Site Forum

Rating sets on this site can seem a thankless effort--as it's worth no points--and can get boring quick.  Nevertheless, I think it is an important task that I'd like to see more people take part in.  When I first started rating sets on this site, there was only 1 person with over 1000 ratings, and now there are 9.  The Hall of Fame of Set Raters currently includes:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

4000 club--gb24

3000 club--gwhy11

2000 club--Alomar Collector

1000 club--Save Da Kid, Weilercards, C2Cigars, hphillips, and switzr1. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have 31 years experience collecting non-sports and baseball cards, so that's where I tend to focus my set rating efforts.  My personal collection spans from 1922-2017 and is stored entirely in pages and binders, with all of my extras left in boxes ready to trade or sell.  When rating sets, I cover the entire range from 1-10.  Here's the formula I've been using:

10--This set is (or should be) an integral part of my collection; it fills a need that no other set can accomplish, and is fully integrated into my set binder

9--This set is (or should be) an integral part of my collection, and could either be integrated into my set binder or located in the back of it

7--This set is (or should be) an important part of my collection, but it's probably located in the back of my set binder instead of integrated into it.

5--I probably wouldn't collect this set, or may be borderline on adding it to my collection.

3--I definitely would not collect this set, and would get rid of it at the first opportunity if it ever came into my possession, but I wouldn't tear it up or burn it. 

1-Get this junk out of my hands before I tear it up or burn it.  The industry would be better off if this set did not exist.  

Thanks for the rubric. It helps. What's your opinion, though, of a non-set collector such as I rating them? Would you want my input?

I'd leave it to each individual to determine if their interest or judgement is adequate to rate sets across to spectrum.  I believe that any type of collector with enough experience can provide that judgement.  I just figured I'd get people thinking about what might work from them.

 My rating of sets is totally unrelated to whether or not I collect a set.   I rate based on whether the set is aesthetically pleasing, front and back and for other characteristics such as how stats are presented, if there logos on front, etc.....

So do you collect sets that you don't like then? And in turn, fail to collect sets that you actually do like?  I collect 6-10's and avoid 1-5's.  Aesthetics, stats, logos, etc, are all part of the determination of whether or not I would collect a set.  There are some sets that I would like to collect, but either cannot afford to at the moment, or just haven't gotten around to (still 6-10's).  There are also those sets that I wouldn't collect even if they were given to me because I don't like them (never 6-10's). 

It's strange to me that someone would collect cards independently of how they feel about them? "Oh, that's a 10, but I'd never collect that junk; or that's a 1, but I just have to get my hands on it".  If you're passing on 6-10's because your closet's full of 1-5's, it might be time to reorganize and reprioritize your efforts. 

 After 30 years of collecting sets,  I stopped putting sets together in 1990 when there were just too many to obtain.  Before that most collectors did collect any set largely because there usually was only one set, Topps.  Then it expanded to Donruss and Fleer, still pretty easy to collect.    I know a number of collectors, like me, who collected every set of their favorite sport (or all sports) regardless of how they really felt about the set.    The ratings of 1-10  is subjective and differs for everyone.   There are some sets out there I would give a 10 to with no intention of collecting.   There are some beautiful non-sports out there which in my estimation deserve a 10 but I do not collect non-sports.   Just because someone gives a set a rating of 10 does not mean that that person has to collect.   Beautiful, yes.  Do I want it, no.   Also there are many collectors who would take any cards offered to them regardless of how they feel about them, simply because they are collectors.  They collect anything and everything even your 1s and 2s.   If someone wants to pick and choose what to collect,  that is their right.   But they also have the right to rate a card with no intention of ever having it.   Should a person who collects paintings be told to dump their Picassos or Pollocks because they can't have one by daVinci which they would trul love to have?  Or that a person admires a Degas for its beauty  but simply does not want to collect it.  It would be pretty condescending of me to tell that person to "it might be time to reorganize and reprioritize your efforts"

My rating scale is a 0,1, or 2 points awarded for each of the following:

front design

back design

photography

players included

scarcity

These categories then add up to the score out of ten. I allow for a half point addition or subtraction if I feel so moved to do so.  I haven't rated many, for reasons mentioned above (tedious with no site benefit or incentive) but when I do that's how I do it. My two cents anyway

I like baseball, basketball and football cards. I like some more than others. Even within flagship sets like Topps baseball which I would like to collect all. Some sets are boring, unremarkable sets which if I rated, they would be low ratings. Easy example is 1988 Topps for me. I have several complete sets and thousands of extras. I would give them maybe a 3 or 4 out of ten in terms of how I compare them to other sets. That is based on design, how much effort I think Topps actually put into the set(lots of printing errors, centering issues), lack of notable and exciting rookies inherent to the year iteself, and who knows what else. 4 is probably generous in my mind. Simply it is based on my opinion of the set. Some years I really like with little support other than I like them. Completely opinion based.

As some have said with the COTD today being from 87 Topps. Some like it more or less than they once did. Opinions change. Any set rating on this site is based on opinions of some kind. I agree with NJDevils that how I may rate a set has little bearing on my desire to collect the set.

I haven’t rated any sets yet but when I do my rating system would base off of things I’ve seen from the Random Card of the Day comments.  Regardless if I collect the set or not.  There are very nice sets out there that I don’t collect and some crappy ones I do collection for various reasons. 

This is similar to what others have posted and this way I’m rating the set based on the cards themselves and not if I’d collect them or not. 

I’d rate a set based on three things; first, is the front of the card appealing to me?  Picture quality, border design, picture to border quantity, and anything else on the front that may distract from the picture.  Second, is the back of the card appealing/informative to me?  (Layout, stats, pictures, etc)  Third, would be the quality of the card itself.  Will the card stand up to some light handling when sorting/viewing them?  There are some very flimsy cards out there. 

The problem I have with that ratings system is brand bias.  If you hate all brands not named Topps then you give 1 star ratings to sets you don't like out of bias not by design.  In the end every card is a piece of cardboard and they should be rated on appearance (such as a scale as Brimrose listed) no matter what card brand it is.  If you don't like a card because it doesn't have a team license, that's fine but penalizing a card just because it says Fleer on it sounds rather stupid to me.