What card(s) did you have to spend...

[mintacular]

,,,big $ for to complete a set but you really didn't want to...For me it is the Lucky Penny, Bakep error, and Checklist cards for my '57 BB set...Silly cards to spend $ on but it has to be done....oh yes, it has to be done...

[brob28]

'56 topps checklists, I hate paying big $ for checklists!

[Doug]

The 1952 Topps Ed Mathews. I think it's one of the dullest looking cards in the 1952 Topps set and a PSA 1 still cost me $1200. Unfortunately it's kind of tough to have a complete 1952 Topps HOF set without it.

[ALR-bishop]

In addition to the Lucky Penny card, I bought one of the Lucky Penny send aways itself....penny in a round metal pendant on a chain

But those 8 checklists with the Blony and Bazooka variations were a major pain

[Volod]

I started collecting boxing cards back in the '80's and after quickly putting together an EX/MT near set for around $1 per common, $5-20 stars, suffered some serious buyer's remorse after shelling out $75 for a '51 Ringside Murphy card - a fighter I had never heard of. But, man, I really craved that last, scarce beauty that took five years to find.

[Brianruns10]

Originally Posted by Doug

The 1952 Topps Ed Mathews. I think it's one of the dullest looking cards in the 1952 Topps set and a PSA 1 still cost me $1200. Unfortunately it's kind of tough to have a complete 1952 Topps HOF set without it.

It's funny you mention this. At first I felt the same way...to me Matthews looked like he was blushing or running a high fever, and I kinda felt he was an anticlimactic way to end the set, with so many lovely cards...always thought Nuxhall would've been a nice capper, or one of the horizontal cards.

But lately I acquired this card myself, a PSA 5 dead centered, and it's started to grow on me.

My vote for worst card that costs the most will be the day I have to get the 52 Pee Wee Reese for my set. He looks so weird! I haven't seen the original photo, but I strongly suspect they pasted his head on another player's body, cause he just looks mishapen and out of proportion, and it's one of the few cards in the set that I think was botched and it's easily the worst HoF card in the set.

[ALR-bishop]

Originally Posted by Brianruns10

It's funny you mention this. At first I felt the same way...to me Matthews looked like he was blushing or running a high fever, and I kinda felt he was an anticlimactic way to end the set, with so many lovely cards...always thought Nuxhall would've been a nice capper, or one of the horizontal cards.

But lately I acquired this card myself, a PSA 5 dead centered, and it's started to grow on me.

My vote for worst card that costs the most will be the day I have to get the 52 Pee Wee Reese for my set. He looks so weird! I haven't seen the original photo, but I strongly suspect they pasted his head on another player's body, cause he just looks mishapen and out of proportion, and it's one of the few cards in the set that I think was botched and it's easily the worst HoF card in the set.

In 1982 when the Cardinals played the Brewers for the World Sries, Reese was a spokesperson for H&B, a company in which my wife and her family were large shareholders. We met Reese and he gave us tickets to 2 of the games in St Louis

[JasonL]

and a funny one to try to answer.
This phenomenon is why I am not interested in collecting sets (checklists!), and it is also the number one trigger for when I switch collecting focus from time to time...for instance-it's why I stopped collecting HOF Rookies. I stopped that endeavor because I got so sick of spending money on cards and players I didn't care for...like the Rollie fingers, Hunter, Mazeroski, etc...

gotta collect what you like and limit the extraneous purchases!

[almostdone]

Years ago I put together a Topps 1955 set. When I was down to the last card I was so impatient I dot into a biding war with someone over it. I won the card but lost my mind. I don't even remember who the player was but I know I paid more than double high book value for an ungraded vg common.
Drew

[northsidebaseball]

The spirit of this topic is exactly why I am almost positive that I will never attempt to assemble a vintage complete set, as I do not think I could stomach paying the price checklists and high numbered commons command. I have far too many other things on my wish list. Best of luck to all that tackle this endeavor though, it is a daunting task I'm sure. BTW thanks Patrick for checking out my 1955 bowman banks, I lost out on a couple of them I wanted over the course of a few months previously and they do not show up all that often in good shape. Very happy with the one I ended up with though.

[scmavl]

Originally Posted by brob28

'56 topps checklists, I hate paying big $ for checklists!

^ THIS. And the '56 Checklists aren't even numbered!

[jb217676]

I paid about $125.00 for this 1977 Topps common to finish my PSA 9 1977 Topps Blue Jays set. Craziness!!!!!

