It might be worthwhile considering using a master-editor to simply review/repair articles submitted by hobbyists.
If properly solicited, I am pretty sure many folks would submit material that could be fixed. Compensation could even be grading-vouchers, in some instances. Spending money on pro-writers is not going to deliver a better mag.
................
The notion that a "better" magazine will generate more money is likely false.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
Three things that I would like to see, and would subscribe to a competing magazine (if one existed) for would be:
1: Letters to the editor from hobbyists. There need to be questions and answers with PSA published. Quite honestly, an open submission for a reader driven column every month would be the most read item each issue (see the thread from 41GoudeyGuy if you need evidence of this).
2: Better pricing. I don't see why PSA couldn't co-venture with VCP or cardpricer to have more accurate pricing. It's apparent that your advertising base in SMR is solid, but if pricing is the crux of the magazine, the fact that it is so inaccurate is abhorrent.
3: More coverage of the autograph market; not just profiles of people like Navarro (although that would be good), but comprehensive articles on fakes and what to look for. I would personally love to see an article on multi-signed pieces and the dedication it takes to complete them. Also, it's quite obvious that the signed rookie card market has made a huge step forward in the past 2-3 years. This needs to be covered/profiled.
<< <i> Spending money on pro-writers is not going to deliver a better mag.
................
The notion that a "better" magazine will generate more money is likely false. >>
I don't see how you can argue that the quality of a magazine is not at least partially a function of the quality of the writing. That seems completely counterintuitive. As for the issue of whether or not a better SMR would generate more money, my initial point is that would cost virtually nothing to improve the magazine. That, alone, is a substantial argument for improvement.
"...I don't see how you can argue that the quality of a magazine is not at least partially a function of the quality of the writing. That seems completely counterintuitive. As for the issue of whether or not a better SMR would generate more money, my initial point is that would cost virtually nothing to improve the magazine. That, alone, is a substantial argument for improvement. .."
////////////////////////////////////////
Beautiful and famous mags - written by Pulitzer guys - are dropping like flies. HUNDREDS more will die, in the next 12-months.
"Style" is no longer the commodity being sold.
"Information" is the ONLY product.
In SMR, a good chunck of that info is actually the ads. Yes; folks like to read the ads. Those ads are a big part of the lusting process that feeds EBAY.
.............
I have ZERO clue how to substantially "improve" a magazine by spending "virtually nothing."
Every PSA-member has a stake in SMR not risking/losing whatever net-revs it generates. Money spent - that never comes home - WILL eventually translate into higher membership fees and higher grading fees.
As BOO continues to rightfully note, It is getting harder and harder to make money - break even - on grading costs.
Spending money on SMR upgrades - that cannot be demonstrated to INCREASE revs - moves every member closer to fee hikes.
SMR is a little value-added thingy for the members. Few folks want to pay MORE money to get something "free."
No matter how "well written" SMR becomes, there will NOT be enough of a readership hike to justify ad-rate bumps. THAT means ANY money spent to make SMR "better" is NOT going to be recovered...........UNLESS member fees and costs are boosted.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
The most incredible article that 41goudey thinks he can write up will only appeal to less than half the SMR readers. You have different levels and era of collectors of cards, autos, equipment, memorabilia from baseball, football, basketball, hockey, boxing, and non-sport. Some people will enjoy the read, many won't read it, and some will complain on the boxing trunks collectors forum that 41goudey's article was drivel and call for more stories on boxing trunks. If the Dan Marino article this month doesn't interest you then maybe the next month there will be a baseball or basketball story that will.
<< <i>"...I don't see how you can argue that the quality of a magazine is not at least partially a function of the quality of the writing. That seems completely counterintuitive. As for the issue of whether or not a better SMR would generate more money, my initial point is that would cost virtually nothing to improve the magazine. That, alone, is a substantial argument for improvement. .."
////////////////////////////////////////
Beautiful and famous mags - written by Pulitzer guys - are dropping like flies. HUNDREDS more will die, in the next 12-months.
"Style" is no longer the commodity being sold.
"Information" is the ONLY product.
In SMR, a good chunck of that info is actually the ads. Yes; folks like to read the ads. Those ads are a big part of the lusting process that feeds EBAY.
.............
I have ZERO clue how to substantially "improve" a magazine by spending "virtually nothing."
