when is a set complete?

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw 

I just "finished" my 48 Leaf boxing set. I say it in quotes because the final card, Rocky Graziano either was never issued, was accidentally issued, or was barely issued (there are half a dozen known; he threatened suit to stop his use w/o $$).

I have seen uncut sheets of 48 leaf. They consist of 49 cards (7 x 7 rows). Graziano ain't on it. There are no known short prints, either. It appears to me that Graziano was a card prepped for issue that was never intentionally issued. I'd say it is not part of the basic issued set.

My question is this: When is a card part of a set and when is it not? Where do we draw the line before concluding that a card should not be classified as part of a set?

My view is that the card has to be intentionally issued as part of the main print run. This would apply to the 1951 Topps Current AS big 3, and some others I can't think of right now, too.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

In my opinion, there are two answers to your question. First, a set is complete if it includes all cards that were actually issued to to the public. Naturally, there will be some 'real world' grey areas when answering this-- such as with the 33 Goudey Lajoie ... Second, what the hobby considers to be a complete set. The hobby is generally pretty (pretty) good about determining what is a complete set, and usually takes into context what cards are practically impossible to obtain (1923 Maple Crispette Stengel) and what card variations are inconsiquential and are not neccesary for a set.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

...as can '34 Goudey collectors who don't have the Lajoie; however, if you collect t206's and don't have a Wagner - you still have work to do

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

If you are talking about the SCBC, there are loads of variations listed - which ones "count"?

Adam's question is indeed a tough one, and in many cases the collector will have to decide for him/herself when to close the lid on their cigar boxes.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

Lastly, I think that a learned, thoughtful and sincere collector can determine what is a complete set, and doesn't need a publication or popular opinion as an arbiter. I think two people can have different opinions on what is a complete set, and both can be just as right.

I do, however, point out that a reasonable definition of a complete set should always be based on logic and not convenience or ownership. An answer of logic is "The Graziano was not issued to the public like the rest of the cards, so it should not be part of the complete set." An of convenience is "The Leaf set should be complete without the Graziano, because there's no way I can afford the card."

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I think you have your definition of logic vs. convenience backwards later

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

There are many ways of looking at the situation, but I believe that a "master set" should contain one of every nationally distributed card in any given set and one of every card that was part of the regular or similar production process (yes, in some cases this may include one-of-a kind type cards that were produced in contest oriented issues).

A standard set of say, 1951 Topps Current All-Stars or 1923 Maple Crispettes, may only include those cards that were widely distributed, but in order for the standard of "completeness" to be perfectly satisfied, a collector must possess one of each card that is attainable or possible. In these two cases, that means the 1951 Stanky, Roberts and Konstanty as well as the 1923 Casey Stengel (even though there are only one or two known copies).

However, I do not believe that "proof cards" or "printing errors" (not production errors or printing changes) would be part of a master set.

Reasonability may also be a consideration. In some cases where multiple colors or production brand names exist, it may not be reasonable to own one of each card.

Of course, this is just my opinion. Ultimately, I think the final determination lay with each individual collector.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

Leon, if you're saying that spending thousands of dollars on a trading card is not logical, you might be right there ... You will notice that both the logical and convenient rational ended up with the exact same answer

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

You're right. I should put my money somewhere safe like....oh maybe the stock market, a mutual fund, a 1.5% interest cd or bank account.....nah....forget the card hobby.....probably not a good investment....

[Archive]

Posted By: TBob

I consider my T205 set complete even without the Hoblitzell no stats variation card (I have the other 3 variations). Perhaps this is based on the extreme rarity of the card or perhaps the arm and leg I would have to give to acquire one, since I have all the other variations (the 3 Chases, the W.A. and A. Lathams, Moran with and without stray line of type, etc). If I had the no stats Hobby I would have a
master" set. Ditto the E94 set. I have every card in the set and 2 or 3 color variations of each card. I consider it a complete set. If and when I get every background color variation, I would consider it a "master" set also. Of course Tim S. is singlehandedly keeping me from ever getting that master set.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

That's a beautiful set, and one of my favorite Mattys.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Great question! It is interesting to differentiate between a complete set and a master set. For many vintage issues the words possible and impossible could be substituted in the previous sentence without loss of meaning. For some vintage sets there are layers of completeness. In Old Judge for example one might try to collect one of each non-California League Player(about 500 cards); one of each player(about 520 cards); one of each player by team(probably about 800-1000 cards); one of each pose(about 2425 cards); one of each pose by team(maybe 3500 cards); one of each pose, by team, by way of presenting name, position, team, by year--the master set(probably over 20,000 cards).

