But seriously. . . .

[whitehse]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The set registry was, even if not intended as such, an act of marketing genius. I have read/heard the original intent was just to provide a tool for keeping track of inventory. Be that as it may, it blossomed into a huge market driver for PSA.

Early on I used as just simply a way to track my card purchases. After awhile, as the registry gained momentum I found myself getting exciting about moving up a few levels with my set and was purchasing cards to increase my stature on the registry instead of just buying cards for my hobby. Thankfully I got my head out of my backside and realized my budget would take a huge hit and the competition would easily destroy me anyway. That put a quick end to my need for the registry.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by whitehse

Early on I used as just simply a way to track my card purchases. After awhile, as the registry gained momentum I found myself getting exciting about moving up a few levels with my set and was purchasing cards to increase my stature on the registry instead of just buying cards for my hobby. Thankfully I got my head out of my backside and realized my budget would take a huge hit and the competition would easily destroy me anyway. That put a quick end to my need for the registry.

It can definitely lead you to dramatically overvalue commons.

[Dpeck100]

The set registry differentiates quality.

https://www.psacard.com/psasetregist...opps-basic/629

Anyone can say they have the nicest 1952 Topps set but the PSA registry proves that Charles Merkel does. That is worth something.

[darwinbulldog]

He might, but the PSA registry provides evidence, not proof.

[Dpeck100]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

He might, but the PSA registry provides evidence, not proof.

The guy has had the highest rated set since 2002. There is plenty of proof.

Number 2 is Ken Kendrick. He has more money than God and if he could be number 1 he would love to be. You guys all forget that cards have pop reports and you can have all the money in the world but if someone doesn't want to sell the card it can't be owned. This is why people take the registry seriously.

All of these medals add up to 2000 points. One of the medals that is the most valuable is being #1 in a set. A lot of people can't get that medal. They just don't have a set that allows for it.

The set registry has done wonders for the hobby because it drastically expanded the number of cards being sought after.

[pokerplyr80]

The most obvious example that comes to mind of how the registry has increased the market for a card is the 86 fleer Johnny Moore psa 10. It isn't worth much in an 8 or lower, maybe 150 in a 9, and 10k+ in a 10.

I can see the appeal of building the highest graded set or player run. Just to say you had assembled the finest example. But I certainly wouldn't do it for a virtual medal from a grading company.

[MattyC]

The notion that the Registry absolutely differentiates true card quality, or that any particular vintage or PreWar Registry Set is "better/nicer" than another set (based on PSA's grades and the Registry site's ranking system) is specious and reductive. In other words, when comparatively evaluating cards or sets, it is important to parse "higher ranked on the PSA Registry" from genuinely "better." Or I suppose not everyone is willing to cede the defining of the better set or card to PSA's graders (especially since their qualifications/resumes are not really known).

The opinion of a "professional grader" and the weightings of PSA's Registry compositions certainly determine which cards and sets rule the roost on that one website— but the plethora of vintage cards residing in high grade PSA holders that would never get those same grades today is a factor that simply cannot be ignored.

PSA can often say one thing about a card with their grade, and yet time and again the market says otherwise— if that high grade card's sale price is surpassed by a better looking card in the same or sometimes even a lower grade.

From my browsing of the Registry, it seems high ranked Registry sets infrequently offer scans of the cards; when such sets do, there are invariably some print-dot riddled and off-centered cards. Those cards certainly help the sets in question maintain their high rank— but those same cards would probably set record lows for the grade if offered for sale in today's market, where there is such a premium on eye appeal and the card itself meriting or exceeding the grade assigned.

My focus is Mantle, and in talking with many Mantle collectors we have noticed how so many of the high sticker grade cards to hit the auction block lately are uninspiring. For example, PWCC offered some specimens recently that would constitute a very high ranked Registry set— yet the cards were simply unattractive, and if cracked and resubmitted ten times today would be very, very lucky to get those same grades once. So would such a set really be the best quality? I suppose the answer is a subjective one, which hinges on whether one focuses on the sticker or both the sticker and the card itself.

Bottom line, unless there are scans of the cards being offered, I think it is important not to conflate the Registry with quality. They can certainly be one and the same, just not necessarily so. We can pull scans of some PSA 9 cards graded many years ago that would get a Registry set a point bonus, and yet there are more recently graded PSA 8s or 8.5s that I'm sure collectors would unanimously agree are the higher quality card. And if the PSA 9 were cracked and submitted today, likely PSA would agree as well.