Every PSA-member has a stake in SMR not risking/losing whatever net-revs it generates. Money spent - that never comes home - WILL eventually translate into higher membership fees and higher grading fees.
As BOO continues to rightfully note, It is getting harder and harder to make money - break even - on grading costs.
Spending money on SMR upgrades - that cannot be demonstrated to INCREASE revs - moves every member closer to fee hikes.
SMR is a little value-added thingy for the members. Few folks want to pay MORE money to get something "free."
No matter how "well written" SMR becomes, there will NOT be enough of a readership hike to justify ad-rate bumps. THAT means ANY money spent to make SMR "better" is NOT going to be recovered...........UNLESS member fees and costs are boosted. >>
You're confusing two issues. Whether or not 'style' can be 'sold' doesn't change the fact that a magazine with good writing is qualitatively better than a magazine with bad writing. And you can 'substantially' improve the magazine by spending 'virtually' nothing by simply getting better writers to write better articles. We're not talking about reinventing the wheel- we're just talking about better feature pieces.
Joe himself has come onto these boards and said the magazine needs to be improved. Whether or not that's just hot air remains to be seen, but that he's taken time out of his weekend to address this matter says something in itself. Does it make financial sense? I don't know. It might, it might not-- but the capital outlay would be so small that it can't hurt to improve it and see what happens.
"...we're just talking about better feature pieces....the capital outlay would be so small that it can't hurt to improve it and see what happens. .."
//////////////////////////////////////////////
Maybe, "small" is a relative thing.
An extra $1K+ a month might not be "small" to SMR.
At least 75% of the time required to produce a first-draft of a nice feature piece should be spent in the research/ interview/compilation phase. Folks who do that work professionally want to get paid for it.
I need my History Magazine and my Smithsonian magazine to be "beautifully written." (Via discount sellers, EACH of those mags can be had for about $10 a year.)
My SMR and my Coin/Currency Dealer Newsletter just need to be readable. (The CDN pubs are kinda expensive.)
Info now has great economic value; style/beauty, not so much.
BUT, a high-end editor can turn most junk into literature. THAT job is already being paid for at SMR. Maybe, cheap or "free" articles should be made better before much thought is given to BUYING more expensive articles.
.............................
Another thing we have to look at:
At some point, production costs will increase. THAT is more money paid out; with no painless way of getting it back.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
And they shouldn't call it SMR. A new collector looks at the cover of SMR and has no clue it is PSA's magazine. I think they are missing an opportunity here. Call it "PSA Monthly" for crying out loud.
I think Beckett's grading service is fed by its magazine. They are still regarded as the authority on pricing, so if a collector (especially of modern stuff) is carrying around one of Beckett's 25 different price guides, it makes sense to me that BGS is where they will send their cards. I have no evidence, but it makes sense that if PSA had a more usable and enjoyable price guide, it would translate into increased submissions (esp. on modern subs), and would pry away a chunk of BGS's customers.
I think the absolute best idea is to have some type of VCP online avail for members, and then use that to update the mag pricing, to me that would make the magazine...
I think using VCP or starting their own version and reporting it in their magazine would be a huge boost.
Also I think they need to better publicize the addition of new sets to the registry so people can see new sets that are available they may want to collect.
Currently completing the following registry sets: Cardinal HOF's, 1961 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1972 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1980 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, Bill Mazeroski Master & Basic Sets, Roberto Clemente Master & Basic Sets, Willie Stargell Master & Basic Sets and Terry Bradshaw Basic Set
Got my Marino SMR in the mail today and WOW. Two cards I've been tracking have had values adjusted (it's not every month you see the SMR being adjusted due to market activity!).
Example A) The first card hasn't been sold in over 6/7 years (very low pop, highend card) and shows a updated value of $625+, the last time this card sold (in the same PSA grade) it sold for $2300, the time before that $10K.
Example This card is apparently on a downward spiral with a update showing at $75- , the only problem here is that (in the same PSA grade) three examples have sold for well over $300 in the past two months.
You can't make this stuff up, it's literally a dis-service to update pricing without any basis (transactions, Ebay, auction houses, etc...).
I think SMR pricing is based on general feeling or overall trends and not based on any single sales data history.
For example the 1975 Topps set has generally been overgraded and alot of the cards have come down in pricing so the SMR has dinged almost every card. However some cards are selling higher then they ever did before but usually the SMR will just take the whole set down all at once.
