PSA's changing of the rules for Modern Sets?
MCMLVTopps
Posts: 4,839 ✭✭✭✭✭
I don't recall when this was done, but I'll guess it was 3-4 years ago.
Modern sets, 1970 to present, were once allowed to be recognized in the Registry if the set had reached 95%. When the change was made, it compelled the set collector to have attained a 100% completion of the set composition before the set could qualify in the Registry for recognition as the "best set".
I was wondering about the rationale behind this move? Is there any viable explanation as to why the move was made to change completion requirements from 95% to 100%?
Obviously this is more a Joe Orlando/Cosetta Robbins ?, but just thought others might know why this was done.
Modern sets, 1970 to present, were once allowed to be recognized in the Registry if the set had reached 95%. When the change was made, it compelled the set collector to have attained a 100% completion of the set composition before the set could qualify in the Registry for recognition as the "best set".
I was wondering about the rationale behind this move? Is there any viable explanation as to why the move was made to change completion requirements from 95% to 100%?
Obviously this is more a Joe Orlando/Cosetta Robbins ?, but just thought others might know why this was done.
0
Comments
If you look at most of the Player Set Registries ........you will notice a pattern
of sets not being recognized after 2011 ........that is when Mr. Orlando ' raised the Bar to 100% ' in his Monthly article ! Players that played mostly before 1970 remained at 95% ......players that played their careers mostly after 1970 had to be at 100% which is a head puzzler to me considering Modern Sets are a Beast with the number of cards needed for completion ! Dozens of sets got trapped and frozen after 2011 with this new rule !
You can use my set for an example ....." The Lou Brock Master Set " ........which use to be considered a Vintage Set got trapped under this new rule ! Lou Brock's playing days were 1962 to 1979 ........a 17 year career ........9 years after 1970 ........8 years before 1970 ......thus the Brock Set became a Modern Set and required 100% completion ! I've been crying in my Beer every since then
Dave ' Robbie ' Robinson
1963 Fleer
Lou Brock Master Set
First, I feel your pain...I too have a couple of sets "locked" into the "freeze" of 100% after 1970. They are Bill lee and Luis Tiant. Their playing years were 69-82 and 64-82 respectively, the latter similar to your Brock set. I need ONE card to complete my Tiant Master, read on to see what I'm up against.
My BIGGEST issue is how in my case, the compositions of one of these sets has been corrupted by a non-collector who, at some point acquired some very obscure and almost impossible to find cards that were allowed into the Registry composition. This is evidenced by this person's "collection" within the Master Set, only the obscure cards are registered, and he is off the chart low in ranking. Were he a collector of this set, he could easily streak up into the upper 80s with some effort...not the case. So, what's the point? This person has gotten these rags graded, and yes, they're PSA 1s, and a couple of PSA 2s...having them graded and added as a Registry set, then compels others who are trying to reach 100% a near impossibility, AND the attempt is merely an effort to substantially increase the value of these rags. I've been looking for ONE card for over 4 years, and pretty much resigned to never completing. Interestingly, these cards have been on eBay off and on, at prices not far from $200...so, my suspicions are valid...pay my price, or never finish, unless you get very, VERY lucky and find one.
I appreciate and encourage competition, so don't take this as sour grapes, but, it is what it is. Another example is of puzzle stamps, which consisted of 4 panels, non of which showed enough of the actual player as to be considered an actual "card". This person also had his pieces graded and added them to his Registry set, 3, PSA 1s and 1, PSA 2. I refuse to chase the rabbit just for the sake of getting a little goober icon next to my set name and pay rip off, and I do mean RIP OFF prices for these rags...yes, they've been on eBay recently well above $400.00. Fortunately, I offered a compelling viewpoint to Cosetta, and they were removed. Sometimes, with a pragmatic and logical approach, you can have things changed.
Back to my original ?. What was the reason the change was made? Why not just leave things as they were instead of compelling collectors to dance to this tune? The only remote logic I can think of is to FORCE collectors to "stay in the game" and keep them on a leash to search and search for these scarce and pricey cards to reach 100%. Gotta be a business angle in there, but not sure I see a clear viewpoint from Newport Beach.
