reasonable policy regarding MECH ERROR returns for existing certs and then there's nothing but upside. And if PSA wants to be known as the definitive authenticator and grader for sports collectibles, what sense does it make for them to ignore distinctions among items that are recognized hobby-wide? I literally don't understand any other line of thinking on this.