I also HATE that they removed all non traditional sets, even those that are heavily traded like 1964 Stand Ups. To me you could remove some lightly traded prewar sets and add back the more heavily traded 50s and 60s sets and make it a better magazine.
Currently completing the following registry sets: Cardinal HOF's, 1961 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1972 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1980 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, Bill Mazeroski Master & Basic Sets, Roberto Clemente Master & Basic Sets, Willie Stargell Master & Basic Sets and Terry Bradshaw Basic Set
<< <i>Look, maybe the articles blow, but at least the pricing hasn't been updated in 6 years. If I ever wanted to know what a Patrick Ewing 86 Fleer PSA 9 sold for in 2002, the current SMR is where I would find that info. >>
Lee I totally agree with you. It's ridiculous they don't update the price changes on a more consistent basis.
For example there were 4 closed auctions in Aug & Sept on a PSA 8 1967 Willie Stargell . The prices for those auctions closed at $152, $149, $82 & $79, but the price for that card still shows $55 in the SMR.
"EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY IT SAYS IT RIGHT THERE ON THE WALL" - JACKIE MOON
The problem isn't the prices listed in the SMR. The problem is renegade buyers and sellers not following the guide like it's the 11th commandment. Cards will sell for different prices and it doesn't matter what the guide says. What it lists a Stargell for isn't forcing anyone to buy or sell the card at $152, $149, $82 & $79. If VCP tried to come up with a single price for the card it also wouldn't matter on what the next one sells for.
<< <i>Look, maybe the articles blow, but at least the pricing hasn't been updated in 6 years. If I ever wanted to know what a Patrick Ewing 86 Fleer PSA 9 sold for in 2002, the current SMR is where I would find that info. >>
Lee I totally agree with you. It's ridiculous they don't update the price changes on a more consistent basis.
For example there were 4 closed auctions in Aug & Sept on a PSA 8 1967 Willie Stargell . The prices for those auctions closed at $152, $149, $82 & $79, but the price for that card still shows $55 in the SMR. >>
Hey if they updated the guide regularly, all we would see is downward arrows on anything but the PSA 9 and 10 on 90% of the cards in the magazine. Talk about discouragement to submit anymore cards to PSA if they are not holding their value.
<< <i>Hey if they updated the guide regularly, all we would see is downward arrows on anything but the PSA 9 and 10 on 90% of the cards in the magazine. Talk about discouragement to submit anymore cards to PSA if they are not holding their value. >>
Hey if they updated the guide regularly, all we would see is downward arrows on anything but the PSA 9 and 10 on 90% of the cards in the magazine. Talk about discouragement to submit anymore cards to PSA if they are not holding their value.
Funny enough, this is how Beckett went down the tubes. In the late 90s and early 00s when every dealer and their brother had their entire tables at 50% off, Beckett refused to acknowledge that pretty much everything was going down. This is when people stopped turning to Beckett for pricing info and the market became somewhat of a free-for-all (good times). Things have somewhat stabilized now (for everything that's not super high grade) which can be attributed to the wealth of data and knowledge on the internet.
<<You're confusing two issues. Whether or not 'style' can be 'sold' doesn't change the fact that a magazine with good writing is qualitatively better than a magazine with bad writing. And you can 'substantially' improve the magazine by spending 'virtually' nothing by simply getting better writers to write better articles. We're not talking about reinventing the wheel- we're just talking about better feature pieces.>>
For starters, an increase in the usage of the word "gotten" would help.
<< <i>Last year sometime, Beckett Graded Card Monthly (which I never buy - don't even know if it's still around) ran a real informative and useful article on '71 Topps. I rememeber the '71 Munson was on the cover. Anyway, the article profiled common cards and star cards from the set and included an interesting breakdown of the toughest cards in the set as a ratio of % of 9s to # submitted (or something like that). I remember really enjoying the article and the comparison charts that went with it. SMR could do this type of thing easy with the right people involved. >>
Becket Graded Card Monthly is still around. I have a subscription -- it is published every other month (six times a year). The articles have been going down hill over the past six months or so, but I think the graded vintage pricing is pretty good and well worth the price of the magazine...