I also had major heartburn over the half-point change!! This was a blatant money grab by PSA. FULL DISCLOSURE...I did very well playing the crack out, upgrade game. One day I realized I was only adding to the corruption of the POP report. I was once big into 1955 Topps, (thus the handle), and cracked an SGC in the mid 40s...it came back a PSA 8.5!! CHA CHING !!! It became a one of one, not even Don Spence had this card, he had the hottest 55T set in existence. Serious $$$ profit for a card that cost me about $25. Thiink anybody can really tell the difference between a PSA 8 and a PSA 8.5 at arms length? Nope!!
So, why did they do they 1970 switch?
But I wanted to respond to your complaints about obscure cards being added to player sets, cards for which condition is irrelevant because finding a copy at all is near impossible. I believe a player master set composite should be just that, a comprehensive list of every possible item that will fit in a PSA slab. Isn't that the point? Why would I want to be told I have an artificial 100% completion when there are several legitimate items that I don't own? I guess if things like little blue badges and rank in the standings matter to you, then the fake 100% would mean something to you. Me? I just want to have a comprehensive collection of that player, or as close as I can get on my budget. To me, that's the point.
When I join a player master registry, I immediately scour all the resources I'm aware of to develop a true master list of that player. I then endeavor to track down all those items and add them to the composite until the list is what it should be, a COMPLETE list. When I joined the John Hannah registry, the master composite was 30 items. So far I've added 9 new slots and the eventual tally will be 44 total items (and counting). I do this because I want to be able to show my registry to other collectors and have it reflect a true percentage of completion. I don't care about my rank in the standings and I REALLY don't care if it affects others' rankings. All I care about is that the checklist is accurate and complete.
Right now my white whale is a 1969 Eskimo pie Dale Livingston/Gino cappelletti. It's the only Gino card that I'm aware I'm missing. It's from an obscure set, and a short print to boot. PSA has never graded a copy and I've never even seen a photo of one. If/when I track one down, I'll have it graded and added to the master composite. Yes, I would be happy with a PSA 1. I'll add it for the peace of mind of knowing my Gino master set is truly 100% complete. And if it pisses off the other Gino collectors? Too bad.
Let's see if I can make this a bit more clear. First, the prime question is why did PSA make the change for modern sets. You, me and others have no clue or don't recall the essay by Joe in a 2011 edition of the Collector's magazine. I was really just curious as to why it was done, surely there's some logic there, but for the life of me, I can't see it...especially in view of the fact that when it was discussed and voted upon, or edicted by Joe that it would suddenly impact untold number of sets. Why would they do that???
Second, I am not seeking any particular recognition or have any desire to have a fake 100% set. I'm surprised you could deduce that from what I wrote. I think my particular set currently sits just under 95% and I've acquired other raw cards to have graded to add to my set that would easily put me into a very high 90s percentile. I happen to think that attaining a 95% completion is pretty decent and if it was good enough once, why isn't it good enough now, or for the past 5 years?
Third, I have SEVERE heartburn over people who pretend to be collectors, but are in fact screwing the composition for monetary gain. IF this person were a true collector I would have absolutely no issues whatsoever...perhaps you missed where I wrote "I encourage competition".
If you care to see my position perhaps a bit more clearly, please see the Luis Tiant Master Set. Needless to say, I am #1, the non-collector (who's cards are constantly up for sale) will be quite obvious to you. This person never adds to the set, only deletes when he makes a sale.
I have to add, that the other "collector" somehow managed to get PSA to add the 1972 Venezuelan Sticker Puzzle of Tiant to the Registry. If you are not familiar with these things, they consist of the paper the equivalent of coupons found in your Sunday paper, very flimsy and easily torn. They depict a player, but the picture is cut into quarters, only one piece resembles any part of the player's face, or its in two pieces. IOW, you could easily have 2-3 pieces that just show a piece of uniform or glove...clearly NOT a card by any means. As mentioned, this nonsense was deleted from the Registry after I presented my case to Joe and removed by Cosetta. This collector has this junk for sale at well over $400 on eBay...a simple search will find them.
I appreciate your viewpoint.
Happy collecting, I hope you land that whale.
Those stamps with 1/4 a face really seem like a questionable addition to the master composite. I'm glad PSA was willing to remove them. With that being said, I looked at the cards you're currently missing and they all seem reasonable: 2 OPC, 3 Venezuelans, a hostess panel and a dairy isle disc. These are all typical of what's required in master sets of other players from the same era. I'm guessing that your complaint was with the 4 questionable items already removed and not with the empty slots that still remain. While it's true that the Venezuelans are tough to track down and almost always in poor condition once found, these are truly treasures to own. Which reminds me, I think your 66 Venezuelan PSA 2 is outstanding and probably my favorite item in your master set!
