Home Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum

Is there a reason that PSA almost exclusively considers a player's Topps Chrome RC their "best" RC

Even when 99% of the time, that's not the case. Why not just call it "Hall of Fame Topps Chrome RC Registry" then. Do they have a contract with Topps or something. When will PSA come out of the dark ages and allow lower-numbered-serial-numbered/autographed/etc cards in HOF set registries, as long as they are part of a base set. It's been more than just a fad for over a decade now. It's just a reality that these cards are considered RCs by the large majority of collectors.

Comments

  • LarkinCollectorLarkinCollector Posts: 8,975 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Isn't that what the registry collectors voted in?

    ETA: For player sets, I still don't understand why Topps is the only brand they'll do. OPC sets would make a lot of sense for vintage, Bowman/Donruss/Fleer/etc for modern.

  • eagles33eagles33 Posts: 2,683 ✭✭✭
    Topps Chrome is my first choice for rookie cards simply because there were to many different sets to keep track of every year. I gave up trying to find the "best" rookie and just went with topps chrome. If there wasn't a topps chrome then I would look for bowman chrome. That usually covered most rookies. It got to a point where I couldn't tell the difference between the various patch, color, numbered auto cards to understand why 1/1 in some set was so much more desirable than another 1/1 in a different set. I basically gave up and just picked topps chrome as my go to.
    Scans of most of my Misc rookies can be found <a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://forums.collectors.com/m...y&keyword1=Non%20major">here
  • No offense, but that just seems extremely lazy. This is the Hall of Fame we are talking about here. I would think it would be worthwhile to know what the actual best RC is of any particular HOFer and have that in the set registry. It would only take a couple minutes to figure out what the "best" RC is of any particular HOFer. I could tell you what most of them are without even looking.
  • LarkinCollectorLarkinCollector Posts: 8,975 ✭✭✭✭✭
    You have plenty of options:

    1. Collect the PSA published registry

    2. Collect whatever PSA graded RC you want & make a showcase

    3. Gather enough people together to vote different cards into the registry

    4. Put all the cards you like in a binder and ignore grading companies altogether

    etc.



    I'm not a fan of the golf HOF RC registry, so I ignore it and am working on my own. This is a fun hobby for me, not something to get that worked up over or invest a lot of time arguing with the powers that be. If PSA changes the RC in the registry now, there will be a bunch of other people whining about having to go out and buy different cards after already investing in the one listed on the registry. PSA can't make every collector happy.
  • FYI, this is mostly geared towards the "future" HOF rookie sets and mostly affects basketball and football. It's just kind of weird how many great RCs are not in the future HOF registry sets while some crap Topps Chrome card gets all the attention it doesn't deserve. And why no auto RCs or low serial-numbered RCs in the other sets? It's okay to have a bunch of $500,000+ to a million dollar cards from the 1800s to the '60s, but unacceptable to put in the 2005-06 The Cup Sidney Crosby or the 2003-04 Exquisite Collection LeBron James or the 2001 Bowman Chrome Albert Pujols or the 2005 Sp Authentic Aaron Rodgers, which sell for a fraction of the cost of a lot of the older cards? It makes no sense if it's about rarity.
  • SOMSOM Posts: 1,555 ✭✭✭
    Even in the mid-80s, there are a bunch of $15 cards listed in the baseball HOF Registry, and especially the Future HOF Registry.

    It blows my mind that Score Traded - one of the the most overproduced sets of all time - won out for all of the 1988 HOF baseball rookies

    Nick
  • DarinDarin Posts: 7,291 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Here's a question- Why is Cal Ripken Jr.'s 82 topps traded card his rookie card in the post war HOF first ballot registry set?