I have twelve Sports Cards videos on youtube w/ over 75,000 views in total!! Vintage cards like 1951 Mantle, 33 Goudey Ruth, T206 Cobb, etc (copy and paste link below):
Just for the record we have been trying to do something with PSA to bring you better results in the SMR for a few years now. Have contacted Joe and waiting for a response.
<< <i>Just for the record we have been trying to do something with PSA to bring you better results in the SMR for a few years now. Have contacted Joe and waiting for a response. >>
That couldn't happen quickly enough.
Looking for rare Randy Moss rookies and autos, as well as '97 PMG Red Football cards for my set.
To repeat what I posted earlier: With a couple of additions based on other aspects I have seen noted on these boards.
As a former Beckett guy; I don't want to say anything too negative BUT there are various issues with the SMR that could be fixed.
1) I actually subscribed to the SMR and never got a renewal notice. Even if I'm the only paying sub; improve the CS for the magazine.
2) Please do not price cards in conditions that don't exist; when I posted that comment on Net 54 (with the caveat noted above about the sub) several people confirmed that condition still existed. I'll amend that to say, in addition, don't price cards with limited POP's. The thread about the 1962 Topps Gaylord Perry is a good reason why you don't always price cards with low pops. I checked the card after that thread and 11 copies have been graded 9's. That sample size is likely too small to have an SMR price. In a case such as that; you note individual sales.
3) Make a decision as to whether the price guide is a 1980's Scott's Catalog type price guide (Suggested SRP) or a price guide based on transactions. Either decision is actually fine; but annouce what you are and move on. I'm personally in favor of transaction pricing (VCP and/or Card Pricer); but to keep your dealers/advertisers happy a suggested SRP price is acceptable.
4) Boopotts said hire him as a free-lancer; I'll make the same suggestion for myself as a price guide person Having done that work full-time for 17 years and then on contract for the next two -- there's nothing hard about fixing some of the issues in SMR pricing. This is not brain surgery or rocket science. But it will take a little bit of time to figure out what exactly is needed. Pricing is an "art" to some extent. On that Stargell card noted, you could not please anyone if you tried. And thinking about the Stargell card even more; you'd check to see whom the sellers (or buyers) were of the higher priced cards or of the lower priced cards. That's where an extra step comes in very handy.
5) I'll also note that one of the hardest aspects of "pricing" is that, in many cases, we are dealing with a moving target. Many cards are stable and I suspect that their value is pretty easy to set in stone. However; one should focus on the most influential or variable cards for the longest amount of time. Modern players tend to fluctuate more because their values are performance related while more time spent on key cards is time well spent. I'm surmising from what I've read that the pricing people tend to focus on specific cards/sets that they hear from collectors about.
6) Look, pricing *IS* a full-time job and so is being the editor of SMR. Anything less and we are seeing the results. And the SMR guide should be more complete and posted on-line. The noting that many sets have been taken out of the SMR is not a good sign. Post them all on-line where you don't have a print cost for paper, running the printing press, etc.
7) SMR should be a good publication and the reason I say this (and I said the SAME thing in Net 54) is that anytime Joe spends on this (except as Executive Editor to make big decisions) is time he can not spend at CU helping to make more money for the corporation. Hopefully; he can convince the powers that be as a public company of that fact.
Regards Rich
Plano, Tx. Card Show #5, Sunday March 6, 2016 at Adat Chaverim (Northeast Corner Independence and Spring Creek) in Plano Tx 9Am to 4 PM. See you there!
<< <i>since our memberships would be cheaper if they just got rid of it >>
I disagree with this part of your post Boo...the ads surely pay in full for the production of SMR. It's used as an "added value" tool so that they can say you get it for free with your membership. My guess is that it's cost neutral for Collectors Universe. >>
/////////////////////////////////
They may even make a smidge.
In which case, in theory, the membership fee is likely kept a tad lower than it might otherwise be.
...........
I find it excellent bathroom reading. >>
i Agree!
Kevin Glew.... has a way with words......i love PROPRIETOR
I've had some suggestions for the SMR in the past and I think the spirit of those have already been posted in this thread so I won't bother posting them again.
But I will make one suggestion, knowing full well that it isn't likely to be incorporated, and that would be to use Josh Wilker from the Cardboard Gods blog to write one of his essays for the magazine each month. I think a healthy portion of us are in this hobby because we have a connection to the cards we collected in our youth and we used to worship those "cardboard gods" pictured on the front of those cards. Wilker's thoughts on the cards, the players, and how they intersected with his life make for entertaining and thoughtful reads and it would remind SMR readers why they are reading the SMR in the first place.
