Cross Registry

[steve B]

Those are some interesting thoughts.
While I enjoyed my very minor participation in SGCs registry years ago, and yes, it felt weird to be interested in seeing my one or two cards added bringing me from like 70th to 65th, I hadn't considered anyone paying anything beyond the grading fees to use the registry.

I wouldn't be in at a few hundred a set, but I could see some people being into it that much. (I'm not even sure I'd be in at a few dollars a set, I'm cheap)

One thing I have learned being here, is that way more people than I would have ever imagined are obsessed with consistency, having the cards all be the same grade, in the same version of the same companies holder... Totally not me, I'm happy to just "finish" a set and have most of the nice cards in some sort of holder. Stuff is getting pricy enough I may have to buy a couple cases of penny sleeves for the P-F cards.

I wasn't thinking of pop reports either. Just that having some ability to automate by checking with the database like the serial number lookup feature does would prevent a ton of data entry costs.

Originally Posted by Mark17

I wasn't thinking about population reports, because in my opinion they are highly problematic, considering all the cards cracked out for resubmitting, and cards cracked out because collectors prefer them that way.

I'm talking about collectors who have completed sets and want to have their accomplishment recognized and compared to other similar completed sets. So they pay some fee, submit proof of the cards they own (maybe something simple like video of their cards on top of a current dated newspaper,) and then their cards are entered into the registry database for that set.

So, you wouldn't need any data from any TPG company - the only data you'd be dealing with would be what was voluntarily submitted by collectors who wished to have their cards and set recorded in the registry.

Yes, minds better than mine would need to figure out the weighted formulas to standardize grades of the different TPG companies, whether some TPG companies are even reliable enough to include, and weighing how much more the Mantle counts vs. a common... stuff like that would all need to be decided.

As to cost and profitability, look at it this way. Suppose someone has a set that is 90% graded PSA, but the rest are BVG or SGC, including a few high dollar cards. Currently, if this guy wants his set in the PSA registry he has to get all those non-PSA cards re-graded.

1. How much will that cost?
2. Will those cards cross at the same grade or be assigned lower grades?
3. How long will the wait time be?

That adds up to a ton of money, time, and some risk. With the Cross Registry, no re-grading is necessary, unless they are in slabs of unreliable TPG, in which case they can be re-submitted to any legit TPG for grading.

A new LLC setting up such a registry could charge a few hundred dollars to register a set and still save the collector thousands. After awhile, with general acceptance, AHs would be listing complete sets with references such as being #12 on the Net54 Cross Registry (or whatever it's called.)

It would involve some work no doubt, but the benefits would be huge, and zero cooperation or data would be required or even wanted from any TPG or anyone else, besides the collectors who chose to pay the fee and register their sets.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by steve B

Those are some interesting thoughts.
While I enjoyed my very minor participation in SGCs registry years ago, and yes, it felt weird to be interested in seeing my one or two cards added bringing me from like 70th to 65th, I hadn't considered anyone paying anything beyond the grading fees to use the registry.

I wouldn't be in at a few hundred a set, but I could see some people being into it that much. (I'm not even sure I'd be in at a few dollars a set, I'm cheap)

One thing I have learned being here, is that way more people than I would have ever imagined are obsessed with consistency, having the cards all be the same grade, in the same version of the same companies holder... Totally not me, I'm happy to just "finish" a set and have most of the nice cards in some sort of holder. Stuff is getting pricy enough I may have to buy a couple cases of penny sleeves for the P-F cards.

I wasn't thinking of pop reports either. Just that having some ability to automate by checking with the database like the serial number lookup feature does would prevent a ton of data entry costs.

It's certainly true that the set registry isn't everybody's thing. But I've heard it said so many times that PSA's set registry is what gives them such a huge market advantage, that I figure there's a market for an independent registry that can be used for any legit TPG. A collector could still have cards from only one TPG if they want, but there would be the option to mix and match cards from different, reputable TPGs.

Here's how I envision it working, to illustrate the value to the collector:

Someone is working on a higher grade 1966 Topps set. It takes them a few years of buying the best, yet affordable, examples of each card. This means picking up nice cards regardless if PSA, SGC, or BVG. They are buying the card, not the holder, but they do want them slabbed with some assurance of authenticity. Finally their set is complete, and they want to "show it off," so to speak, and list it among other 1966 Topps sets to see just where it stands. Maybe with a few upgrades it can move up the ladder a few rungs.

So they go to the Registry site and it works like this:

1. They pay the fee (which covers the data entry costs, website development and hosting, plus some profit to the registry owners)
2. They submit proof of ownership of the cards in their set
3. They give their set a moniker for the registry. For example "Mas Takela."

4. Their cards are entered into the database. Fields included are:

Set (1966 Topps)
Name (Mas Takela)
Card_number (50)
Card_Name (Mickey Mantle)
TPG (BVG)
TPG_Grade (6)
TPG_Cert_Number

From a technical, data modeling perspective, several of the fields above, particularly the first 2, would use surrogate keys to reference another table. With further thought, more fields might also be useful.

Then the Registry sends an email to the collector, saying his set is now in the database, and his current ranking is #12 among 1966 Topps sets.

The collector has fun upgrading it here and there, moving up the ladder a bit, but having other sets upgrade past his, sort of like a slow-moving horse race, and one day he decides it's time to sell it. So he consigns to an AH.

Currently, when an AH sells a complete set, they list the grading details of the key cards, and then some general description of the other 500 cards in the set, like 50% PSA 6, 35% PSA 5, etc.

But with this new registry, the AH describes the key cards and then adds: This set is currently #12 on the Net54 Cross Registry, listed as Mas Takela.