    1. Cal Ripken Jr. was not traded.

    2. His regular topps issue came out first.

    3. The traded sets are not a real set, just a gimmick topps came up with.

  • SOMSOM Posts: 1,555 ✭✭✭
    But, in the HOF post-war rookies Registry, Ripken is #21



    (I entered my card #21 Ripken in the Registry, but for my picture, I scanned in his Traded card)



  • SOMSOM Posts: 1,555 ✭✭✭
    One more question - how do players like Warren Spahn, Jackie Robinson, Larry Doby have multiple issues eligible for the post-war HOF set?



    Why couldn't PSA do the same thing for the recent players sportscardtheory has mentioned?



    Or, those 1988 HOFers, who all have Score cards. Why not a choice of manufacturers?
  • VitoCo1972VitoCo1972 Posts: 6,130 ✭✭✭
    1) You always have a chance to vote on what cards are allowed in when a new card is added....but only if you're an active participant in that registry.



    2) Cards with serial numbers below /999 are too scarce for a broad registry. That's agreed upon by nearly every registry collector



    3) I think there is a case for auto'd cards to be allowed it except the odds of an autographed copy having a print run over 1000 is tough to imagine. But I'm sure it's possible. - then again, the After Market Autographed sets are all based on the non signed ones.
  • sportscardtheorysportscardtheory Posts: 1,786 ✭✭✭
    Some of vintage cards have had like 10 to a couple hundred graded TOTAL. So why the arbitrary 999 number when there are some vintage cards in the same registry sets that have less than 500 EVER graded, some less than 100? It's an archaic "rule" that should be amended.
  • rexvosrexvos Posts: 3,306 ✭✭✭✭✭
    For football it was only Topps for years besides a few fleer entrants in the early 60s, then it wen to score in 89, 90 action packed or score update, 91 stadium club, 92 was all over the map, and then from 93-00 sp / sp authentic carried the torch for the most part. When sp authentic went to Gu and auto RCs it reverted back to the best non autoed gumrx which was almost always topps chrome, now that the license is gone, who knows where it goes for 2016 and beyond
    Looking for FB HOF Rookies
  • rexvosrexvos Posts: 3,306 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Just noticed that you want auto cards included. I would hate that. I do not collect autographed cards or low serial numbered parallel modern stuff, I prefer base RCs, I have nothing against autos, I just do not collect them and think they should not be included in a basic rookies registry, and it is not because of cost, I would much rather own a 2000 sp authentic Brady than a 2000 contenders any day.
    Looking for FB HOF Rookies
  • Autos are in base sets now. Like it or not, that's just how it is.
  • Yet they allow USFL cards in NFL HOF registries. Okay, what about the CFL then? You are gonna use the 1985 NFL Warren Moon RC, but 1984 USFL Steve Young? There's just no consistency. I know this stuff is voted on, but come on. It's all just lazy and contradictory voting. Newsflash, a player's SP RC isn't always their "best" RC. A player's Topps Chrome RC isn't always their "best" RC. Autos are in base sets now. Cards serial-numbered from 99 to 998 exist in base sets now. It's 2016. Wake up. Feels like these things are only voted on by old, crusty card show guys from the early-'90s who yell at kids to stay off their lawns.
  • rexvosrexvos Posts: 3,306 ✭✭✭✭✭
    As far as the USFL being used and not the CFL, the USFL product was produced by Topps and the CFL by Jogo. It would be like the basketball set using the Star Jordan instead of the 86 Fleer.

    As far as the auto it is a difference of opinion, but I doubt you find many who side with you, as far as being old I am 42 and have been collecting off and on for most of my life. I collect a lot of modern as well as vintage. I do get a little get off my lawn because I see most modern collectors as short sighted and misinformed. Willing to shell out hundreds or thousands of dollars for cards that are worth the same or less when they are pulled from the pack as they are decades later. I am not a fan of grading auto patch cards, even though I agree the 2005 spa Aarom Rodgers is a beautiful card, but the Topps Chrome fits better in the PSA registry.
    Looking for FB HOF Rookies
  • totallyraddtotallyradd Posts: 941 ✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: eagles33
    Topps Chrome is my first choice for rookie cards simply because there were to many different sets to keep track of every year. I gave up trying to find the "best" rookie and just went with topps chrome. If there wasn't a topps chrome then I would look for bowman chrome. That usually covered most rookies. It got to a point where I couldn't tell the difference between the various patch, color, numbered auto cards to understand why 1/1 in some set was so much more desirable than another 1/1 in a different set. I basically gave up and just picked topps chrome as my go to.



