Mays Master Set Registry PSA Dropping Checklist?

[raulus]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

This looks like Nicolo's fault to me

Yep. I'll take the fall on this one.

I figured if they had checklists on the Mays set that had Mays' face, then they should be cool with similar checklists in the Marichal set that bore Marichal's face. Little did I know that it would torpedo the whole business.

When it comes to the team cards, I guess those are different? Maybe the focus is on the players, and not on the checklist, whereas most checklists are just sort of a random assortment of cards from numbers 100-200, the teams cards are a specific grouping of players that were on the team, including the photo, and sometimes (most of the time?) a listing of the players and their cards. Although given Topps' penchant for re-using photos for multiple years long after they were outdated, that adds another exciting element to the mix.

In many ways, I've given up trying to keep up with PSA's rules, and often trying to get them to apply them consistently is a real challenge as well. I just sort of flail about, and every once in a while something will work out for me. Most of the time it doesn't.

[quitcrab]

PSA includes the 1957 Orioles team card in the Brooks Master set, yet he is not in the team picture. Go figure!

[toppcat]

I guess they could start a Checklist registry set.....

[Mephisto]

Originally Posted by quitcrab

PSA includes the 1957 Orioles team card in the Brooks Master set, yet he is not in the team picture. Go figure!

A lot of Tigers team cards got added to the Denny McLain Master set like 6 months ago…not so sure he’s actually in the photos.
According to their own rules the 1977 Orioles Team card doesn’t belong in the Reggie master set since he isn’t mentioned on the back yet it’s part of the Master set.

I just got a denial trying to add a 1993 Donruss checklist to Sammy Sosa’s Master set…he is in both the front photo which is quite large compared to the late 60’s checklists…and his card from the set is listed on the back of the card. So not only is his photo on the front but his name is on the back similar to PSA’s alleged rule they don’t even follow for Team cards in Master sets.

[Bigdaddy]

Wondering if PSA is in compliance with this gentleman's research on Topps team cards and the ballplayers in them?

I'm betting it is some number less than 100%

[hcv123]

Originally Posted by raulus

In many ways, I've given up trying to keep up with PSA's rules, and often trying to get them to apply them consistently is a real challenge as well. I just sort of flail about, and every once in a while something will work out for me. Most of the time it doesn't.

I took a deep dive into the player master sets a bunch of years ago when I first got involved with the Clemente master set. My conclusions:

1) The inclusion/exclusion of items in the master sets are almost as inconsistent as their grading lately.
2) You want to drive yourself really crazy? Try to understand how and dive into the "weighting" they give to each item. I spent a lot of hours challenging, supporting, dialoguing about this for the Clemente set. Back then often times with some degree of success/understanding. The last couple of times I tried, I echo Nicolo's sentiment above.
3) They will not even grade (obviously can't include what they don't grade) legitimate variations like the Salada 180/200 backs and 1969 Nabisco wide/Narrow border, but have 3 slots for every year of Bazooka (single, panel & box) and multiple slots for chopping up 1969 and 1970 Transogram boxes, including the tiny "side panel" images.

PSA sets the goalposts and moves them how/when they want/choose to. Our only choice so far seems to be to play or not.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by hcv123

2) You want to drive yourself really crazy? Try to understand how and dive into the "weighting" they give to each item. I spent a lot of hours challenging, supporting, dialoguing about this for the Clemente set. Back then often times with some degree of success/understanding. The last couple of times I tried, I echo Nicolo's sentiment above.

The weighting is definitely bollocks. At times, it seems to be based on how much something costs. At other times, it seems to be based on how rare it is. And other times it's based on how desirable it is. But there's no question that they seem to dramatically under-weight a lot of the oddball issues, which are often incredibly difficult to find, at least relative to the mainline issues.

[whiteymet]

I am not a graded collector and have seen and heard all the discussions over the years about PSA's "foibles".

The one thing that gets me is say, for example, if a Dad's Cookie card is listed in the checklist for the Mays Master set, EVERY card on the Dad's Cookies checklist should be automatically included on each players Master set checklist.

I know, I know, collectors can ask for the card to be added to a guys checklist, but why should they have to ask? Seems to me to be laziness on the part of PSA.

And if there is no Master set for some player in the set so be it. With computers now a days if someone was to start a new player Master set it should be easy for PSA to get a list of that players cards.