Here's where the value comes in. Prospective bidders go to the Registry site, select 1966 Topps, look down the list to the 12th row where the Mas Takela entry is, click on that name, and a data dump of all the cards in this specific set display. They can see, for every card in the set, all the fields listed above - TPG, its TPG grade, and cert number.

So, let's say a prospective bidder already has a near complete, mint, run of high numbers, and he sees this set is weak in that area but strong everywhere else. This is a great upgrade opportunity for him. Or, like Steve says, lets suppose someone much prefers a particular TPG. They can see how many, and specifically which cards, are thus slabbed.

And then, when somebody wins the set at auction, they can compare each card's cert number to the Registry, to be assured they are receiving precisely the set they were bidding on, down to each common. Of course, the AH would do the same verification before listing it.

When someone wants to upgrade cards in their registry set, they aren't slaves to a specific TPG. If PSA has 8 month wait times and price increases, they can submit to a different TPG if they want. It's their choice to use the same TPG for all their cards, or not. It is, after all, their set.

An added outcome is that it increases competition among TPG in terms of their pricing and service (wait times) and that is good for the collector. If PSA has a monopoly on set registries, breaking that monopoly is good for collectors.

[toledo_mudhen]

I have (and have had since 2018) what could be considered a "starting point" for this idea.

It is basically an excel spreadsheet on steroids for vintage cards of a specific year and a specific manufacturer.

It allows variable "weighting" based on the specific grading company (in relation to the others).

It is pre-populated with Players Names and Card Numbers (CheckList).

It records certification numbers and other information defining the individual card characteristics.

It compiles an overall summary of the entire set.

If any of you are interested in taking a "test drive" - I would be happy to give you a free download at SetBilder.com using PROMO CODE "Net54"

Note that currently there are only Windows/Excel versions - Still trying to figure out how to port this to a MAC without running "parallels" or something of the sort.

What it still needs are:

• the "hooks" into each TPG for Cert Verification
• an overall calculation which indicates a single specific "score" for the entire set
• a home on the web for the actual "registry" site

I have an idea on calculating a "Final Score" value but I would really be interested in talking to anyone with specific ideas on:

• developing a MAC Version or even a web version where the OS platform would not matter
• adding the hooks to the various TPG Cert Verification
• developing a universal database in the Cloud for this "Ultimate Registry".

[hcv123]

is the subjective "weights" that are given to each card in a set. I know the Clemente master set really well and have gotten into some communication in the past about changing weights. What I was told at the time is that the weight is based on the value of each card in PSA 8 condition. In the first place, not every card is eve available in that condition, second many trade hands so rarely it is difficult to determine value of each card in that condition. Lastly - even trying to go by that - their weighting is way off - I suspect this is FAR from isolated to the Clemente master set.

So whoever was working this new cross registry would need to have/develop some type of relatively fair/equitable system for assigning weights to each card in a given set.

BTW while I do not have the technical expertise to do any actual development - I am happy to act in a role as beta tester and contribute ideas and help to make it happen and refine it.

[JollyElm]

I think a lot more thought has to be put into the 'weighting' of the various third party grading companies. Although conventional wisdom points to a disparity in the grading of cards between the 'Big 3' organizations, who is actually going to decide how that thought is going to be quantified? If it's believed an SGC 7 card only equates to a PSA 6, does that mean each and every SGC 7 would only count as a 6? You can't mathematically establish that as a fact without examining each and every card from both companies. (Just a side note, but there's a crapload of PSA cards out there that look quite inferior to the numbers on the slabs. Ran into one yesterday.)

Perhaps it's like the Coke and Pepsi conundrum. Although they are (I assume) the biggest selling colas in the world, some people simply refuse to drink one of those brands due to their own personal soft drink tastes. That doesn't make either Coke or Pepsi sub-par to ALL consumers, it's only a personal preference. That same thought should be applied to this project.

To be clear, I'm not trying to push anything here. 95% of the cards I buy are PSA graded, and I readily admit it's because of the potential 'value' when the day comes to sell them. That is the reality of the market. But with this new registry undertaking, you have to very seriously consider the fundamental principles that are the backbone of the proposed endeavor. To eliminate any type of monkey business, perhaps a PSA 6, SGC 6, and a BVG 6 should each be simply entered as a six in the registry. Again, if these grading companies are trusted by the collecting community (to various degrees, I'm sure), then they should be on a level playing field. Just think about how much potential BS that would avoid. (Of course, some steps would have to be taken regarding how one outfit issues qualifiers, while the others don't. That aspect is a little tricky, because a card graded by SGC or BVG that's crazily OC, would still have a straight grade.)

Lastly, perhaps you can have a tribunal (ha ha) to judge specific cards on someone's registry, if complaints are lodged.

[UKCardGuy]

How would submissions to the cross registry be verified? When you submit a card to PSA or SGC they register it then and can verify the details there an then.

How would a cross registry verify that my claim to have a specific card at a specific grade?

[68Hawk]

Originally Posted by UKCardGuy

How would submissions to the cross registry be verified? When you submit a card to PSA or SGC they register it then and can verify the details there an then.

How would a cross registry verify that my claim to have a specific card at a specific grade?

You'd have to upload a date stamped pic that included the Flip cert number, and that would need to be readable by the platform software to include with the other details you punch in.

[UKCardGuy]

Originally Posted by 68Hawk

You'd have to upload a date stamped pic that included the Flip cert number, and that would need to be readable by the platform software to include with the other details you punch in.

Isn't that at risk of abuse? With so many counterfeit flips in the market, wouldn't this give them a way to legitimize the dodgy flips without scrutiny from any in person assessment?