 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
03-16-2019, 08:25 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. 
|
|
#2
03-16-2019, 09:30 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
__________________
Successful transactions with peter spaeth, don's cards, vwtdi, wolf441, 111gecko, Clydewally, Jim, SPMIDD, MattyC, jmb, botn, E107collector, begsu1013, and a few others.
|
|
#3
03-17-2019, 08:18 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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. Last edited by MattyC; 03-17-2019 at 08:32 AM.
|
|
#4
03-17-2019, 08:33 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
There is also the question of whether some of the cards in very high grade holders were, in fact, altered.
__________________
Net 54-- the discussion board where people resent discussions.  My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/
|
|
#6
03-17-2019, 08:42 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
A lot of these top sets don't offer scans not because they are concerned with someone like you not thinking their cards merit the grade they were assigned but to simply keep everyone who is chasing the set from knowing exactly what they own.
I posted the 1952 Topps set and only one of the top ten have photos available for viewing and I have to assume in many cases they also don't want to spend that much time scanning the cards. I feel confident that Charles Merkel rests his head easy at night knowing he has the best 1952 Topps set out there regardless of what any of us think. Just out of curiosity I picked another actively collected set and only four out of the top fifteen in the 1975 Topps set has pics available.
|
|
#7
03-17-2019, 08:47 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Unless the cards merit the grades, all someone is actually showing is that they have accumulated cards with sticker grades that PSA's formula ranks as the top. One interesting related anecdote, I know one "PSA HOF" collector who used to have several top Registry sets, and he freely admitted to me that several of the key cards in his Registry sets were not the ones he would call the best quality; he would just keep them for his rankings as he liked the competition aspect— yet he would retain another specimen of the card that was a half or full grade lower, which he thought was the better card. We can't say in all cases why scans aren't provided, but when a set's contents are already viewable, the cat is already out of the bag, in terms of what someone owns. In such cases, scans of a key card or three wouldn't be divulging any further information in terms of what grade was in that slot of the set. Rather, the scans could be offered as a sampling/indicator of the eye appeal of the set's contents, since all cards in a grade aren't necessarily the same quality. Last edited by MattyC; 03-17-2019 at 09:00 AM.
|
|
#8
03-17-2019, 08:50 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
.
__________________
Leon Luckey www.luckeycards.com
|
|
#9
03-17-2019, 08:58 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
There was a time relatively early on in the registry competition when the top guys were paying astronomical numbers for "low pop" commons and many of the ones I saw (ebay, auctions, etc.) were either sliders at best, or possibly had been worked on to improve the centering.
__________________
Net 54-- the discussion board where people resent discussions. My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/
|
|
#10
03-17-2019, 09:01 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Plenty of top sets are available for viewing and plenty aren't. In the case of the 1952 Topps the top two aren't.
In the case of the 1915 Cracker Jack once more the top two aren't available. I think as you go down the list it is less important because as the grades go lower it is harder to hold someone hostage over a card as they are more readily available.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
