Where should PSA draw the line on cards for Player Master Sets?

[Archangel1775]

I noticed the Tim Lincecum Master Set had Chrome Red Refractors added to it. Of course those are numbered to 5. It got me thinking about today's players. I've seen cards numbered to /10,/5 and /3. It just seems like a barrier and adds zero motivation to start the set. I know there are members here that would attempt to buy all /5 red refactors of a newer release just to stay ahead of the game. As a collector, why bother? Is PSA killing the registry by allowing cards that low numbered on their Master Set Checklists? Where should PSA have a cutoff, /25, /50,/99 or none at all?

[dk57]

I think no matter where they draw the line, a segment of collectors will tell them they are doing it wrong.

[vinson24]

Right now I think their foremost issue is that they need to figure out how to expedita the creation of a set and adding cards to a set list. Right now both of those are taking close to a year. Also figure out their weighing system.

You could always create a Basic set for the player and then it doesn’t matter if the card is numbered or not

[OhioLawyerF5]

I say there is no line to draw. A master set should be every single card, even the 1/1s. Yes, that makes it astronomically difficult to 100% complete a modern master set. But so what? If nobody can complete 100% then the true challenge will be to have the highest % on the registry. Collectors on the registry can still compete for the most complete master set, if that's their thing. But I don't see where drawing a line and not including some cards is ever the correct option. So the guys who actually have tracked down the truly tough cards get no credit for it on the registry? Doesn't make sense. If they want to remove the rare cards, just make a new category. But the master set should be every card.

[MiamiMarlinsFan]

If PSA drew a line at, let’s say, #/5’s… wouldn’t you eventually see people with a Master Set +1 (or more)?

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I say there is no line to draw. A master set should be every single card, even the 1/1s. Yes, that makes it astronomically difficult to 100% complete a modern master set. But so what? If nobody can complete 100% then the true challenge will be to have the highest % on the registry. Collectors on the registry can still compete for the most complete master set, if that's their thing. But I don't see where drawing a line and not including some cards is ever the correct option. So the guys who actually have tracked down the truly tough cards get no credit for it on the registry? Doesn't make sense. If they want to remove the rare cards, just make a new category. But the master set should be every card.

I agree 100%.

Part of the fun of the Master (while PSA is still unable to automate this) is finding new oddball additions that can help push you ahead of others.

[NYRE2PECT]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I say there is no line to draw. A master set should be every single card, even the 1/1s. Yes, that makes it astronomically difficult to 100% complete a modern master set. But so what? If nobody can complete 100% then the true challenge will be to have the highest % on the registry. Collectors on the registry can still compete for the most complete master set, if that's their thing. But I don't see where drawing a line and not including some cards is ever the correct option. So the guys who actually have tracked down the truly tough cards get no credit for it on the registry? Doesn't make sense. If they want to remove the rare cards, just make a new category. But the master set should be every card.

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

I agree 100%.

Part of the fun of the Master (while PSA is still unable to automate this) is finding new oddball additions that can help push you ahead of others.

As a former PSA Player Set builder, I would concur with these sentiments. If the set is big enough, they give you completion credit if you are +90% (IIRC).

There are basic and collectors issues sets to provide other, achievable goals.

[towerymt]

/one.

[towerymt]

What about subzero frozenfractors?

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by NYRE2PECT

As a former PSA Player Set builder, I would concur with these sentiments. If the set is big enough, they give you completion credit if you are +90% (IIRC).

There are basic and collectors issues sets to provide other, achievable goals.

You’re not a real player collector unless you’re the top of every Registry.

[NYRE2PECT]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

You’re not a real player collector unless you’re the top of every Registry.

I am at the top (all-time/still/for now) for my two guys .

[Shankweather]

With some sets I've worked on, I've seen them add /5 or lower (at my request) but not make them necessary for completion. That feels right to me. I personally would make /10 the cutoff. Anything rarer than that is optional.

It's an issue for vintage also. I'm working on the Gabby Hartnett set and there are some oddball issues that have a pop 1 on the list. Not actually 1/1s because there are raw issues out there, just really hard to find.

[Shankweather]

I think the best thing they could do is not take months or years to update sets. They should just give me a login, I'll work on sets in my spare time.

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

I think the best thing they could do is not take months or years to update sets. They should just give me a login, I'll work on sets in my spare time.

They’ve talked about updates this year, but I’m not holding my breath. The team responsible for the Registry is very small, but does work hard. And they are receptive to feedback. I hope things get better. I hate waiting so long for my requested updates.

[Jazz Chisholm]

Master Sets for modern players is insane. They’re great for older players who have a few variations and regionals here and there, but modern players with thousands of cards? Lunacy. Even a Basic Set for a current player would be a massive undertaking

[Mephisto]

I’ve used the player registry for 3 or 4 years now and the rule they have had in place for a long time now is the cards have to have a print run of at least 5 to qualify for the Master sets.

You can request to have 1/1 stuff added on your end but it won’t factor into the scoring of the set.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tyrith]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

With some sets I've worked on, I've seen them add /5 or lower (at my request) but not make them necessary for completion. That feels right to me. I personally would make /10 the cutoff. Anything rarer than that is optional.

I believe this is also the guidance in their FAQ/rules on the registry, per my own reading at some point in the last few months.

Master set is always a rat race until a player retires, and it's going to be functionally impossible to get to high percentage one for a decent player with a 10+ year career that started after 2000 or so. Even someone like Bobby Witt probably already has 4-5K cards that are higher than the /5 cutoff, and he's been in three years of MLB releases.

In the world where they actually ever get good tech for the registry, a realistic master set goal is the 1K slabs to be eligible to get the badge, and having the best master set for a player. The % is always just going to be a made up number unless they have a system that automatically builds the sets, and if that happens, there will be very few UM master sets that are anything close to complete.

[towerymt]

I'm still holding my breath for Rookie Card sets of just BB'21

[Qubits]

How many people even use these master sets? With just 26 cards and only 3 PSA 10s I'm in the top 30 for Ohtani:

[vinson24]

Originally Posted by Qubits

How many people even use these master sets? With just 26 cards and only 3 PSA 10s I'm in the top 30 for Ohtani:

I don’t think a lot for modern cards

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by vinson24

I don’t think a lot for modern cards

Master sets for anything after like 1995 are useless. Even a modern-ish player like Sammy Sosa had over 7000 non-1/1 cards during his playing career, to say nothing of someone like Mike Trout.

Rookie card sets on the other hand still work. Gunnar Henderson had "only" 36 rookie cards, which is still a tall task but at least doable.

[NYRE2PECT]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

Master sets for anything after like 1995 are useless. Even a modern-ish player like Sammy Sosa had over 7000 non-1/1 cards during his playing career, to say nothing of someone like Mike Trout.

Rookie card sets on the other hand still work. Gunnar Henderson had "only" 36 rookie cards, which is still a tall task but at least doable.

Seems low for Gunnar...Shohei was 63. I wonder if Gunnar is missing a big update.

The modern players numbers are just bonkers.