The only way it would be useful to me would be linking the pricing to VCP or cardpricer, that would make a huge difference. Using the sold averages for card in sets we collect would be great, it would also be cool to see the set values as tracked by vcp, knowing what a 1975 Topps set in PSA 7, 8 and 9 is selling for based on closed ebay deals would be a huge value. Even if at first you didnt do it for the full guide but picked out a couple sets to highligh with currect prices would work. An issue that had artices on the 1956 Topps baseball set, 1971 Topps Football set and a player set then followed those up with currect pricing would get my attention for sure.
I also agree it should be called PSA monthly or something along those lines.
<< <i>The only way it would be useful to me would be linking the pricing to VCP or cardpricer, that would make a huge difference. Using the sold averages for card in sets we collect would be great, it would also be cool to see the set values as tracked by vcp, knowing what a 1975 Topps set in PSA 7, 8 and 9 is selling for based on closed ebay deals would be a huge value. Even if at first you didnt do it for the full guide but picked out a couple sets to highligh with currect prices would work. An issue that had artices on the 1956 Topps baseball set, 1971 Topps Football set and a player set then followed those up with currect pricing would get my attention for sure.
I also agree it should be called PSA monthly or something along those lines. >>
with the digital smr being pushed i wonder if the print is on the way out, obviously digital would be insanely cheaper, doesn't seem like anyone would miss the print version, as for people that mentioned the ads, you could still pump a card pricer style smr format with ads, I think advertisers think they are getting more views than they are in reality in the print version, would have to see if they would be okay with a digital version.
Comments
////////////////////////////////////////////////////
It might be worthwhile considering using a master-editor
to simply review/repair articles submitted by hobbyists.
If properly solicited, I am pretty sure many folks would
submit material that could be fixed. Compensation could
even be grading-vouchers, in some instances. Spending
money on pro-writers is not going to deliver a better mag.
................
The notion that a "better" magazine will generate more
money is likely false.
Three things that I would like to see, and would subscribe to a competing magazine (if one existed) for would be:
1: Letters to the editor from hobbyists. There need to be questions and answers with PSA published. Quite honestly, an open submission for a reader driven column every month would be the most read item each issue (see the thread from 41GoudeyGuy if you need evidence of this).
2: Better pricing. I don't see why PSA couldn't co-venture with VCP or cardpricer to have more accurate pricing. It's apparent that your advertising base in SMR is solid, but if pricing is the crux of the magazine, the fact that it is so inaccurate is abhorrent.
3: More coverage of the autograph market; not just profiles of people like Navarro (although that would be good), but comprehensive articles on fakes and what to look for. I would personally love to see an article on multi-signed pieces and the dedication it takes to complete them. Also, it's quite obvious that the signed rookie card market has made a huge step forward in the past 2-3 years. This needs to be covered/profiled.
Thanks,
Mike
My Podcast - Now FEATURED on iTunes
<< <i> Spending
money on pro-writers is not going to deliver a better mag.
................
The notion that a "better" magazine will generate more
money is likely false. >>
I don't see how you can argue that the quality of a magazine is not at least partially a function of the quality of the writing. That seems completely counterintuitive. As for the issue of whether or not a better SMR would generate more money, my initial point is that would cost virtually nothing to improve the magazine. That, alone, is a substantial argument for improvement.
////////////////////////////////////////
Beautiful and famous mags - written by Pulitzer guys - are dropping like flies.
HUNDREDS more will die, in the next 12-months.
"Style" is no longer the commodity being sold.
"Information" is the ONLY product.
In SMR, a good chunck of that info is actually the ads. Yes; folks like to read the ads.
Those ads are a big part of the lusting process that feeds EBAY.
.............
I have ZERO clue how to substantially "improve" a magazine by spending "virtually nothing."
Every PSA-member has a stake in SMR not risking/losing whatever net-revs it generates.
Money spent - that never comes home - WILL eventually translate into higher membership
fees and higher grading fees.
As BOO continues to rightfully note, It is getting harder and harder to make money - break
even - on grading costs.
Spending money on SMR upgrades - that cannot be demonstrated to INCREASE revs - moves
every member closer to fee hikes.
