Set Collectors - Is "except for" ever good enough?

[darkhorse9]

I'm a lifelong set collector and therefore quite a completist. It seems to be in the nature. But there are some sets that have a card or two that would simply make collecting a complete set financially or physically impossible.

I'm not talking about master set collectors or errors and variations. They're a different breed. I'm taking about base set collectors. I've got several sets that I know will never have every card and there are other sets that would fit.

1952 Topps (complete without high numbers)
1952 Topps(complete at 406 without Mantle)
1951 Current All Stars (complete without Roberts / Konstanty/ Stanky)
1959 Fleer (complete without #68)
1954 Bowman (complete without Ted Williams)
1933 Goudey (complete without Lajoie

there are many other examples.

Personally I hate "except for". If I knew how to set up a poll I'd do that, but the choices seems to be

1 - Fine with calling a set complete with missing cards
2 - Nope. It's not complete until it's complete
3 - I don't even start a set if I can't complete it
4 - I'll start a set, and maybe someday finish it. But it will bother me.

[Leon]

If I am a set collector then I don't think "except for" is acceptable for me, if I am considering a set complete. Fortunately I am not a set collector. However, as a type card collector I recognized 2 "except-for" in my first collection/sale (as it was time to sell)....D351 and D355.. I never thought it was complete..it is what it is.

[Hxcmilkshake]

Im a set collector as well, every major set since 72 (and working backwards) for the 4 main sports.

I agree with #2 and 3.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

[Vintagevault13]

Greetings from a fellow set collector. For me, there are no “except for” scenarios that are acceptable. I choose not to spend a tremendous amount on cards so this limits my choices. I have started the 1952 Topps Set three times, only to sell them because of the high #s. I knew that my OCD-tendencies would never allow me to be content. The last time, I had over 200 low series so I was making serious progress. All of this is just my opinion, of course, but I think I would struggle with incomplete sets.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Griffins]

2 and 3 for me. And for post war sets I have to have all the variations, an empty box, penny and nickel pack, and salesman sample (for sets '52-'67). Used to need to have an uncut sheet or panel as well, but I'm wavering on that.
Complete means complete.
I'm hoping some sort of medication is developed that doesn't have 4 pages of side effects.

[JTysver]

I have no problem with an exception.
I really don't expect to ever get a '52 Mantle, hence, no desire to complete the high numbers.
I have 54 Bowman without the Williams, but since there is already a #66, I'm not sure the Williams makes the set complete.
Probably won't go after the 72 High Footballs either unless I find some type of break on it. I'm fine with that.

Essentially, some of the cards in these sets are worth more than the rest of the set. Collect the sets if you want to. Having a bunch of sets and a couple near complete sets is pretty good if you ask me.

[commishbob]

Probably as many different answers as there are set collectors. I collect the sets I have the fondest memories of as a kid. Began with 1959 and am building around that. Currently working on 1962 and I'll attack 191 and 1963 one day and call it a day.

I don't concern myself with minor variations/small errors. For example, I'm not going to try for every green tint among the 1962 Topps, only the pose variations.

I don't have the 1959 Spahn DOB variations nor did I chase the other numerous 'transaction line' variation cards. I consider that set complete.

My general guideline is to put myself in my own nine-year-old shoes. The two '62 Wally Moon poses...I'd have wanted them both then so they are part of my current set. But the '58 yellow/white letter variations? I wouldn't have cared as a kid so I don't care now.

Having said that I do add 'type cards' to the back of my set binders which is where you'll find a couple of green tint '62s and a '58 Billy Pierce letter variation.

And finally, I won't begin any set I have no hope of completing. I do go after sub-sets though. I'd never dream of chasing the T206 but I did track down the Baltimore minor leaguers.

[rats60]

I don't think these all fit in the same box. My answer would be it depends. For example, the Lajoie really isn't a 1933 card. It was printed in 1934. It has a slightly different design. As far as the current all stars, those cards were never issued. So I would say

1952 Topps (complete without high numbers) NO
1952 Topps(complete at 406 without Mantle) NO
1951 Current All Stars (complete without Roberts / Konstanty/ Stanky) YES
1959 Fleer (complete without #68) NO
1964 Fleer (complete without Ted Williams) ????
1933 Goudey (complete without Lajoie YES

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by rats60

I don't think these all fit in the same box. My answer would be it depends. For example, the Lajoie really isn't a 1933 card. It was printed in 1934. It has a slightly different design. As far as the current all stars, those cards were never issued. So I would say

1952 Topps (complete without high numbers) NO
1952 Topps(complete at 406 without Mantle) NO
1951 Current All Stars (complete without Roberts / Konstanty/ Stanky) YES
1959 Fleer (complete without #68) NO
1964 Fleer (complete without Ted Williams) ????
1933 Goudey (complete without Lajoie YES

I agree with this.....to obtain the Mantle for my 52 Topps set, I parted with some less enjoyed portions of my collection to be able to fund a lower grade copy. I did this because, at the time I acquired the Mantle card, I was only about 60% complete and having this card for the set has helped to motivate me to complete it(the it is all downhill from here theory). Having this tough card in the set makes if feel like a realistic goal to complete it. I am 33 hi #s away from finishing the set.

I do not think I would ever have made it as far as I have or to 406 if I did not have the Mantle card.

I am about 60% of the way on the 33 Goudey set and I have no plans to add the Lajoie to the set and will consider it complete sans that card.

[ALR-bishop]

I am a set collector. I always want the entire set and at a minimum all variations listed in SCD, Beckett and the Registry. I also, like Anthony, want an unopened pack. He also forced me against my will to do the Salesman samples, but I resisted the boxes.

For Bowman I have done all the regular sets and variations but settled for wrappers rather than packs.(I think Mark meant the 54 Williams) I did not undertake the 1949 PCL set or the 52 and 53 Proof sets, because I did not think I could finish them.

For Fleer I used SCD and the Fleer Sticker Blog as a checklist and except for a couple of very scarce Quiz cards and two of the 3 # 80 Martin backs from the 60 set think I am pretty complete. But, probably will never complete the 1923 set

For Topps I am done with the base sets. Still one short on the 67 Stand Ups and two on the 55 Hocus Focus. I have settled for types for the 55 Stamps, 61 Dice, 66 Punch Outs, 70 Cloth and 71 Rookie Artists proofs since completing those seems impossible for me. I have about half of the 68 Discs but will likely stop there since I do not think I can complete that one either. Otherwise think I have anything listed for Topps in SCD through 1994 ( Just base sets, updates and Heritage after that.

My need for variations ultimately required me to go for both Mantles, Thompsons and Robinsons in the 52 set since SCD now lists both.

I Have the 5 sets from 1951 but not the 3 unissued proofs from the Current All Star set. Have settled for reproductions of those as I think those 3 will cost about $ 100 K or so.

With the exception of the 1923 Fleer set I have not ventured into pre war

[egri]

I think it depends on the set. I would consider a T206 set complete even without Wagner, Magie, Doyle NY NAT’L, and Plank, because of the extreme rarity of those cards. Same with a 1933 Goudey set sans Lajoie; it wasn’t issued until the following year and has a 1934 design. OTOH, the 1952 Topps high numbers are expensive, not rare. I don’t know enough about the other sets the OP mentioned to weigh in specifically on them. The gray area for me is where to draw the line on rare vs. extremely rare, but I guess that’s a different topic.

[geosluggo]

In building sets back to 1956 I have been a completist with no exceptions but one -- the 1963 Topps Pete Rose rookie card. I've never really liked Rose and his card is ridiculously expensive, so when I completed that set a couple years ago I bought a Rose reprint. Please don't judge me.