    I am working on a Brewers first card signed project, and I always just try to find the first between Topps and Bowman. I'm not looking at long term value on these guys, just their first base card signed, but your right with so many sets its tough. Especially for fringe players that had a cup of coffee and Bowman and Topps never did a card for them (this occurred more in the 90's through early 2000's than now, since practically every drafted gets a card at some point by either company).
  • sportscardtheorysportscardtheory Posts: 1,786 ✭✭✭
    Just kinda seem like the set registry voters are going to make the set registries themselves less relevant. You will end up ruining the thing you love by holding it back, thus lessening it's relevance in the hobby.

    It doesn't matter all that much to me I guess. I would love to think that the set registries actually mean something, but when it's full of a bunch of garbage base rookie cards that aren't anywhere near the player's top-tier rookie cards, it's pretty useless. I mean, if the registries were for little kids, I could see keeping it cheap, but I always thought of the registries as a mans' game meant for hardcore collectors. It's just too watered down now to be a functional asset to the hobby.
  • VitoCo1972VitoCo1972 Posts: 6,130 ✭✭✭
    Perhaps you should then be "a man" and create a registry that does include low pop and signed cards. It's not hard. Just request it. Or are you more concerned with criticizing what collectors want to collect because it differs from your own? Seriously, just submit your own ideal set and call it HOF Rookie Registry Including Modern Serial and Auto. Who cares? Have at it. And I'll collect what I want, thanks. So will everyone else.
  • sportscardtheorysportscardtheory Posts: 1,786 ✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: VitoCo1972
    Perhaps you should then be "a man" and create a registry that does include low pop and signed cards. It's not hard. Just request it. Or are you more concerned with criticizing what collectors want to collect because it differs from your own? Seriously, just submit your own ideal set and call it HOF Rookie Registry Including Modern Serial and Auto. Who cares? Have at it. And I'll collect what I want, thanks. So will everyone else.


    What on earth are you talking about. How could I possibly know what you collect. Sensitive much.

  • LarkinCollectorLarkinCollector Posts: 8,975 ✭✭✭✭✭
    It's not that hard to comprehend, whining here does nothing. Contact the Set Registry folks if you want to get an idea of your options (new HOF set including the cards you want, showcase, etc.).

    ETA: There's an entire forum dedicated to the Set Registry, amazingly enough called the 'PSA Set Registry Forum' (link provided on prior page).

  • sportscardtheorysportscardtheory Posts: 1,786 ✭✭✭
    Whining? Am I not allowed an opinion? Jesus. I'm really starting to hate sensitive people. If you don't like what someone has to say, ignore them. What's with going on the offensive. Grow up. What is this, high school.
  • I don't think anyone is being sensitive. They are both saying you are wrong.
  • VitoCo1972VitoCo1972 Posts: 6,130 ✭✭✭
    Not only am I saying you're wrong but you're clearly in the vast minority on this front. But I was being serious. Start your own registry set. If people want to join it, they will. It's really easy. I'm simply saying you shouldn't be surprised when many don't join it because they don't collect modern card autos. Just the way it is. I won't tell you what to collect and you shouldn't be telling everyone else what they can or should collect either.
  • rexvosrexvos Posts: 3,306 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: VitoCo1972
    Not only am I saying you're wrong but you're clearly in the vast minority on this front. But I was being serious. Start your own registry set. If people want to join it, they will. It's really easy. I'm simply saying you shouldn't be surprised when many don't join it because they don't collect modern card autos. Just the way it is. I won't tell you what to collect and you shouldn't be telling everyone else what they can or should collect either.


