How Ridiculous

[glchen]

I don't really think this is something to quibble over. I'm not really sure we know how PSA arrived at the best set of the year. Maybe in 2010, Don Spence added the most cards/upgrades to his Cracker Jack set, and Peter Garcia did absolutely nothing to his set. Then the argument would be how can someone win the best set of the year when they didn't change it at all the entire year? I'm just saying we don't know all the thinking that went into the award. Also, IMHO, just because SGC has a better Cracker Jack set, doesn't mean PSA can't give an award to it if it wants. There are a whole bunch of PSA sets that are better than SGC, and if SGC wanted to award one of the sets that PSA has a better version of, all the more power to SGC.

About the reholdering, I also think that something that just happens, and 2 weeks turnaround is reasonable. I would argue that the turnaround time in a way is not to receive the card back, but to know the grade the card got. (And I know this is very debateable.) I've received damaged holders from SGC after grading, and I've similarly been offered complimentary reholdering. It's a pain and costs money to have to ship it back, but things like this happen. Annoying, but no biggie to me.

[Matthew H]

Originally Posted by glchen

I don't really think this is something to quibble over. I'm not really sure we know how PSA arrived at the best set of the year. Maybe in 2010, Don Spence added the most cards/upgrades to his Cracker Jack set, and Peter Garcia did absolutely nothing to his set. Then the argument would be how can someone win the best set of the year when they didn't change it at all the entire year? I'm just saying we don't know all the thinking that went into the award. Also, IMHO, just because SGC has a better Cracker Jack set, doesn't mean PSA can't give an award to it if it wants. There are a whole bunch of PSA sets that are better than SGC, and if SGC wanted to award one of the sets that PSA has a better version of, all the more power to SGC.

About the reholdering, I also think that something that just happens, and 2 weeks turnaround is reasonable. I would argue that the turnaround time in a way is not to receive the card back, but to know the grade the card got. (And I know this is very debateable.) I've received damaged holders from SGC after grading, and I've similarly been offered complimentary reholdering. It's a pain and costs money to have to ship it back, but things like this happen. Annoying, but no biggie to me.

PSA can award whoever for whatever they want, fine.

I just think that If I have to pay for shipping for their mistake, then they could at least reholder the card asap. Not that I will ever stop using their service. I live within an hour of their headquaters and everything I ship to them gets there the next day.

I probably don't have a valid complaint but it's very fresh in my mind. (yesterday)

It has now cost me a total 92$ to have this card graded express (had no choice due to declared value). There was really nothing express about it.

[barrysloate]

Why doesn't PSA choose to honor a set that is not only a first-rate PSA graded one, but one that is the finest of its kind in the hobby? I'm sure there are dozens of sets that would fit the category.

That's why it seems odd that they would choose to honor a 14 CJ set, when in fact the discovery set graded by SGC a few years ago is arguably the greatest vintage card set ever assembled. It just seems like a curious choice. Of course they can do whatever they want.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Why doesn't PSA choose to honor a set that is not only a first-rate PSA graded one, but one that is the finest of its kind in the hobby? I'm sure there are dozens of sets that would fit the category.

That's why it seems odd that they would choose to honor a 14 CJ set, when in fact the discovery set graded by SGC a few years ago is arguably the greatest vintage card set ever assembled. It just seems like a curious choice. Of course they can do whatever they want.

Some sets are more equal than others...

None of this is surprising if you understand that these aren't awards as we think of them but are PSA marketing tools. PSA's management figured out some time ago that stroking collector egos and pushing collectors to compete with one another to see whose is 'better' was a great way to generate buzz and promote its business. PSA has a history of not recognizing the existence of non-PSA products [see the T220 silver checklist, which is missing card because (as JO told me when I sent PSA a correction list for some of its boxing checklists) PSA hasn't slabbed one, or the so-called master list for Jack Dempsey, which is missing many cards because PSA won't slab exhibit boxing but will slab exhibit baseball], so the SGC or any other set is irrelevant to their purpose, pushing PSA product. They probably honored the 2nd rate CJ set to give Mr. #1 a kick in the pants and get him competing again.

[barrysloate]

I'm sure you are right Adam.

[Jewish-collector]

Should I show JO this thread when I see him in Baltimore ?

[egbeachley]

Very nice Adam. You just concisely answered what I felt was unanswerable.