 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3
07-03-2010, 04:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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 Last edited by Rob D.; 07-03-2010 at 05:08 PM. 
|
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Thinking about starting another ridiculous e107 project...someone talk me out of it | shammus | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 11 | 08-31-2009 12:06 PM |
| Willing to pay ridiculous money for Rose Co. PC hall of famers | Archive | Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T | 0 | 09-21-2007 08:15 PM |
| paying ridiculous money for a d304 or an e103 Tenny | Archive | Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T | 0 | 08-06-2007 01:43 PM |
| will pay ridiculous prices for an e103 Tenny, Chance or Chase | Archive | Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T | 0 | 05-05-2007 07:41 PM |
| This is getting ridiculous | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 8 | 11-27-2003 08:24 AM |
Threaded Mode