How Ridiculous

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

Here's another example (on SGC's registry) that I've noticed for some time that makes no sense.

The following link is to a complete Butter Cream set, which includes the Ruth (!), and is listed as the second-best set with a "superiority" rating of 40.49:

http://www.sgccardregistry.com/set.a...4&userset=1398

The following set is missing only the Ruth, but because the overall condition is better, is listed No. 1 with a rating of 42.68:

http://www.sgccardregistry.com/set.a...4&userset=5062

I don't get wrapped up in registry rankings, so I find it more funny than anything else that a Butter Cream set missing the Ruth -- one of the truly rare cards in our hobby -- can be judged "superior" to one than has it. I'd say there's a serious flaw in the formulas the companies use.

The Butter Cream rankings:

http://www.sgccardregistry.com/regis...?cat=1&set=374

One of the problems with the SGC registry (and perhaps the PSA one too, for all I know) is that the ratings on the cards do not have a sufficient 'power' spread to account for extremely rare short printed cards like the BC Ruth, the US Caramel Lindstrom, T220 silver Donovan, etc. Rating the BC Ruth as 2x the BC Foxx vastly undervalues the Ruth and skews any comparison.