How Ridiculous

[oldjudge]

PSA has come out with their 2010 registry awards and the second best 1914 Cracker Jack set has received the "Best Vintage Pre-War Baseball Set of the Year" award. How can this be? The best set, owned by Peter Garcia, is missing four cards, but has a set rating of 6.15. The winning set, owned by PSA multi-award winner Don Spence, has a set rating of 5.19. The 6.15 set rating for Peter's set assumes no value for the four missing cards and, even with this penalty, it is still almost a full grade better than Don's set. Does this make sense to anyone here? Say it ain't so, Joe.

[barrysloate]

It makes even less sense because the best 1914 Cracker Jack set is light years ahead of either of these, so why bother?

[Rob D.]

Here's another example (on SGC's registry) that I've noticed for some time that makes no sense.

The following link is to a complete Butter Cream set, which includes the Ruth (!), and is listed as the second-best set with a "superiority" rating of 40.49:

http://www.sgccardregistry.com/set.aspx?cat=1&set=374&userset=1398

The following set is missing only the Ruth, but because the overall condition is better, is listed No. 1 with a rating of 42.68:

http://www.sgccardregistry.com/set.aspx?cat=1&set=374&userset=5062

I don't get wrapped up in registry rankings, so I find it more funny than anything else that a Butter Cream set missing the Ruth -- one of the truly rare cards in our hobby -- can be judged "superior" to one than has it. I'd say there's a serious flaw in the formulas the companies use.

The Butter Cream rankings:

http://www.sgccardregistry.com/registry.aspx?cat=1&set=374

[Bicem]

people still care about the Registry? :confused:

[slidekellyslide]

people still care about the Registry? :confused:

Are people still paying thousands of dollars for a common 1960 baseball card?

[Peter_Spaeth]

1. An incomplete set is not a set.
2. Politics.
3. Whatever happened to Peter Garcia?

[Matthew H]

It makes even less sense because the best 1914 Cracker Jack set is light years ahead of either of these, so why bother?

I agree, PSA has no business handing out a "Best Vintage Pre-War Baseball Set of the year award" to a 1914 CJ set. That would be SGC's award to give.

OT- Here's my chance to address QC and a customer service issue that I have with PSA. I just received my last submission that I sent to them with Express service. The card came back with a deep scratch in the case straight through the face of the player on the front. How could that pass QC?

I called customer service and they offered me a free re holder service that takes 2 weeks. I paid 35$ to get this card back in a week, now I have to send it back which will cost me close to 20$ for shipping and insurance. I also have to wait 2 weeks for them to spend 2 minutes reholdering a card.

Frustrating.

[Bicem]

3. Whatever happened to Peter Garcia?

lost interest in cards

[Peter_Spaeth]

lost interest in cards

Peter was relatively young when he came onto the scene, seemingly with very large funds at his disposal, and predictably some of the big PSA dealers put him into some very expensive, and perhaps overpriced, high end cards.

[glchen]

I don't really think this is something to quibble over. I'm not really sure we know how PSA arrived at the best set of the year. Maybe in 2010, Don Spence added the most cards/upgrades to his Cracker Jack set, and Peter Garcia did absolutely nothing to his set. Then the argument would be how can someone win the best set of the year when they didn't change it at all the entire year? I'm just saying we don't know all the thinking that went into the award. Also, IMHO, just because SGC has a better Cracker Jack set, doesn't mean PSA can't give an award to it if it wants. There are a whole bunch of PSA sets that are better than SGC, and if SGC wanted to award one of the sets that PSA has a better version of, all the more power to SGC.

About the reholdering, I also think that something that just happens, and 2 weeks turnaround is reasonable. I would argue that the turnaround time in a way is not to receive the card back, but to know the grade the card got. (And I know this is very debateable.) I've received damaged holders from SGC after grading, and I've similarly been offered complimentary reholdering. It's a pain and costs money to have to ship it back, but things like this happen. Annoying, but no biggie to me.

