PSA post-war Rookie registry

[KingFisk]

When I first got back into collecting a few years ago, this particular registry set drove me. It was a big goal to get all of the cards and I was able to eventually do so (even though a few of them were non-PSA). I've moved on from being an addict to the Registry and with some distance I took it way less seriously. Adding these cards has removed any seriousness from the list that it ever may have had. If your composite doesn't even really represent what it purports, what's the point? To paraphrase a point someone made on another message board (CU or a FB page) - why not just go ahead and add Ted Williams and Joe DiMaggio?

[JollyElm]

I mean, why would anyone want logic and simple facts to get in the way??

[HRBAKER]

Why does anyone care what they think is the larger question?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Why does anyone care what they think is the larger question?

Well yes, but you clearly don't understand the mentality that drives registry collectors.

[swarmee]

Some people on the PSA CU board are asking PSA to provide an accounting of the "majority" that voted for the change. This is a short-sighted cash grab that invalidates one of the biggest fights in the Set Registry competition. What would Fonzie say while ski-jumping Jaws?

[KingFisk]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Some people on the PSA CU board are asking PSA to provide an accounting of the "majority" that voted for the change. This is a short-sighted cash grab that invalidates one of the biggest fights in the Set Registry competition. What would Fonzie say while ski-jumping Jaws?

Hi John, which subforum is that in (re: the accounting)? I couldn't find the post but wanted to follow it. I only saw the one I chimed in on over there (I rarely go on that forum but was compelled to comment on this). Thanks!

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by KingFisk

Hi John, which subforum is that in (re: the accounting)? I couldn't find the post but wanted to follow it. I only saw the one I chimed in on over there (I rarely go on that forum but was compelled to comment on this). Thanks!

Looks like the thread was pulled. It was in the Sports Cards & Memorabilia board.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Well yes, but you clearly don't understand the mentality that drives registry collectors.

Well yes, I understand it and then again I don't understand it.
To each their own. PSA is a marketer - don't be surprised when you are being manipulated. It's their game - you don't have to play.
It's obviously been a marketing master stroke and a multitude of collectors and some flip chasers have embraced it.
Kudos to them.

[KingFisk]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Well yes, I understand it and then again I don't understand it.
To each their own. PSA is a marketer - don't be surprised when you are being manipulated. It's their game - you don't have to play.
It's obviously been a marketing master stroke and a multitude of collectors and some flip chasers have embraced it.
Kudos to them.

My original post was more pointing out my confusion about calling those particular cards "rookies." I haven't cared about the registry in years.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by KingFisk

My original post was more pointing out my confusion about calling those particular cards "rookies." I haven't cared about the registry in years.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Thanks Carl.
My response was to Peter.
I understood your point.

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by KingFisk

When I first got back into collecting a few years ago, this particular registry set drove me. It was a big goal to get all of the cards and I was able to eventually do so (even though a few of them were non-PSA). I've moved on from being an addict to the Registry and with some distance I took it way less seriously. Adding these cards has removed any seriousness from the list that it ever may have had. If your composite doesn't even really represent what it purports, what's the point? To paraphrase a point someone made on another message board (CU or a FB page) - why not just go ahead and add Ted Williams and Joe DiMaggio?

...or Babe Ruth and Honus Wagner! How prescient of Leaf to include them in their 1949 offering!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk

[bobsbbcards]

Cobb Post WW II Rookie candidates:

[KingFisk]

Originally Posted by bobsbbcards

Cobb Post WW II Rookie candidates:

Haha

[yanksfan09]

How can those old weird cards be rookies? There's not enough to market and accept submissions and resubmissions for. Where's the money in that?

The idea of voting for rookie cards like a popularity question is ludicrous. More people have more common issues so are more inclined to vote biased accordingly.

[shagrotn77]

As someone who spent a LOT of time, effort and money to collect and complete this set, this completely idiotic change makes me sick to my stomach. All 6 players that were added to this POST-WAR set have 1941 Double Play cards. As previously mentioned, some, like Feller also have mainstream issues that pre-date the '41 DP set. This all came about because Beckett changed the rules on RCs, and PSA just went along with it, rather than (gasp) thinking for themselves. I have a really hard time believing that the majority of collectors on the set voted for this change.

[shagrotn77]

I'm just waiting for 2005 Topps Chipper, Thome, Vlad and Hoffman cards to be added to the set.