Please help me understand PSA POP Reports/Player Registry Checklists

[whiteymet]

Hi Gang:

As I have said in other posts here I am an old head and am not really into grading. However as we all know to be in the hobby today even dinosaurs like me have to dip their toe into the TPG world.

I was recently having a conversation with fellow Net 54 member Ken Marks regarding why a variation I have available in the 1962 Post Cereal Canadian set of Sandy Koufax is not listed on his Master set checklist.

To be short there are two different Koufax cards in the set. Each issued on a different cereal box. One ( the common on Alpha Bits) has the word wZlks above the stat lines while the much rarer card (Grape Nut Flakes, YUK!) has the word wAlks spelled correctly.

Ken mentioned to me it was his understanding that any card that appears on the PSA POP report is listed on that players Master set Checklist. Thus because there has been no Koufax Post Canadian wAlks noted on the POP report it would not be on the Master Set Koufax checklist. He challenged me to find an exception where a card was on the POP report and NOT listed in that players Master Set registry checklist.

Below are my conflicting findings.I am hoping someone can explain this to me.

Because I recently turned up a few of the 1961 Topps Dice Cards and had a part of this conversation about them, I used that set for this research.

See:

https://www.psacard.com/pop/baseball...ice-game/50418

note one card of Frank Robinson has been graded PSA 5. By Ken's argument any card that has been graded (in the POP report) will appear in that players Master Set checklist.

Here is Frank Robinson's player Master set checklist:

https://www.psacard.com/psasetregist...aster-set/1926

note there is NO 1961 Topps Dice card listed.

Now here is where things go haywire which seem normal for me with PSA.

Go back to the Dice card POP report above. There are two Earl Battey cards listed as being graded.

Now lets go to his Master set player checklist:

https://www.psacard.com/psasetregist...position/11456

and there is his 1961 Dice Card listed in his player checklist!! So, why not Frank Robinson??

BUT WAIT!

We are not done yet with the confusion. I have been told Test sets which the Dice cards are, are not on Player Master set checklists, ( which we can see above is not true since the Battey is listed in his checklist) but can be added at the end with a red mark.

Again Mantle is listed in the Pop report. Let's go to his Master set checklist:

https://www.psacard.com/psasetregist...mposition/1792

His Dice card is NOT listed as is the Battey, however there is his Dice card listed at the end of the checklist with the red dot which means the card does not count in figuring a rating for that players registry. Why does Battey count but F. Robinson and Mantle do not?

So, we have all three, Battey, F. Robinson and Mantle listed on the POP report for the 1961 Topps Dice Card set.

The Battey is listed in his player Master set checklist

The Frank Robinson is not listed in his player Master set checklist nor at the end with a red dot

The Mantle is not listed in his player Master Checklist BUT it is listed at the end with the red dot.

Three cards from the same set, all on the POP report, listed differently on the players Master Set Checklists

WHY!!!!???????

[ValKehl]

Fred, I can't answer your questions, but I am in the apparently small minority who greatly enjoys eating Grape Nut Flakes for breakfast (probably because I'm an old fart)!

[The Detroit Collector]

The PSA registry is created by regular individuals like you, who want to start a registry for their collection if there is not one already.

For example.
There is not a registry for M101-2s. PSA does not grade them, but we will use it as an example.
If PSA did grade these supplements, I would put in a request to add this registry to PSA along with its information.

Once it has been added, if there were supplements missing or recently found, anyone could put in a request to add this supplement to the registry.

Another example, there is a Detroit Tigers Hall of Fame PSA registry. When I started the set, I noticed that Pudge Rodriquez was not in the set registry, even though he played for Detroit for 5 years. I put in a request to add his rookie card to the registry. After some time, the card was approved by PSA and Pudge is not a requirement for the set registry.

Where I'm getting at is, all sets are created different. They are created by people like you and I and can be updated at any time.

[swarmee]

Exactly; in order to add a card to a set registry, you have to have at least 5 cards in the set registry and have started a set. Once you have a qualifying set, you can ask that cards be included through the website. After a few weeks, they'll get back to you and inform you that they've added it or rejected it. They don't automatically do anything, AFAIK. It all has to be triggered by a user request.

[bswhiten]

Fred,

SCD lists two variations for the 1962 Koufax so you might be able to get PSA to recognize if you send them the research. If they recognize it and grade it, then you would have to request it to be added to the registry.

The Mantle registry is correct for the dice card. Proof/test cards don't belong in the main registry. If someone were to request Battey be moved to Red it no doubt would be.

Ben

[raulus]

Fred-

The Master Set checklists are growing all the time. When I first started on the Mays checklist, it was right around 300. Today it’s 344. I’ve personally added more than half of the new bits. Seems like you’ve helped me to find new pieces all the time that end up on the list.

My experience is that sometimes it takes months or even years to get a request adjudicated for an addition to the checklist. And sometimes the answer is no, which is often a bit bizarre. As luck would have it, sometimes they will have multiple slots, one for each variation, and other times they will have a single slot that can be filled by any of the variations. While I’m sure there are some guiding principles about how it’s supposed to work, my experience is that they are applied unevenly.

I’ve also managed to get a couple of pieces moved off the set registry checklist. Usually it’s because they once thought a variation existed, but then realized they were wrong, and revised their database for those items. My experience is that if there is a zero pop for any given item, then you can usually get them to pull it off, although sometimes it takes a bit of waiting while they figure it out.