Why do you have to own the card to have it added to a PSA sets composition?

MULLINS5 · April 22, 2009 7:04AM

I am curious about this because there are some cards that I do not have in a player's set, but I asked PSA (BJ) about adding cards that I do not own (but have been graded by PSA in the past) He said that the policy is that you must own the card in order to have it added to the set composition...

I know that adding these cards will lower my percentage and overall grade, but to me it is more important to have an accurate checklist to go by. Does anybody know why this is the policy? Am I missing something here?

Thanks in advance,

Patrick

RipublicaninMass · April 22, 2009 7:06AM

I honestly have no clue. I DO remember one person trying to add "the cards that never were" from the 55 topps set that were given out at the national to the original 55 topps set. It came to light this person had about 1000 copies of each card and was merely interested in profiting from graded examples.

SDSportsFan · April 22, 2009 3:08PM

OK, say you add a card to your registry set, and you don't actually own the card. Later on, the card's real owner tries to add it to their registry set...they can't, since it's in your set. So basically, it infringes on the card's rightful owner's right/privilege to have the card reflected in their set.

Steve

Jeff85fan · April 22, 2009 3:26PM

<< OK, say you add a card to your registry set, and you don't actually own the card. Later on, the card's real owner tries to add it to their registry set...they can't, since it's in your set. So basically, it infringes on the card's rightful owner's right/privilege to have the card reflected in their set.

Steve >>

I think what the OP is trying to do is get more cards added to the composition of the set, not adding specific serial numbered cards to his own set?

GDM67 · April 22, 2009 7:36PM

<< I think what the OP is trying to do is get more cards added to the composition of the set, not adding specific serial numbered cards to his own set? >>

That's how I took it, too. It's a good question.

In addition to having a good set, I think most of us want a composite that is as accurate and complete as possible. The current process doesn't always make that as easy as I would like it to be.

bman90278 · April 22, 2009 10:02PM

I don't think its right to add cards to your registry that you don't own unless the card owner gives u permission. Although I'm not a registry person I don't think it sounds right. Just wondering where you would be getting the cert #'s for cards you want to add? Either way, good luck to you on your registry.

brian

scotgreb · April 22, 2009 10:27PM

"When good threads go bad" . . . tonight on Fox.

PoppaJ · April 22, 2009 10:56PM

Keywords to the answer for this question might be Ownership and Competition.

Or maybe, For Members Only.

I would think that, for many competitive registry set owners, (especially the the top 5 or so), having cards added to their set by a non-registry set owner just wouldn't seem ethical; almost like if you're not a registry set owner .... keep out; don't sabotage my completion rate.

Part of the fun and competitiveness of being a registry owner is finding new compositions that will upgrade your set's completion rate while pushing you up the ranks ahead of your comrades, so to speak.

If a non-registry set owner would be able to add to the compo of a registry set, who would ever know if/when a card still existed if say it was cracked out, etc.? I would think that a bonafide registry set owner would be more responsible.

Imagine that you've finally completed your registry set. The next day you're at 97% as a result of a non-registry set owner adding a few cards to the compo. Yes, this happens all the time with registry set owners, but it is accepted with a certain amount of understanding as being part of the game.

Maybe most importantly would be that it already takes forever to have a card added to the composition now .... imagine the waiting time if non-registry owners could start requesting.

JMHO,
PoppaJ

baseballjeff · April 23, 2009 2:13AM

I know people add cards to the registry that I don't have. What the heck?!

tunahead08 · April 23, 2009 2:20AM

I wouldn't mind people being add to the composition, like GDM67 said above, I'd rather have a more complete checklist, and I don't care who adds new cards. It's just the way the game goes. Right now, the Ripken master set, even at 2,366 cards is very incomplete.

You could always cheat and add the card to your registry, submit it to add to the composition, and then delete it from your inventory. (Then wait 6 months for the card to be added)

SDSportsFan · April 23, 2009 2:21AM

<< 

<< OK, say you add a card to your registry set, and you don't actually own the card. Later on, the card's real owner tries to add it to their registry set...they can't, since it's in your set. So basically, it infringes on the card's rightful owner's right/privilege to have the card reflected in their set.

Steve >>

I think what the OP is trying to do is get more cards added to the composition of the set, not adding specific serial numbered cards to his own set? >>

Ahhh, good point!

I'll blame my previous response on it being late at night, I was tired and hadn't been drinkin'

Steve

MULLINS5 · April 23, 2009 3:15PM

To me it is important to have an accurate checklist. If PSA would allow people to add a card even though they do not have the card then that set will be more accurate. Imagine back in the day if you opened a pack of 1985 cards and you had an incomplete checklist...you would not even know which cards to look out for.

Patrick

GDM67 · April 23, 2009 3:47PM

I'm not talking about adding specific cert numbers and I don't think MULLINS5 is, either. I'm talking about adding any card that is eligible for inclusion under PSA guidelines to a Master set when one example is graded by PSA, not just when it's requested by the owner of that card.

gumbyfan · April 23, 2009 11:10PM

<< "When good threads go bad" . . . tonight on Fox. >>

WinPitcher · April 23, 2009 11:36PM

Actually they have. A few times people that were building a specific set were asked
what cards they wanted included. I am almost positive some mentioned and had cards
put into sets before they owned them. I would think they want you to own the card
that you are requesting to keep the number of requests down.

Steve

johnny1976 · April 24, 2009 1:37AM

I wouldn't have a problem with getting the cards added that you didn't own. I like the idea of a complete check list. The only problem I would have is if the card being added was the only one graded of its kind. On the other hand I thought I read some where that in order to add a card to a set, the card being added had to have at least 3 of the same cards graded?

gumbyfan · April 24, 2009 2:45AM

<< On the other hand I thought I read some where that in order to add a card to a set, the card being added had to have at least 3 of the same cards graded? >>

I have a number of cards in my registry sets that are the only examples graded.

NickM · April 24, 2009 8:41AM

johnny - that only applies to non-mainstream issues (and they are added as optional cards if less than 3 have been graded).

I would go with what tunahead recommended.

Nick

Why do you have to own the card to have it added to a PSA sets composition?

Comments