For me, 1, 2 and 3 are all true.
1 is harder to define thoroughly. I pull down a box of cards a lot of evenings, they all get ‘used’ and it’s more fun to pull out the very tough cards for me, the ones you don’t see just anywhere. A lot of my collection is oddball rare stuff, often things that fall through the cracks and are unique or nearly unique but not well known. When I come across a tough card, especially if it’s one not really known elsewhere, there’s usually a fun story to remember of how I got it, whereas a T206 of Y big name is just a money question. A big name isn’t as fun as something tough to my eyes, which is an entirely personal preference.
2, when I build a set it’s pretty much always a master set. I like the completionist approach and building the entirety of the picture of the production for the sets I like enough to build. I have a ton of fun with the research side of things too, which is much easier when I have ‘everything’ on the table in front of me rather than scans. It’s easier to catch details that alter become new discoveries of X or Y element of production or issue or variation.
3, rarity is fun. I like the collecting part of collecting, I like that it takes a long time and makes a rewarding quest to finish something tough. It took me 20 years to build T220, still awaiting the final card for my T218 master after 21 years. Finishing the tough tough variations or SP’s for the sets I liked as a teen is a ton of fun. I don’t get as much joy by buying a commodity card of a big name that has 37 to choose from on eBay if you’re willing to spend the dough.
4 - this approach is probably a horrible investment if it was treated as one.
5 - I wish.
|