PSA Weighting

[GasHouseGang]

This may be a dumb question, but how do you think PSA comes up with their weighting? It doesn't seem to make sense based on the numbers. A card that is 1/50 is weighted a 1.5, and a card that is 1/564 is weighted a 6.0. What? I'm missing something in how PSA figures it I guess.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang

This may be a dumb question, but how do you think PSA comes up with their weighting? It doesn't seem to make sense based on the numbers. A card that is 1/50 is weighted a 1.5, and a card that is 1/564 is weighted a 6.0. What? I'm missing something in how PSA figures it I guess.

If you create the set and suggest a weighting scale for the set, PSA would likely do it for you. I created the one for the T51 sets when I started them. If you think they should change, create your own recommendation and reasoning, and email it to them. If there are a bunch of people in the set, they'll likely poll those members.

[Republicaninmass]

I was one time told it is sheerly done by price, regardless of difficulty.

Or picked out of a hat. Wanna laugh? The SIGNED set weights are just a copy of the unsigned set weights. So guys rated a common, Even if they are impossible to find signed, are only worth 1!

[GasHouseGang]

"Picked out of a hat". I believe it. I was looking at one of the current stars, and I just couldn't make sense of some of the PSA weighting versus the Ebay pricing. Then I looked at some cards that were only 1/50 that had a lower weighting than cards that were 1/999. I've never really used the PSA weighting, but thought it might help with figuring out relative pricing. It didn't help at all and didn't make sense based on how many cards of a certain type should be available. As an example, PSA lists:

__________________________________________________ ____________________Card Num.____Weight____Number Made
2010 BOWMAN PLATINUM PROSPECTS MIKE TROUT GOLD REFRACTOR________________PP5__________3_________X/499
2010 BOWMAN PLATINUM PROSPECTS MIKE TROUT GOLD REFRACTOR-THICK STOCK_____PP5__________6_________X/539

There's nearly the same amount. One is listed as a weight of 6, and the other a weight of 3.

[steve B]

How were they distributed?

I could see if the x/539 was a retail version, where some percentage will end up in some kids sock drawer collection. Ok, maybe not since it is 2020, but some percentage of retail inserts will be essentially lost to the hobby where the inserts from the hobby version will have a better survival rate.

The same would go for versions in a type of pack favored by the big pack busters, vs less popular pack types.

[GasHouseGang]

Originally Posted by steve B

How were they distributed?

I could see if the x/539 was a retail version, where some percentage will end up in some kids sock drawer collection. Ok, maybe not since it is 2020, but some percentage of retail inserts will be essentially lost to the hobby where the inserts from the hobby version will have a better survival rate.

The same would go for versions in a type of pack favored by the big pack busters, vs less popular pack types.

Steve, I can see your point. But in this day and age, everything goes into a top loader right out of the pack. However, maybe that's the way PSA figures it. I don't know. I intentionally picked two cards of the same vintage, so that the year of issue wouldn't figure into it.

[bswhiten]

Not sure if it is still what they use, but I have this in my Mantle master set file.

[GasHouseGang]

Ben, I am trying to understand the numbering you posted versus how PSA weighting is normally used. PSA printed this on their website under their FAQ:

What are weights?
Within a set, not all cards and tickets have the same value. Sets in the PSA Set Registry are weighted on a 1 to 10 scale with 10 being the rarest item and 1 being the most common. While it may be in true in some instances that an item may be many times over 10 as rare as the most common item in the set, the Registry keeps the scale simple so that all levels of collectors can compete. Each item within the set is assigned a weight based on the value of the item in NM-MT condition.

So you have 10 with the largest numbers and 1 as the smallest. So that wouldn't be relative card populations. Relative value maybe of a PSA10 vs a PSA1 grade?

[swarmee]

I think the chart is meant to be in dollar values.

[bswhiten]

John is correct.
The dollar value of the card on the right and the PSA weight on the left was my understanding. If you have proof that it sold for higher then the weight of the card could be increased.
Not sure what is used for different sets, but this was for Mick.