SMR is a little value-added thingy for the members. Few folks want to pay MORE money to
get something "free."
No matter how "well written" SMR becomes, there will NOT be enough of a readership hike
to justify ad-rate bumps. THAT means ANY money spent to make SMR "better" is NOT going
to be recovered...........UNLESS member fees and costs are boosted.
<< <i>"...I don't see how you can argue that the quality of a magazine is not at least partially a function of the quality of the writing. That seems completely counterintuitive. As for the issue of whether or not a better SMR would generate more money, my initial point is that would cost virtually nothing to improve the magazine. That, alone, is a substantial argument for improvement. .."
////////////////////////////////////////
Beautiful and famous mags - written by Pulitzer guys - are dropping like flies.
HUNDREDS more will die, in the next 12-months.
"Style" is no longer the commodity being sold.
"Information" is the ONLY product.
In SMR, a good chunck of that info is actually the ads. Yes; folks like to read the ads.
Those ads are a big part of the lusting process that feeds EBAY.
.............
I have ZERO clue how to substantially "improve" a magazine by spending "virtually nothing."
Every PSA-member has a stake in SMR not risking/losing whatever net-revs it generates.
Money spent - that never comes home - WILL eventually translate into higher membership
fees and higher grading fees.
As BOO continues to rightfully note, It is getting harder and harder to make money - break
even - on grading costs.
Spending money on SMR upgrades - that cannot be demonstrated to INCREASE revs - moves
every member closer to fee hikes.
SMR is a little value-added thingy for the members. Few folks want to pay MORE money to
get something "free."
No matter how "well written" SMR becomes, there will NOT be enough of a readership hike
to justify ad-rate bumps. THAT means ANY money spent to make SMR "better" is NOT going
to be recovered...........UNLESS member fees and costs are boosted. >>
You're confusing two issues. Whether or not 'style' can be 'sold' doesn't change the fact that a magazine with good writing is qualitatively better than a magazine with bad writing. And you can 'substantially' improve the magazine by spending 'virtually' nothing by simply getting better writers to write better articles. We're not talking about reinventing the wheel- we're just talking about better feature pieces.
Joe himself has come onto these boards and said the magazine needs to be improved. Whether or not that's just hot air remains to be seen, but that he's taken time out of his weekend to address this matter says something in itself. Does it make financial sense? I don't know. It might, it might not-- but the capital outlay would be so small that it can't hurt to improve it and see what happens.
//////////////////////////////////////////////
Maybe, "small" is a relative thing.
An extra $1K+ a month might not be "small" to SMR.
At least 75% of the time required to produce a first-draft
of a nice feature piece should be spent in the research/
interview/compilation phase. Folks who do that work
professionally want to get paid for it.
I need my History Magazine and my Smithsonian magazine
to be "beautifully written." (Via discount sellers, EACH
of those mags can be had for about $10 a year.)
My SMR and my Coin/Currency Dealer Newsletter just need
to be readable. (The CDN pubs are kinda expensive.)
Info now has great economic value; style/beauty, not so much.
BUT, a high-end editor can turn most junk into literature.
THAT job is already being paid for at SMR. Maybe, cheap
or "free" articles should be made better before much
thought is given to BUYING more expensive articles.
.............................
Another thing we have to look at:
At some point, production costs will increase. THAT is
more money paid out; with no painless way of getting
it back.
I think Beckett's grading service is fed by its magazine. They are still regarded as the authority on pricing, so if a collector (especially of modern stuff) is carrying around one of Beckett's 25 different price guides, it makes sense to me that BGS is where they will send their cards. I have no evidence, but it makes sense that if PSA had a more usable and enjoyable price guide, it would translate into increased submissions (esp. on modern subs), and would pry away a chunk of BGS's customers.
Also I think they need to better publicize the addition of new sets to the registry so people can see new sets that are available they may want to collect.
Example A) The first card hasn't been sold in over 6/7 years (very low pop, highend card) and shows a updated value of $625+, the last time this card sold (in the same PSA grade) it sold for $2300, the time before that $10K.
Example
You can't make this stuff up, it's literally a dis-service to update pricing without any basis (transactions, Ebay, auction houses, etc...).
For example the 1975 Topps set has generally been overgraded and alot of the cards have come down in pricing so the SMR has dinged almost every card. However some cards are selling higher then they ever did before but usually the SMR will just take the whole set down all at once.
