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.

[JamesGallo]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

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.

Adam,

SGC will address this and I just had them adjust the power rating on a card in the Boston store set. It was a 4 which was the same as many other HOF, however the card is a RC, and is perhaps the lest graded card in the set. After a quick email to Brian it was adjusted, so they will adjust the power ranking if needed/justified.

As for PSA and the scratched holder IMO the should be done as a 3 day turn around at no cost to the submitter especially considering the level of service paid. To have to lose shipping costs and wait an additional 2 weeks when it was sent in for express service is pretty sad.

James G

[Rob D.]

I guess a registry is what it is.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

I guess a registry is what it is.

Except when it isn't.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by JamesGallo

Adam,

SGC will address this and I just had them adjust the power rating on a card in the Boston store set. It was a 4 which was the same as many other HOF, however the card is a RC, and is perhaps the lest graded card in the set. After a quick email to Brian it was adjusted, so they will adjust the power ranking if needed/justified.

As for PSA and the scratched holder IMO the should be done as a 3 day turn around at no cost to the submitter especially considering the level of service paid. To have to lose shipping costs and wait an additional 2 weeks when it was sent in for express service is pretty sad.

James G

James, I don't think the power rating thing can be fixed as long as the rating scale is a 1-10. There are simply some cards that are dozens, hundreds, or maybe even thousands of times more valuable and important than the other card in the set. The BC Ruth is a great example. Even if it is raised to 10x, is there anyone who'd take 10x a common's price for the Ruth? Or a T206 Wagner, which is worth several times the value of the entire rest of the T206 set. There isn't any way to account for cards like that using such a limited rating scale.

[glchen]

Speaking of Peter Garcia's 1914 Cracker Jack PSA Set Registry #1 set, Mile High's latest email seems to say the set is to be sold during their Fall auction.

[Griffins]

it is, Peter is moving on to other projects.