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

[pokerplyr80]

I can understand calling the Goudey set complete without Lajoie because of the way it was issued and the cost relative to the other cards. But for the most part no, a set is not complete with missing cards. If I ever attempt a complete set again I will take the cost of the big cards into consideration.

I would also understand going for the t206 set with no intention of picking up a Wagner or Plank.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

I can understand calling the Goudey set complete without Lajoie because of the way it was issued and the cost relative to the other cards. But for the most part no, a set is not complete with missing cards. If I ever attempt a complete set again I will take the cost of the big cards into consideration.

I would also understand going for the t206 set with no intention of picking up a Wagner or Plank.

But who decides what is complete? If a set is numbered, then is one of each number the complete set (except in cases where cards weren't actually issued such as Lajoie or 51 Current All Stars)? Or do you have to collect each and every variation? Does that include print variations? And who decides which of those apply?

If you are only going with one of each number, then how do you apply that to sets such as t206 or t205? Do error cards such as Doyle or Magie apply? Team variations like O'Hara and Demmitt St. Louis? Back variations on t205?

[Rickyy]

I have or am attempting to complete Topps BB set from 70 -79 and I include the variations (72 green letters, 74 Washington, Alou no pos etc.) too. I also try to add one unissued proof variation card to the set as well. Some years during this span didn't have anything of note, while other years like 77 is full of never issued proofs (e.g. Reggie Orioles). I also try to get samples of harder and more expensive Topps sets (like 69 super, 74 deckle, although I do have a VG-EX 71 Greatest Moments set complete).

Ricky Y

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by rats60

But who decides what is complete? If a set is numbered, then is one of each number the complete set (except in cases where cards weren't actually issued such as Lajoie or 51 Current All Stars)? Or do you have to collect each and every variation? Does that include print variations? And who decides which of those apply?

If you are only going with one of each number, then how do you apply that to sets such as t206 or t205? Do error cards such as Doyle or Magie apply? Team variations like O'Hara and Demmitt St. Louis? Back variations on t205?

I suppose that's one of the appealing aspects of collecting. There isn't just one way to build a set, or collect in general. I don't consider error cards or variations necessary for a complete set. But might consider adding them if I do ever finish a set. Like 52 topps for example, I wouldn't need red and black backs for the low numbers. A t206 set might never be completed if one needed to obtain every front and back combo in existence.

[CobbSpikedMe]

I collect a lot of different sets from prewar to 1981. I honestly don't care if I end up with every card in any of the sets. I just like collecting them. Condition means nothing to me either. So I just plug along and add cards when I can and since I'm working on so many sets I don't run out of options very easily. I have completed several sets. And I love getting that last card to kill the set. Some folks collect all the variations and some people collect miscuts and some people collect for a set registry. There's no wrong way to collect and that's why this hobby is so great.

[Nick55]

Originally Posted by CobbSpikedMe

I collect a lot of different sets from prewar to 1981. I honestly don't care if I end up with every card in any of the sets. I just like collecting them. Condition means nothing to me either. So I just plug along and add cards when I can and since I'm working on so many sets I don't run out of options very easily. I have completed several sets. And I love getting that last card to kill the set. Some folks collect all the variations and some people collect miscuts and some people collect for a set registry. There's no wrong way to collect and that's why this hobby is so great.

This best expresses my view and style as well.

I buy mint cards, ex cards, and poor cards; whatever comes my way. They are all cool to me. I build complete sets and partial sets. I collect singles. For example, I'm working on a low grade '57 set and I am about 2/3rds of the way through and intend to "complete" it "with the exception of" the checklist cards. Will it truly be complete without the checklist cards? I don't know and don't much care. I don't want to pay big $$$ for marked up checklists, and that's ok. As another example, I'm "collecting" 1969 and 1972 Topps baseball in mid to high grade. I don't intend to complete either of those, because I don't care to. I don't like hatless headshots on some of the 1969's, or the trophy cards and boyhood photos of the 1972's. It's all good. They won't be "complete" sets and I won't call them that. I won't call them anything but my "1969 and 1972 baseball card collection." I really like the designs, with the mentioned exceptions, and will just collect a few hundred of each of the ones I really like. That's plenty to look through and enjoy from time to time.

So, I 100 percent agree with the statement, "There's no wrong way to collect and that's why this hobby is so great." Amen to that!

[mr2686]

Originally Posted by Nick55

This best expresses my view and style as well.

I buy mint cards, ex cards, and poor cards; whatever comes my way. They are all cool to me. I build complete sets and partial sets. I collect singles. For example, I'm working on a low grade '57 set and I am about 2/3rds of the way through and intend to "complete" it "with the exception of" the checklist cards. Will it truly be complete without the checklist cards? I don't know and don't much care. I don't want to pay big $$$ for marked up checklists, and that's ok. As another example, I'm "collecting" 1969 and 1972 Topps baseball in mid to high grade. I don't intend to complete either of those, because I don't care to. I don't like hatless headshots on some of the 1969's, or the trophy cards and boyhood photos of the 1972's. It's all good. They won't be "complete" sets and I won't call them that. I won't call them anything but my "1969 and 1972 baseball card collection." I really like the designs, with the mentioned exceptions, and will just collect a few hundred of each of the ones I really like. That's plenty to look through and enjoy from time to time.

So, I 100 percent agree with the statement, "There's no wrong way to collect and that's why this hobby is so great." Amen to that!

Ah c'mon, you don't like those hatless headshots from the 1969 set? You mean the ones that gave me nightmares as a kid? I still look under the bed at night to make sure 1969 ZOILO VERSALLES isn't there. LOL

[G1911]

Depends on the set for me. My 52 Topps is just incomplete until I do the high numbers and get a Mantle.

T206 is plain incomplete without Wagner and Plank. Doyle, O’Hara, Demitt and Magie’s expensive versions are not needed, as they are variations for a master set, which would be thousands of cards and include all front/back combinations. Blank backs, Lenox brown, and other unissued scraps are not needed for a master set.

My 54 Bowman set is complete without Ted Williams, as their is another 66 variation. Williams is a master set card

The 33 Goudey is complete at 239, as Lajoie wasn’t issued, wasn’t released until the netext year, and doesn’t even have the same design. It’s more of a cool extra related card than part of the actual set.