I also HATE that they removed all non traditional sets, even those that are heavily traded like 1964 Stand Ups. To me you could remove some lightly traded prewar sets and add back the more heavily traded 50s and 60s sets and make it a better magazine.
<< <i>Look, maybe the articles blow, but at least the pricing hasn't been updated in 6 years. If I ever wanted to know what a Patrick Ewing 86 Fleer PSA 9 sold for in 2002, the current SMR is where I would find that info. >>
Lee I totally agree with you. It's ridiculous they don't update the price changes on a more consistent basis.
For example there were 4 closed auctions in Aug & Sept on a PSA 8 1967 Willie Stargell . The prices for those auctions closed at $152, $149, $82 & $79, but the price for that card still shows $55 in the SMR.
My Sandberg topps basic set
My Sandberg Topps Master set
<< <i>
<< <i>Look, maybe the articles blow, but at least the pricing hasn't been updated in 6 years. If I ever wanted to know what a Patrick Ewing 86 Fleer PSA 9 sold for in 2002, the current SMR is where I would find that info. >>
Lee I totally agree with you. It's ridiculous they don't update the price changes on a more consistent basis.
For example there were 4 closed auctions in Aug & Sept on a PSA 8 1967 Willie Stargell . The prices for those auctions closed at $152, $149, $82 & $79, but the price for that card still shows $55 in the SMR. >>
Hey if they updated the guide regularly, all we would see is downward arrows on anything but the PSA 9 and 10 on 90% of the cards in the magazine. Talk about discouragement to submit anymore cards to PSA if they are not holding their value.
<< <i>Hey if they updated the guide regularly, all we would see is downward arrows on anything but the PSA 9 and 10 on 90% of the cards in the magazine. Talk about discouragement to submit anymore cards to PSA if they are not holding their value. >>
That's a very good point
Funny enough, this is how Beckett went down the tubes. In the late 90s and early 00s when every dealer and their brother had their entire tables at 50% off, Beckett refused to acknowledge that pretty much everything was going down. This is when people stopped turning to Beckett for pricing info and the market became somewhat of a free-for-all (good times). Things have somewhat stabilized now (for everything that's not super high grade) which can be attributed to the wealth of data and knowledge on the internet.
If he took Q & A's and published them, that would go over well with me, too.
Has anyone ever seen the SMR on a newsstand?
<< <i>The only article I read is Joe's piece at the front.
If he took Q & A's and published them, that would go over well with me, too.
Has anyone ever seen the SMR on a newsstand? >>
My local book/magazine store used to carry it, but that was about 3-4 years ago (they no longer do)
For starters, an increase in the usage of the word "gotten" would help.
<< <i>Last year sometime, Beckett Graded Card Monthly (which I never buy - don't even know if it's still around) ran a real informative and useful article on '71 Topps. I rememeber the '71 Munson was on the cover. Anyway, the article profiled common cards and star cards from the set and included an interesting breakdown of the toughest cards in the set as a ratio of % of 9s to # submitted (or something like that). I remember really enjoying the article and the comparison charts that went with it. SMR could do this type of thing easy with the right people involved. >>
Becket Graded Card Monthly is still around. I have a subscription -- it is published every other month (six times a year). The articles have been going down hill over the past six months or so, but I think the graded vintage pricing is pretty good and well worth the price of the magazine...
http://www.youtube.com/user/dzolot
Thanks for watching. Hope you enjoyed!!
- I would encourage all collectors to post a video of their collection - I have found it to be a very rewarding way to share my sports cards!!
<< <i>Just for the record we have been trying to do something with PSA to bring you better results in the SMR for a few years now. Have contacted Joe and waiting for a response. >>
That couldn't happen quickly enough.
As a former Beckett guy; I don't want to say anything too negative BUT there are various issues with the SMR that could be fixed.
1) I actually subscribed to the SMR and never got a renewal notice. Even if I'm the only paying sub; improve the CS for the magazine.
2) Please do not price cards in conditions that don't exist; when I posted that comment on Net 54 (with the caveat noted above about the sub) several people confirmed that condition still existed.