[Matthew H]

I don't really think this is something to quibble over. I'm not really sure we know how PSA arrived at the best set of the year. Maybe in 2010, Don Spence added the most cards/upgrades to his Cracker Jack set, and Peter Garcia did absolutely nothing to his set. Then the argument would be how can someone win the best set of the year when they didn't change it at all the entire year? I'm just saying we don't know all the thinking that went into the award. Also, IMHO, just because SGC has a better Cracker Jack set, doesn't mean PSA can't give an award to it if it wants. There are a whole bunch of PSA sets that are better than SGC, and if SGC wanted to award one of the sets that PSA has a better version of, all the more power to SGC.

About the reholdering, I also think that something that just happens, and 2 weeks turnaround is reasonable. I would argue that the turnaround time in a way is not to receive the card back, but to know the grade the card got. (And I know this is very debateable.) I've received damaged holders from SGC after grading, and I've similarly been offered complimentary reholdering. It's a pain and costs money to have to ship it back, but things like this happen. Annoying, but no biggie to me.



PSA can award whoever for whatever they want, fine.

I just think that If I have to pay for shipping for their mistake, then they could at least reholder the card asap. Not that I will ever stop using their service. I live within an hour of their headquaters and everything I ship to them gets there the next day.

I probably don't have a valid complaint but it's very fresh in my mind. (yesterday)

It has now cost me a total 92$ to have this card graded express (had no choice due to declared value). There was really nothing express about it.

[barrysloate]

Why doesn't PSA choose to honor a set that is not only a first-rate PSA graded one, but one that is the finest of its kind in the hobby? I'm sure there are dozens of sets that would fit the category.

That's why it seems odd that they would choose to honor a 14 CJ set, when in fact the discovery set graded by SGC a few years ago is arguably the greatest vintage card set ever assembled. It just seems like a curious choice. Of course they can do whatever they want.

[Bicem]

Peter was relatively young when he came onto the scene, seemingly with very large funds at his disposal, and predictably some of the big PSA dealers put him into some very expensive, and perhaps overpriced, high end cards.

Last I spoke with him, which was long ago, he was losing his interest in cards and gaining more interest in Topps original artwork used for cards.

[Leon]

Last I spoke with him, which was long ago, he was losing his interest in cards and gaining more interest in Topps original artwork used for cards.

Peter G is another Great Texas guy. I am not biased, I promise ;). He did sign up for the board not too long ago, I think. I do know he has lost some interest in cards over the last few years. He and I have always got along very well when we have met. He's a very nice young guy. regards

[Exhibitman]

Why doesn't PSA choose to honor a set that is not only a first-rate PSA graded one, but one that is the finest of its kind in the hobby? I'm sure there are dozens of sets that would fit the category.

That's why it seems odd that they would choose to honor a 14 CJ set, when in fact the discovery set graded by SGC a few years ago is arguably the greatest vintage card set ever assembled. It just seems like a curious choice. Of course they can do whatever they want.

Some sets are more equal than others...

None of this is surprising if you understand that these aren't awards as we think of them but are PSA marketing tools. PSA's management figured out some time ago that stroking collector egos and pushing collectors to compete with one another to see whose is 'better' was a great way to generate buzz and promote its business. PSA has a history of not recognizing the existence of non-PSA products [see the T220 silver checklist, which is missing card because (as JO told me when I sent PSA a correction list for some of its boxing checklists) PSA hasn't slabbed one, or the so-called master list for Jack Dempsey, which is missing many cards because PSA won't slab exhibit boxing but will slab exhibit baseball], so the SGC or any other set is irrelevant to their purpose, pushing PSA product. They probably honored the 2nd rate CJ set to give Mr. #1 a kick in the pants and get him competing again.

[barrysloate]

I'm sure you are right Adam.

[Jewish-collector]

Should I show JO this thread when I see him in Baltimore ? :D

[egbeachley]

Very nice Adam. You just concisely answered what I felt was unanswerable.

[Exhibitman]

Here's another example (on SGC's registry) that I've noticed for some time that makes no sense.