    I agree with this and I would like it if you get off my lawn.

    Looking for FB HOF Rookies
  • FavreFan1971FavreFan1971 Posts: 3,103 ✭✭✭
    I started the Pro Football HOF Rookie set back in 2005. BTW it is the Pro Football HOF not the NFL Hall of Fame. That is why USFL cards were used. The Warren Moon XRC was not widely accepted at the time the set started which is why 1985 Topps was used.



    But when the PFHOF set was created we set ground rules. No card can be serial numbered less than 999. Reasoning behind this was so everyone could collect the set. If you have a card #rd to 99 you are saying only 99 people can collect set and with player sets, team sets and company set collectors out there you will actually drive away collectors if the completion is not attainable. 2nd - No Jersey Cards or Autographed cards, refractor, parallel etc. It has be a base card from a premium set. Each year we would vote when a player was elected to the HOF to find out what their top card was. Many instances it was rather easy but then you get into the 90's to present it was tough. SP or Chrome? UD or Fleer. Some years after the set was created the Modern and Senior sets were created so people could vote on what card would be added to a set. This is where the first true battle came. 1995 Terrell Davis.



    It was explained before why SP was used in football until Topps Chrome came along. Next year will be very interesting for football cards since Topp Chrome will no longer exist. Thankfully you have 15-20 years to wait to see who from the 2016 set will be inducted.



    Hope this clears up football for you.

  • sportscardtheorysportscardtheory Posts: 1,786 ✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: FavreFan1971
    I started the Pro Football HOF Rookie set back in 2005. BTW it is the Pro Football HOF not the NFL Hall of Fame. That is why USFL cards were used. The Warren Moon XRC was not widely accepted at the time the set started which is why 1985 Topps was used.

    But when the PFHOF set was created we set ground rules. No card can be serial numbered less than 999. Reasoning behind this was so everyone could collect the set. If you have a card #rd to 99 you are saying only 99 people can collect set and with player sets, team sets and company set collectors out there you will actually drive away collectors if the completion is not attainable. 2nd - No Jersey Cards or Autographed cards, refractor, parallel etc. It has be a base card from a premium set. Each year we would vote when a player was elected to the HOF to find out what their top card was. Many instances it was rather easy but then you get into the 90's to present it was tough. SP or Chrome? UD or Fleer. Some years after the set was created the Modern and Senior sets were created so people could vote on what card would be added to a set. This is where the first true battle came. 1995 Terrell Davis.

    It was explained before why SP was used in football until Topps Chrome came along. Next year will be very interesting for football cards since Topp Chrome will no longer exist. Thankfully you have 15-20 years to wait to see who from the 2016 set will be inducted.

    Hope this clears up football for you.


    So why not amend it to add CFL rookies? They are as much RCs as USFL RCs. Doesn't really clear anything up. It just shows me that registry collectors have disdain for modern cards and simply don't want to be bothered with them. Like you can look at the Hall of Fame set and believe that "everyone could collect the set" when some of the vintage cards are nearly impossible to obtain in any grade. Just seems like a bunch of vintage collectors, who aren't familiar with the modern market, doing the voting.

  • MULLINS5MULLINS5 Posts: 4,517 ✭✭✭
    Collect what you believe to be the 'true' rookie and don't worry about what others think.
  • sportscardtheorysportscardtheory Posts: 1,786 ✭✭✭
    According to PSA, only 3 people have ever completed the Pro Football Hall of Fame Rookie set. I don't believe that the exclusion of modern hobby staples has anything to do with "so everyone could collect the set". It's not a logical conclusion.