[brob28]

Originally Posted by scmavl

^ THIS. And the '56 Checklists aren't even numbered!

You said it Jarrod, insult to injury!

[Doug]

Originally Posted by northsidebaseball

The spirit of this topic is exactly why I am almost positive that I will never attempt to assemble a vintage complete set, as I do not think I could stomach paying the price checklists and high numbered commons command. I have far too many other things on my wish list. Best of luck to all that tackle this endeavor though, it is a daunting task I'm sure. BTW thanks Patrick for checking out my 1955 bowman banks, I lost out on a couple of them I wanted over the course of a few months previously and they do not show up all that often in good shape. Very happy with the one I ended up with though.

That's why the only way I'm going to finish the '52 Topps set is just to buy a completed one. 96 high numbers at the prices they bring is just too much and I'm just talking about the commons, not the Mantle, Mathews, Robinson, Campanella, etc!

[hangman62]

Heres an interesting wrinkle to "not" set collecting...

I think it would be easier/cheaper/faster/etc..to put short sets together..for ex- on 3 or 4 plastic sheets you display all or most of the cards in the 56T set - Mantle,Mays,Aaron,Aparicio,Banks,etc..Im sure you could fill up 3 pages..throw in a few Yanks,Dodgers, a WS card or two, a checklist,a wax wrapper,..etc., and you have a pretty strong represntn of the 56 set.

Then in one sitting,you could thumb thru 5 Topps sets all in one binder..and enjoy the meat of the sets

[Doug]

Originally Posted by hangman62

Heres an interesting wrinkle to "not" set collecting...

I think it would be easier/cheaper/faster/etc..to put short sets together..for ex- on 3 or 4 plastic sheets you display all or most of the cards in the 56T set - Mantle,Mays,Aaron,Aparicio,Banks,etc..Im sure you could fill up 3 pages..throw in a few Yanks,Dodgers, a WS card or two, a checklist,a wax wrapper,..etc., and you have a pretty strong represntn of the 56 set.

Then in one sitting,you could thumb thru 5 Topps sets all in one binder..and enjoy the meat of the sets

I've thought about taking a similar approach where you just collect your personal top 10-15 favorite cards in a set as opposed to the entire thing. It would be a lot cheaper plus save space for those of us confined to an apartment. If you lay those 10-15 cards out in a row I think it would give you a pretty solid representation of the set just like you mentioned and you don't end up tying money up in a few hundred commons that you could be spending on cards you actually want.

[brob28]

Originally Posted by hangman62

Heres an interesting wrinkle to "not" set collecting...

I think it would be easier/cheaper/faster/etc..to put short sets together..for ex- on 3 or 4 plastic sheets you display all or most of the cards in the 56T set - Mantle,Mays,Aaron,Aparicio,Banks,etc..Im sure you could fill up 3 pages..throw in a few Yanks,Dodgers, a WS card or two, a checklist,a wax wrapper,..etc., and you have a pretty strong represntn of the 56 set.

Then in one sitting,you could thumb thru 5 Topps sets all in one binder..and enjoy the meat of the sets

That is exactly the approach I have been thinking of on any future sets I have an interest in. I'm currently 93% done with the '56 set so I'l see it through, but I'm not interested in building any other complete sets.

[Exhibitman]

I rarely do sets because I hate 'wasting' money on commons. The sets I am working take a very long time because I am content to bargain hunt to find the commons.

[GasHouseGang]

Talking about the 1956 checklists reminded me of the 1963 Fleer checklist. I passed on a mint one for $40 back in the 1980's at one of the Nationals. I had paid that much for the rarest card in the set Joe Adcock! Couldn't see that for a checklist. Now it's the only card I need for the set, and I doubt I'll ever get it because I don't want to pay what they are asking for it. Sets are overrated!

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

In addition to the Lucky Penny card, I bought one of the Lucky Penny send aways itself....penny in a round metal pendant on a chain

When I opened the package that my pendant came in, then showed it to my wife, the look on her face as she said "really?!" was worth the cost.

Doug

[brob28]

That's classic Doug, did she buy you Legos for your next birthday!

[Doug]

When I would buy a fairly expensive card I'd tell my dad "If you would have bought this same card when you were a kid it would have only cost you a penny plus you would have gotten a piece of gum, so technically it's your fault I had to pay this much because you weren't thinking ahead". He got me back by saying "I did buy baseball cards back then. I chewed the gum and then I put the card in my bicycle spokes to make motorcycle noises".