Home PSA Set Registry Forum
Options

Who Determines Weightings?

PaulMaulPaulMaul Posts: 4,766 ✭✭✭✭✭
What is the process? For the sets I'm interested in, it seems to be evenly split between uniform 1 weightings and detailed individual ones. How does this work?

Comments

  • Options
    JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,406 ✭✭✭✭✭
    When a new item is entered in the set the submitter can offer his/her opinion. Sometimes PSA agrees. Other times a (default?) weight of 1 seems to be assigned. I don't think PSA has anyone focused on going through all the sets checking on this.



    When I was building my Killebrew master set, I added numerous new cards and wasn't even aware I could offer my opinion on the items weight.



    Try contacting Gayle or Cosetta for an explanation, they have ALWAYS responded to my inquiries in a prompt and courteous manner.
    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • Options
    GriffinsGriffins Posts: 6,076 ✭✭✭
    I was told they started with the SMR value in PSA 8, and adjusted if necessary.

    Always looking for Topps Salesman Samples, pre '51 unopened packs, E90-2, E91a, N690 Kalamazoo Bats, and T204 Square Frame Ramly's

  • Options
    MCMLVToppsMCMLVTopps Posts: 4,674 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I was told they started with the SMR value in PSA 8, and adjusted if necessary.



    I've been told the same thing, and it simply cannot be true. If I had the time and inclination, I could cite numerous examples of how this is incorrect.



    Just for a quick example, how is the weight of a 1 of 1, (meaning the ONLY one graded) assigned? If the "rule of thumb" is the weight of a PSA 8 for that card, when in fact there is no PSA 8, who place the weight value on a card?



    I know of several examples of this, with weights that make no sense where some 1 of 1s get a 1-point weight and others with multiple examples in grade get higher weights.



    Crazy stuff !!



  • Options
    cards651cards651 Posts: 665 ✭✭
    Ain't that the truth. It really is crazy with no rhyme or reason. The best I can say it that PSA is probably understaffed -- what company isn't? -- and they just can't get to this. It's not a money maker so it gets pushed down the priority list.
  • Options
    JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,406 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: cards651
    Ain't that the truth. It really is crazy with no rhyme or reason. The best I can say it that PSA is probably understaffed -- what company isn't? -- and they just can't get to this. It's not a money maker so it gets pushed down the priority list.


    This is probably correct. All companies have to prioritize their tasks. PSA is responding to inquiries regarding weights. A polite message sent to them will get you more satisfaction than posting here.................unless you just feel like venting.
    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • Options
    MCMLVToppsMCMLVTopps Posts: 4,674 ✭✭✭✭✭
    While a polite message may seem in order, I disagree.



    The burden is on the website itself, and in this case, the Registry side of their house. To just assign willy-nilly weightings to cards just to fulfill a requirement is ludicrous. If that's the original object, then they may as well give every card a weight of 1 and avoid the nonsense.



    They created the Registry and therefore the burden rests with them to have established the framework of the Registry in such a fashion as to be fair and equal to all sets in the Registry. Again, I can post NUMEROUS examples of where there are glaring inequities and totally illogical assignments of weightings.



    That weightings generate the pecking order within each set, there should be a self-policing effort on the part of the Registry to make it as viable as possible. We, the members, should not have to bring forth such a gross and glaring problem. Now, with some 108,000 Registerd sets from A-Z, this will never be solved.



    I'm having flashbacks to the half-point decision that totally and FOREVER diluted the POP report. THAT, I would be happy to explain.



    How about the change from having 95% complete to 100% complete in a TON of sets to even be recognized?? I have one of those sets, and the card I need is from 1972 and a foreign country, of which only one raggety PSA 2 has been graded. Haven't found another in over 4 years.



    While recognition of collectors for having reached milestones in their collection efforts is commendable, and made a big issue of each year, their are inequities in the "system".



  • Options
    cards651cards651 Posts: 665 ✭✭
    Originally posted by: MCMLVTopps

    While a polite message may seem in order, I disagree.



    The burden is on the website itself,





    Spot on. And this 19th Century 'Bulletin Board' needs to move into the 21st Century. Every single website has a 'like' or 'thumbs up' button. We have to 'quote' a poster and then comment ourselves. Ridiculous.