    As of right now the first "best" rookie cards of potential HOFers, serial-numbered under 999 or featuring an auto, that are officially part a base set, are from 1999. They are; 1999 Playoff Contenders SSD Kurt Warner AU/1,825 (PSA 9 sale - $143.04), 1999 Playoff Contenders SSD Edgerrin James AU/525 (PSA 8 sale - $25.56), 1999 Playoff Contenders SSD Torry Holt AU/1,025 (PSA 10 sale - $125.50), 1999 Playoff Contenders SSD Champ Bailey AU/1,725 (PSA 9 sale - $67.50)


    That's right. 4 potential Hall of Famers' "best" rookie cards, numbered to less than 999 and/or featuring an auto, for $361.60. That's an average of just over $90 each, and these are nice grades.


    This isn't about cost. It's just stubborn voters who can't grasp that the times, and the hobby, have progressed. At least open the voting to ANY rookie base card and see what happens. If the voters vote for cheap base rookies, then so be it.
  • sportscardtheorysportscardtheory Posts: 1,786 ✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: MULLINS5
    Collect what you believe to be the 'true' rookie and don't worry about what others think.


    Oh I do and I don't. This is just a curiosity. I was trying to understand why the registries are the way they are and I have come to my own conclusions.

  • As has been stated, the purpose is to collect the best cards within certain parameters, not just abstract value. Thus, the choices. Looks good to me!
  • sportscardtheorysportscardtheory Posts: 1,786 ✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: charrigan
    As has been stated, the purpose is to collect the best cards within certain parameters, not just abstract value. Thus, the choices. Looks good to me!


    I have been saying best, not highest price. Best is subjective, but leave it to a real vote instead of implementing arbitrary, archaic guidelines.

  • Best within certain parameters has been chosen for this particular set. Please post when your's is ready!
  • sportscardtheorysportscardtheory Posts: 1,786 ✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: charrigan
    Best within certain parameters has been chosen for this particular set. Please post when your's is ready!


    I know. That's why it's a shame that this has become "the" Football HOF Rookie set. If I made one, not many would notice or care because 'there already is one'. It's like trying to make a site to compete with ebay. Yeah, ebay sucks and everyone knows it, but the other upstart sites simply can't compete with their presence.

    Also, don't tell me the arbitrary, archaic guidelines are about cost when it's clearly not about cost.
  • If you build it, they will come. Don't you believe in the free market?
  • sportscardtheorysportscardtheory Posts: 1,786 ✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: charrigan
    If you build it, they will come. Don't you believe in the free market?


    I do, but I also have zero faith in this society to ever side with what is righteous as opposed to siding with what is easiest. Most people are stupid.

  • Originally posted by: sportscardtheoryMost people are stupid.


    Unfortunately, on this point, I have to agree.

  • VitoCo1972VitoCo1972 Posts: 6,130 ✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: charrigan
    Originally posted by: sportscardtheoryMost people are stupid.


    Unfortunately, on this point, I have to agree.



    DYING!!!!!
  • rexvosrexvos Posts: 3,306 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I am just shocked that the op wants to grade with PSA, most collectors that think base rookie cards are worthless usually grade with Beckett and are busy looking for button cards and multi colored patch breaks, or supercalifrafilistiscexpyallidocious atomic refractor 1/1 super collector bs
    Looking for FB HOF Rookies
  • Or just, ya know... rookie cards. Keep your dumb narrative going though. It's so funny.
  • rexvosrexvos Posts: 3,306 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: sportscardtheory
    Or just, ya know... rookie cards. Keep your dumb narrative going though. It's so funny.