The following link is to a complete Butter Cream set, which includes the Ruth (!), and is listed as the second-best set with a "superiority" rating of 40.49:

http://www.sgccardregistry.com/set.aspx?cat=1&set=374&userset=1398

The following set is missing only the Ruth, but because the overall condition is better, is listed No. 1 with a rating of 42.68:

http://www.sgccardregistry.com/set.aspx?cat=1&set=374&userset=5062

I don't get wrapped up in registry rankings, so I find it more funny than anything else that a Butter Cream set missing the Ruth -- one of the truly rare cards in our hobby -- can be judged "superior" to one than has it. I'd say there's a serious flaw in the formulas the companies use.

The Butter Cream rankings:

http://www.sgccardregistry.com/registry.aspx?cat=1&set=374


One of the problems with the SGC registry (and perhaps the PSA one too, for all I know) is that the ratings on the cards do not have a sufficient 'power' spread to account for extremely rare short printed cards like the BC Ruth, the US Caramel Lindstrom, T220 silver Donovan, etc. Rating the BC Ruth as 2x the BC Foxx vastly undervalues the Ruth and skews any comparison.

[Theoldprofessor]

I agree, PSA has no business handing out a "Best Vintage Pre-War Baseball Set of the year award" to a 1914 CJ set. That would be SGC's award to give.

OT- Here's my chance to address QC and a customer service issue that I have with PSA. I just received my last submission that I sent to them with Express service. The card came back with a deep scratch in the case straight through the face of the player on the front. How could that pass QC?

I called customer service and they offered me a free re holder service that takes 2 weeks. I paid 35$ to get this card back in a week, now I have to send it back which will cost me close to 20$ for shipping and insurance. I also have to wait 2 weeks for them to spend 2 minutes reholdering a card.

Frustrating.

Same tune ... How could QC not notice that (take yourr pick) Foley White and Whitey Alperman, or Fred Clarke and Clark Griffith, are different people? And of course they'll fix their mistakes, and of course it will cost me more bucks than it should, for the privilege.

And yes, everybody makes mistakes. And yes, including me. But why should PSA's errors end up costing their subscribers?

[JamesGallo]

One of the problems with the SGC registry (and perhaps the PSA one too, for all I know) is that the ratings on the cards do not have a sufficient 'power' spread to account for extremely rare short printed cards like the BC Ruth, the US Caramel Lindstrom, T220 silver Donovan, etc. Rating the BC Ruth as 2x the BC Foxx vastly undervalues the Ruth and skews any comparison.

Adam,

SGC will address this and I just had them adjust the power rating on a card in the Boston store set. It was a 4 which was the same as many other HOF, however the card is a RC, and is perhaps the lest graded card in the set. After a quick email to Brian it was adjusted, so they will adjust the power ranking if needed/justified.

As for PSA and the scratched holder IMO the should be done as a 3 day turn around at no cost to the submitter especially considering the level of service paid. To have to lose shipping costs and wait an additional 2 weeks when it was sent in for express service is pretty sad.

James G

[Rob D.]

I guess a registry is what it is.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I guess a registry is what it is.

Except when it isn't.

[Exhibitman]

Adam,

SGC will address this and I just had them adjust the power rating on a card in the Boston store set. It was a 4 which was the same as many other HOF, however the card is a RC, and is perhaps the lest graded card in the set. After a quick email to Brian it was adjusted, so they will adjust the power ranking if needed/justified.

As for PSA and the scratched holder IMO the should be done as a 3 day turn around at no cost to the submitter especially considering the level of service paid. To have to lose shipping costs and wait an additional 2 weeks when it was sent in for express service is pretty sad.

James G

James, I don't think the power rating thing can be fixed as long as the rating scale is a 1-10. There are simply some cards that are dozens, hundreds, or maybe even thousands of times more valuable and important than the other card in the set. The BC Ruth is a great example. Even if it is raised to 10x, is there anyone who'd take 10x a common's price for the Ruth? Or a T206 Wagner, which is worth several times the value of the entire rest of the T206 set. There isn't any way to account for cards like that using such a limited rating scale.

[glchen]

Speaking of Peter Garcia's 1914 Cracker Jack PSA Set Registry #1 set, Mile High's latest email seems to say the set is to be sold during their Fall auction.

[Griffins]

it is, Peter is moving on to other projects.