  • Options
    cards651cards651 Posts: 665 ✭✭
    The constant messages of 'why don't you call', 'they're so helpful', blah blah blah. Time is money in my world and most people's worlds. This is a hobby where we spend precious time and money for some good, clean fun. The idea that we have to call someone to fix something so obvious is just crazy. There are so many other things in the world that I would fix my gaze on before I would ever call Newport Beach, CA to fix baseball card weightings on a website. I would rather tell my wife I called a sex chat line before I told her I called PSA to fix baseball card weightings...
  • Options
    TheDudeAbidesTheDudeAbides Posts: 400 ✭✭✭
    Back in day, I asked about the set weights, and PSA asked me to offer the weights for the set I was inquiring about. The set in question ... 1971 Topps Super Baseball, I set the weights, PSA reviewed it, and those weights still stand. I may done the same for the 70 Super Set, I forget. So collectors have had some input in the past. Not sure of the current system. The Dude
    Collecting 64, 66, 67, 70 & 71 Baseball. Cubs, wax, cello & rack baseball.
  • Options
    JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,406 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: cards651
    The constant messages of 'why don't you call', 'they're so helpful', blah blah blah. Time is money in my world and most people's worlds. This is a hobby where we spend precious time and money for some good, clean fun. The idea that we have to call someone to fix something so obvious is just crazy. There are so many other things in the world that I would fix my gaze on before I would ever call Newport Beach, CA to fix baseball card weightings on a website. I would rather tell my wife I called a sex chat line before I told her I called PSA to fix baseball card weightings...


    At least if you call with a specific problem they might fix it. Whining on a message board will never get anything fixed. Try to be part of the solution instead of criticizing those that actually do.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • Options
    cards651cards651 Posts: 665 ✭✭
    Love it. Check out my comments on 1980 Basketball. They refused to fix any of it. As I noted, refusing to fix something is the opposite of helpful...







    Originally posted by: JoeBanzai

    Originally posted by: cards651

    The constant messages of 'why don't you call', 'they're so helpful', blah blah blah. Time is money in my world and most people's worlds. This is a hobby where we spend precious time and money for some good, clean fun. The idea that we have to call someone to fix something so obvious is just crazy. There are so many other things in the world that I would fix my gaze on before I would ever call Newport Beach, CA to fix baseball card weightings on a website. I would rather tell my wife I called a sex chat line before I told her I called PSA to fix baseball card weightings...




    At least if you call with a specific problem they might fix it. Whining on a message board will never get anything fixed. Try to be part of the solution instead of criticizing those that actually do.







  • Options
    cards651cards651 Posts: 665 ✭✭
    Meant to add -- the message boards are monitored. Start to rant about certain issues and your post goes poof. Bringing attention to an issue that is important to you on a public message board is far more effective than a private phone call that can be ignored...You just need resolve to handle any bullies that may not like your message.
  • Options
    JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,406 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: cards651
    Meant to add -- the message boards are monitored. Start to rant about certain issues and your post goes poof. Bringing attention to an issue that is important to you on a public message board is far more effective than a private phone call that can be ignored...You just need resolve to handle any bullies that may not like your message.


    I see your point. I have had some conversations with PSA that didn't go my way. In regards to this particular issue, I was pleasantly surprised. In trying to keep things in perspective, it's obvious that PSA has a lot on their plate and the weighting "problem" is a big one. Expecting them to just "fix it" isn't going to happen anytime soon. They do seem to be making an effort.

    As you have noted the boards are monitored, so getting to nasty about it is just going to get the entire thread removed. Again, this isn't going to accomplish anything.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • Options
    marinermariner Posts: 2,589 ✭✭✭✭
    The Standard Catalog of Vintage Baseball Cards authored by Bob Lemke was a source for PSA to use to determine weightings. It is not published now, but I know that the weightings for the mainstream sets were based on the values assigned in the Catalog.
    Don

    Collect primarily 1959-1963 Topps Baseball
    set registry id Don Johnson Collection
    ebay id truecollector14
  • Options
    cards651cards651 Posts: 665 ✭✭
    Agreed overall Joe. PSA will never please everyone on the weighting issue. That 1980 Basketball Pop Report just kills me. So when this subject comes up, I tend to pipe up a bit. I enjoy PSA overall or I wouldn't be here.

  • Options
    JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,406 ✭✭✭✭✭
    PSA most likely had/has good intentions but when they actually realize what is involved and how much overtime it would cost, good intentions might become "I hope we can get to this someday". LOL
    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • Options
    "I hope we can get to this someday"
    I resolve to keep this in mind. Thanks.



  • Options
    MCMLVToppsMCMLVTopps Posts: 4,674 ✭✭✭✭✭
    PSA will never find the time to fix the weightings issue. Now with well over 108,000 registered sets, the task is beyond doable.



    Much like the POP report, which is now all but useless because of unending crack outs, that have left untold number of non-existent cards forever embedded in the report. This ship has long ago sailed off the face of the earth. Impossible to fix. For those who once valued the numbers in that report, they are now beyond diluted, and to think otherwise is only fooling yourself.
Sign In or Register to comment.