    Sorry to misjudge you, it just seems like you are supporting a narrative that all the Topps Chrome rookies are junk, like the 2001 Drew Brees and 2005 Aaron Rodgers and a few others, I just strongly disagree.
    Looking for FB HOF Rookies
  • VitoCo1972VitoCo1972 Posts: 6,130 ✭✭✭
    Being serious for a second, nobody is saying you're dumb or naive. And I'm usually never one to say "it is what it is so let's keep it how it is". That being said, when the registries were created, those with registered sets did vote - then purchased the agreed upon cards. You can't really go back and say "well you have to purchase new cards now". To be fair, in the autographed rookie world (where I am) your point resonates even more. There can't be more than a few copies of MANY cards signed. For example, I'd be in favor of multiple cards counting toward registry sets in the Bowman/Leaf 1948 sets. That would give more a chance to participate. And in a reverse case, I don't like that both Topps and OPC cards count for many 68-89 hockey rookies. If we really follow the spirit of the registry, those should all be OPC because they're tougher and more desirable.


    But in general, modern autographs don't fit in for sure in the regular registries. They're simply not in the spirit of the sets (in my opinion). And you're right about only a few copies of some cards (let's say a 33 Lajoie or T206 Wagner) existing. BUT, those are few and far between. When the T206 set was released, there were thousands of them (except the big 4 cards) - print runs of well over 1000. They many not exist anymore which is unfortunate but is in the spirit of the sets. And if a major haul of Baltimore News Babe Ruth cards were found, they'd count. But to limit a card just produced to /99 copies or whatever just doesn't fit with the modus operandi of the HOF rookie sets in this man's opinion.

    And don't discount there being other collectors like you. I WOULD register a limited set with PSA and see if anyone joins. If nobody does, it'll be evidence as to why they don't count in the regular registry. And if several do, you'll have the competition you're looking for. Best of luck to you.
  • Autos4AlexAutos4Alex Posts: 442 ✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: VitoCo1972
    I'd be in favor of multiple cards counting toward registry sets

    +1
  • SOMSOM Posts: 1,555 ✭✭✭
    +2
  • scashaggyscashaggy Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭
    I have nothing to do with this so I will inject my opinion.



    I didn't read the whole thread so sorry if this has already been said.



    To me, it is their way of using a basic, standard card. If they allow #'d cards or auto'd cards or jersey cards, every card would be inherently different.
  • FavreFan1971FavreFan1971 Posts: 3,103 ✭✭✭
    The OP is mistaken about the only three people completing the Pro football HOF Rookie Set. Dozens have done it. Many delete their set when they sell instead of retiring it. As for those who retired it when cards get added they go down under 100%. I can see eight sets that are under 100% now that were completed when retired.
  • SouthsiderSouthsider Posts: 1,049 ✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: FavreFan1971
    The OP is mistaken about the only three people completing the Pro football HOF Rookie Set. Dozens have done it. Many delete their set when they sell instead of retiring it. As for those who retired it when cards get added they go down under 100%. I can see eight sets that are under 100% now that were completed when retired.


    Yes, this is true. I was at something like 98-99% completion at one time. Then I started selling off cards and never bothered to retire my set before I did.

    I will say that one reason I lost interest in the registry was because of new people coming in and making changes to things that they didn't take the time to try to understand or discuss with the people who had been collecting the set for a long time.
  • sportscardtheorysportscardtheory Posts: 1,786 ✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: rexvos
    Originally posted by: sportscardtheory
    Or just, ya know... rookie cards. Keep your dumb narrative going though. It's so funny.


    Sorry to misjudge you, it just seems like you are supporting a narrative that all the Topps Chrome rookies are junk, like the 2001 Drew Brees and 2005 Aaron Rodgers and a few others, I just strongly disagree.


    I don't think they are "junk". But as someone with knowledge of the hobby, I know that there are many of their RCs that are FAR more desirable than base Topps Chrome. It takes about 20 seconds to find this info. It's just silly that if the Topps Chrome was serial-numbered to 1,000 instead of 999, it wouldn't be allowed in the registry. Brees has, literally, 70 cards that are considered true RCs. There are in excess of 15 of them I would rather have than the Topps Chrome any day of the week. And really, the only reason the Topps Chrome sells well is BECAUSE it's in the registry. If it weren't, it would most likely be a $20 card like most his other RCs serial-numbered around 1,000.
Sign In or Register to comment.