Mays Master Set Registry PSA Dropping Checklist?

[JustBradd]

Originally Posted by raulus

Yep. PSA is always good fun when it comes to the Master Sets.

Apparently their rules state that checklists don’t count just because they have the player’s face on it.

I actually asked them to add some similar checklists with Marichal’s face on them. They declined my request, referring to that policy. I responded and asked about the Mays checklists. They responded and removed those checklists from the Set.

So apparently it’s all part of their policies.

This begins to call into question a lot of Giants/Mets team cards present in the Master Set as well...

[quitcrab]

How is the Mays checklist not a Mays card ???
I can’t figure out PSA’s thought process.
Just my two cents.

[tjisonline]

Originally Posted by quitcrab

How is the Mays checklist not a Mays card ???
I can’t figure out PSA’s thought process.
Just my two cents.

I also can’t understand PSA’s thinking at times. How about this one?

A PSA dual autographed card is good enough for a players own set registries but not a multi-player focus? E.g. my signed ‘52 Topps Robin Roberts can be added to Roberts’ basic & master set registries but not the 1952 Topps HoF registry? I was told autographed cards aren’t eligible for multi-player set registries.

[ALR-bishop]

This looks like Nicolo's fault to me

[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 Although given Topps' penchant for re-using photos for multiple years long after they were outdated, that adds another exciting element to the mix.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.

[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.