If it is the Venezuelans you have a gripe with, then you'd really hate the Yaz master. I believe he has 6 or 7 Venezuelans in 1968 alone!
One more question: I believe there are other Transogram Tiant cards that aren't yet part of the master set, am I right?
Thanks for the nice comments, and yes, you've made similar comments in the past on the set and thank you for those as well.
I have every card except the 1970 Ovenca Venezuelan in raw, just haven't figured yet the best way to get them graded. Oddly, the 76 Diary Isle Disc was the most difficult to find. I found it mixed in a large lot of discs and asked the seller if he'd break it out for me. He did so and at a very low price...some sellers are just ACES !!!
Yes, I think PSA really missed the boat on allowing the puzzle pieces in...but, that's history.
Tiant was special to me...grew up near Boston and spent many a night watching games with my dad, he really was thrilled with how Tiant pitched. One of those trying to catch memories I guess and keep them alive. Dad is long gone.
I may email Joe and ask for a comment about the change, I'd really like to know.
As for your having looked at the set, I'm sure you could see the other "collector". Yes, HE has the Ovenca for sale, and has for a couple of years or so, along with the 4-piece puzzle "cards". I just refuse to line his pockets when he is only doing it for monetary gain.
I'll keep an eye out for your whale, if I find it I'll let you know, raw or otherwise I'm sure works for you.
Enjoyed the back and forth!!
Al
Again, GL finding that special card.
MCMLV................the reason for PSA deciding what they did with the "modern" sets seems to be more for their convenience, as a space saving move, than as anything that makes sense from a collecting point of view. I have discussed my complaints on some of their decisions (i.e. 1967 Punchouts) and don't understand why they refuse to do what I think is the "correct thing" LOL. I try to remember that they are primarily business people and not collectors. As I am in regards to my livelihood.
I also feel your pain in regards to people who have items I "need" and list them for YEARS at ridiculously high prices, refusing to lower the prices to a reasonable level. There are a couple of Killebrew items out there that I have been watching that would upgrade my set nicely, just can't justify my need over their greed. I just won an item for $100.00 in an auction that has been sitting at a BIN for about $350.00 for quite some time, felt doubly happy at that one!
I completely agree with Dan's (HI DAN!!) post, especially where he states "I believe a player master set composite should be just that, a comprehensive list of every possible item that will fit in a PSA slab."
The only way I was able to reach the #1 spot in the Killebrew Master set was by adding oddball cards I had been picked up at shows over the years (long before the registry even existed, glad I am OCD). Otherwise the #2 Killebrew guy would blow me away as he has some very high grade cards in his set.
Good luck in your battle with PSA, I have won a few over the years. Patience is a big part of collecting in my opinion. Now, if I win the lottery forget all that, I'll be BUYING EVERYTHING!!!!!!!
Joe
I strongly disagree with Joe...by saying master sets should include everything that can fit in a slab we end up with match book covers and key chain insert pictures and the tiny side panels of the transogram boxes in the MAntle master set.
The collectors hobby needs to have some standardization of what should be in and what should not.
My 2 cents...having just completed my Luis Tiant Master Set...last card is in PSA and should pop any day...I totally agree with ArmourPhil. Oddly, the last card I needed was a 1970 OPC, of which I had already submitted 2 examples, both came back no grade because they were "too small"...off by 1/32 of an inch!! So, I bought a GAI 8 already slabbed in hopes of getting some sympathy from a grader...give me a PSA 1, or whatever and let me end this saga!
It took me over 4 years with some pretty active searches to find all I needed to complete the Composition requirements. I jumped through all the hoops, paid all the prices, some borderline outrageous, some great deals, but did I really need every disc of Tiant with only his pic on the front and the establishments on the back? Did I really need to get the Tiant button that's about the size of a quarter? Did I really need to get both huge Pickoff cards that the only difference was the fact that one says "(UK - (Luis Tiant)", the other "Italy" with a MICROSCOPIC # 13 064 37-09 vs 03 005 37-09? And cost me $100 for the UK card? I think not!! But, I was way far into the set and this was a late add to the Composition. Both cards are otherwise identical. Oh, how I love those obscure Venezuelans.
Are we collecting slabs or cards?
what was the decision in the 1967 punchouts ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
slabs if you are on the registry ... cards if you do not use the registry lol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama