Options
Weight Vs. Price
psychump
Posts: 1,378 ✭✭✭
Why is the set composition off compared to prices? Cards with no weight are going for extremely high prices for no apparent reason except that there is a perceivable low population. For example a $1,500 PSA 9 added to your set increases from a 789.449 to a 790.477. Wouldn't that make you upset? The card I bought is known as a very difficult card to acquire, yet PSA is oblivious to the difficulty of certain cards and the weight that should be ascertained to them.
What do you think?
What do you think?
Tallulah Bankhead — 'There have been only two geniuses in the world. Willie Mays and Willie Shakespeare.'
0
Comments
I contacted PSA and Gayle Kean looked into it and the set was updated with the weight changed to a 6!
Gayle has always done a superb job of customer service for me!!!
To be fair, PSA is not always going to know all the cards that are "very difficult to acquire".
James
My understanding is that weights were established by whichever collector initially requested the weights for each set. I was collecting an obscure set at one point and all the weights were 1.0. They were changed one day when a collector with more initiative than either myself or PSA established weights for the set. The PSA website is now a lot like wikipedia -- no consistency between entries. Some sets have a very wide range of weights and others have a very low range. And don't get me starated on Pop Tops. Just not very professional...
I have requested weights and PSA has not always given me the weight I asked for. I will agree that the system needs work, but I have had success with them adjusting weights that are out of line.
I can somewhat understand the concern but since the card has the same weight for everyone that has the set in the registry why would it really matter? I am pretty new to the set registry so that may be a dumb question. If so, please tell me why.
James
For one thing, it's nice to get things "right". Secondly, some items are obscure and expensive, so if I add it to my set and someone doesn't have that item, I get a bigger jump in my set rating. You are correct in that if everyone has the same item, there's little difference.
As I stated in my earlier post the Bazooka box I recently added was weighted unusually low in comparison to others, so I emailed and it was adjusted.
I think there should be a clearly established system that adjusts the weights based on current Pop Report data. For example, if there are 5 or less graded examples = 10 weight, 6-15 = 9, 16-25 = 8, etc. Adjust the pop numbers however you want, but make it consistent. Some consideration probably needs to take into account the percentage of total pops of Gem as well.
Good points here! One of the problems with using only population numbers is that some of the cheapest, most common items don't get graded as often as a first or second year card. Lower pop doesn't always mean higher weight. I think PSA has begun to use both population and price to determine weights.
Here's an interesting example for you to consider; I have both Killebrew (center panel) 1968 Action All-Star stickers in PSA8, both are the highest graded examples, there are 11 total graded for sticker #2 and 9 total graded for sticker #14, yet my #2 is weighted a "20" and my #14 is a "50"!?!?!?!?
I think there should be a clearly established system that adjusts the weights based on current Pop Report data. For example, if there are 5 or less graded examples = 10 weight, 6-15 = 9, 16-25 = 8, etc. Adjust the pop numbers however you want, but make it consistent. Some consideration probably needs to take into account the percentage of total pops of Gem as well.
This would be a start but it doesn't take into account the importance of the card. Example - A HOF RC that has 10 PSA 10s vs a common that has 1 PSA 10 - which should be weighted higher?
I think there should be a clearly established system that adjusts the weights based on current Pop Report data. For example, if there are 5 or less graded examples = 10 weight, 6-15 = 9, 16-25 = 8, etc. Adjust the pop numbers however you want, but make it consistent. Some consideration probably needs to take into account the percentage of total pops of Gem as well.
Good points here! One of the problems with using only population numbers is that some of the cheapest, most common items don't get graded as often as a first or second year card. Lower pop doesn't always mean higher weight. I think PSA has begun to use both population and price to determine weights.
I would prefer PSA not use price as a barometer. If it's a combination of cheap/common/easy, the formula would adjust as submissions increase and would encourage more submissions to 'knock down' your competitors in the registry as well as improving for yourself. It's not the way I personally use the registry, but would appeal to some and drive additional submissions.
With a simple formula to adjust weighting, both would be equal or the lower pop would be a higher weight (depending where the thresholds are set). Both would be a 9 weight using my, albeit simplistic, formula and equal to 72.
I think there should be a clearly established system that adjusts the weights based on current Pop Report data. For example, if there are 5 or less graded examples = 10 weight, 6-15 = 9, 16-25 = 8, etc. Adjust the pop numbers however you want, but make it consistent. Some consideration probably needs to take into account the percentage of total pops of Gem as well.
This would be a start but it doesn't take into account the importance of the card. Example - A HOF RC that has 10 PSA 10s vs a common that has 1 PSA 10 - which should be weighted higher?
I'm guessing that the total submissions of the common would be considerably less, so the "Some consideration probably needs to take into account the percentage of total pops of Gem as well." should take card of this. The HOF RC is going to have a ton more submissions than a common, though again, this formula would encourage additional submissions of the common.