T-206 Master List vs. Inaccurate PSA Master Set

[JP]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

I agree, JP. With the resources from this board alone, PSA could update alot of their T206 registry to account for impossible front/back combos. And if an "impossible" one did surface, then they could update their registry accordingly.

IMO, it would be good business for PSA. A smaller checklist would make a "monster" set appear more attainable, thus attracting more people to the registry and making it more competitive. More competition of course leads to more PSA slabbing, and if they undergrade then they'll get more resubmittals from people looking for higher grades.

But, maybe PSA doesn't see it that way?

Good luck with a master set, JP, if you decide to take that route! Keep us updated!

Rob

Wow! Thanks Rob! Sounds like you actually did read what I wrote and get it!!!! You may be the first!!!

I believe it would take minimal effort on PSA's part to fix the master registry and yield huge results both participation-wise and financially.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by JP

I believe it would take minimal effort on PSA's part to fix the master registry and yield huge results both participation-wise and financially.

And, what was their response when you asked them to do this? (You did ask them, first, before complaining about it, correct?)