I'll amend that to say, in addition, don't price cards with limited POP's. The thread about the 1962 Topps Gaylord Perry is a good reason why you don't always price cards with low pops. I checked the card after that thread and 11 copies have been graded 9's. That sample size is likely too small to have an SMR price. In a case such as that; you note individual sales.
3) Make a decision as to whether the price guide is a 1980's Scott's Catalog type price guide (Suggested SRP) or a price guide based on transactions. Either decision is actually fine; but annouce what you are and move on. I'm personally in favor of transaction pricing (VCP and/or Card Pricer); but to keep your dealers/advertisers happy a suggested SRP price is acceptable.
4) Boopotts said hire him as a free-lancer; I'll make the same suggestion for myself as a price guide person Having done that work full-time for 17 years and then on contract for the next two -- there's nothing hard about fixing some of the issues in SMR pricing. This is not brain surgery or rocket science. But it will take a little bit of time to figure out what exactly is needed. Pricing is an "art" to some extent. On that Stargell card noted, you could not please anyone if you tried. And thinking about the Stargell card even more; you'd check to see whom the sellers (or buyers) were of the higher priced cards or of the lower priced cards. That's where an extra step comes in very handy.
5) I'll also note that one of the hardest aspects of "pricing" is that, in many cases, we are dealing with a moving target. Many cards are stable and I suspect that their value is pretty easy to set in stone. However; one should focus on the most influential or variable cards for the longest amount of time. Modern players tend to fluctuate more because their values are performance related while more time spent on key cards is time well spent. I'm surmising from what I've read that the pricing people tend to focus on specific cards/sets that they hear from collectors about.
6) Look, pricing *IS* a full-time job and so is being the editor of SMR. Anything less and we are seeing the results. And the SMR guide should be more complete and posted on-line. The noting that many sets have been taken out of the SMR is not a good sign. Post them all on-line where you don't have a print cost for paper, running the printing press, etc.
7) SMR should be a good publication and the reason I say this (and I said the SAME thing in Net 54) is that anytime Joe spends on this (except as Executive Editor to make big decisions) is time he can not spend at CU helping to make more money for the corporation. Hopefully; he can convince the powers that be as a public company of that fact.
Regards
Rich
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>since our memberships would be cheaper if they just got rid of it >>
I disagree with this part of your post Boo...the ads surely pay in full for the production of SMR. It's used as an "added value" tool so that they can say you get it for free with your membership. My guess is that it's cost neutral for Collectors Universe. >>
/////////////////////////////////
They may even make a smidge.
In which case, in theory, the membership fee is likely kept a
tad lower than it might otherwise be.
...........
I find it excellent bathroom reading. >>
i Agree!
Kevin Glew.... has a way with words......i love PROPRIETOR
I would like to see more articles, and in greater depth, with more pictures of the cards.
And maybe add a "letters to the editor" section, like Coin World does - this is one of the most popular sections of that magazine.
The card prices are less interesting to me, maybe that could be changed to every other month to save space.
But I will make one suggestion, knowing full well that it isn't likely to be incorporated, and that would be to use Josh Wilker from the Cardboard Gods blog to write one of his essays for the magazine each month. I think a healthy portion of us are in this hobby because we have a connection to the cards we collected in our youth and we used to worship those "cardboard gods" pictured on the front of those cards. Wilker's thoughts on the cards, the players, and how they intersected with his life make for entertaining and thoughtful reads and it would remind SMR readers why they are reading the SMR in the first place.
I also agree it should be called PSA monthly or something along those lines.
<< <i>The only way it would be useful to me would be linking the pricing to VCP or cardpricer, that would make a huge difference. Using the sold averages for card in sets we collect would be great, it would also be cool to see the set values as tracked by vcp, knowing what a 1975 Topps set in PSA 7, 8 and 9 is selling for based on closed ebay deals would be a huge value. Even if at first you didnt do it for the full guide but picked out a couple sets to highligh with currect prices would work. An issue that had artices on the 1956 Topps baseball set, 1971 Topps Football set and a player set then followed those up with currect pricing would get my attention for sure.
I also agree it should be called PSA monthly or something along those lines. >>
with the digital smr being pushed i wonder if the print is on the way out, obviously digital would be insanely cheaper, doesn't seem like anyone would miss the print version, as for people that mentioned the ads, you could still pump a card pricer style smr format with ads, I think advertisers think they are getting more views than they are in reality in the print version, would have to see if they would be okay with a digital version.