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

I don't know about 20,000, but I have 24.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

thanks all for your thoughts.

one of the toughest issues is determining whether an item reached the level of actual distribution. graziano is a perfect example. was it printed and released then pulled when the lawyer wrote in? if so you'd expect there to be quite a few out there, a la the wagner. was it printed and replaced before distribution? maybe, if leaf trashed an entire print run, which i doubt it did (it would probably have been cheaper to pay him off). i therefore tend to think it is a proof that went out the factory door and was replaced with the willie pep before actual issuance of the set. since so many of these issues are "shrouded in mystery" since the manufacturers either did not keep records or are long since gone, we will never know.

who owns the bones of leaf today? maybe their pr department would be able to answer the question. . . you'd be surprised what a flack will do.

master set building is a really interesting concept, but I think it is probably a futile exercise with most anything issued pre 1981. take T206 for example. we know some backs exist for some cards but we don't absolutely know every back that exists for every card. for example, wasn't our "universe" expanded a while ago when a wagner surfaced with a different back on it? when i try to master set build, i limit myself to the base set plus 1 type of each variation. in the 1948 leaf boxing, for example, this is all 49 regular issue cards plus a blank back plus a wrong back (resulted from the sheet being inserted upside down for the second printing). if there is a blank front, i'd probably want one too.

the point on the OJ's is really interesting. good luck on ever running down the final master set of these. i've compiled a pretty good checklist of OJ boxers of various formats, but i cannot even say whether each format has each card or whether they are replicated in the gypsy queen branding (which is so darn hard to find, btw, that i've only seen a few since i began tracking this stuff a few years ago).

[Archive]

Posted By: mrc32

I'll see my set as complete without the Hobitzell no stats. That card is like the Honus Wagner of the T205s.

I do like to collect variations as I just picked up a junky version of Bobby Wallace with 2 lines of stats. I want to have the main version in a nice condition and if the variations are a little junky that isn't going to bother me.

As long as you are happy with your collection, who cares if it is "complete" or not?

[Archive]

Posted By: mrc32

I'll see my set as complete without the Hobitzell no stats. That card is like the Honus Wagner of the T205s.

I do like to collect variations as I just picked up a junky version of Bobby Wallace with 2 lines of stats. I want to have the main version in a nice condition and if the variations are a little junky that isn't going to bother me.

As long as you are happy with your collection, who cares if it is "complete" or not?

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

As a baseball card collecting kid in the '60s, living in a small town, we never saw the high series cards. In fact, we didn't even know they existed! After all, you didn't see the checklist for series 5 if you never got past series 4. Every year we wondered why certain players didn't have cards printed!

[Archive]

Posted By: TBob

Bob - was that "red background" Matty an upgrade? September 23 2003, 2:13 PM

That's a beautiful set, and one of my favorite Mattys.>

Thanks Scott. The card was actually nicer than the scan (rare these days)and the back corner paper loss was pretty insignificant and didn't touch any printing, so I was very satisfied. I have an orange Matty in slghtly better condition but after I received it, a tiny chip of color flaked off the upper right corner and I almost had a stroke. I attached it back with a tiny bit of glue and just sent it to be graded, mostly so the card will be sealed in a holder and avoid any further problem. It was VGEX before the chip debacle. This is the second E98 card I have had which "chipped". The E94s are the worst though, they are very sensitive. I bought a gorgeous gold Jennings jumping E94 from Tom Boblitt and as I was removing the card from the top loader, the upper left corner "exploded" and a chunk slid off, including color and border. The card is otherwise so nice I kept it. I also had a green Evers which was gorgeous which had a chip of color slide off which I bought a couple of years ago on ebay. To prevent any more of this happening, I am having all my E94s graded, not for the grades so much as for the protection.