Net54baseball.com Forums

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   1968 Topps Milton Bradley help (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=253287)

savedfrommyspokes 11-26-2022 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2287268)
From the SCD article above: "The number of cards per game ranges from 86-105 cards...". A 131 card basic set nor a 132 card master set would be present in a game.



From the SCD article above: "No game, therefore, has a full set of 132 cards."

Just saying....notice no mention of "basic" or "master" in that statement.

From the SCD article above: "Therefore, the two checklist cards in the Milton Bradley set are not variations of each other but rather come from the same proof sheet as the regular 1968s."

Just saying again....notice no mention of DP.

G1911 11-26-2022 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes (Post 2287441)
From the SCD article above: "No game, therefore, has a full set of 132 cards."

Just saying....notice no mention of "basic" or "master" in that statement.

From the SCD article above: "Therefore, the two checklist cards in the Milton Bradley set are not variations of each other but rather come from the same proof sheet as the regular 1968s."

Just saying again....notice no mention of DP.

You are welcome to redefine a complete set to mean a master set with variants if you wish. This is a tiny issue of your personal definition. I am going to use the traditional hobby terminology. You don't have too. What is left to do?

savedfrommyspokes 11-26-2022 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2287455)
You are welcome to redefine a complete set to mean a master set with variants if you wish. This is a tiny issue of your personal definition. I am going to use the traditional hobby terminology. You don't have too. What is left to do?

???? Not sure I have re-defined anything.....I simply agree with the author of the article on these facts. He appears to have done significantly more research and has demonstrated far more understanding of this set than you, I or anyone else for that matter.

And if you check PSA's registry, you will also see that they show two copies of this #107 card, differentiated by the designations of "brown Fine Mesh" and "Tan Wide Mesh", on this registry. As with most all of PSA's set registries with variation cards (including the 1968 Topps set) like this, PSA identifies the set with the variations as a "Master Set". Here is the PSA's title of the baseball portion of the MB set: "1968 Topps Milton Bradley"

Clearly missing is the word "MASTER"....obviously for a reason

So, between PSA and the author of this article, it seems like you may be the one redefining this set.

Again, I am in agreement with both sources just as you are welcome to have an opinion different than PSA and SCD's article.

G1911 11-26-2022 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes (Post 2287473)
???? Not sure I have re-defined anything.....I simply agree with the author of the article on these facts. He appears to have done significantly more research and has demonstrated far more understanding of this set than you, I or anyone else for that matter.

And if you check PSA's registry, you will also see that they show two copies of this #107 card, differentiated by the designations of "brown Fine Mesh" and "Tan Wide Mesh", on this registry. As with most all of PSA's set registries with variation cards (including the 1968 Topps set) like this, PSA identifies the set with the variations as a "Master Set". Here is the PSA's title of the baseball portion of the MB set: "1968 Topps Milton Bradley"

Clearly missing is the word "MASTER"....obviously for a reason

So, between PSA and the author of this article, it seems like you may be the one redefining this set.

Again, I am in agreement with both sources just as you are welcome to have an opinion different than PSA and SCD's article.

How many times do you want to have the same exact debate that was already had? What do you want?

savedfrommyspokes 11-26-2022 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2287486)
How many times do you want to have the same exact debate that was already had? What do you want?

Doesn't look like I am the one who keeps bring it up:

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2287268)
From the SCD article above: "The number of cards per game ranges from 86-105 cards...". A 131 card basic set nor a 132 card master set would be present in a game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2287281)
The master set is ALWAYS the correct answer ;).


Perhaps, if you let it go, then it does not keep getting brought up.......just saying.

G1911 11-26-2022 03:07 PM

As said, multiple times, I am going to maintain the classic hobby definition of a unique card and a variation. I am not going to use your new definition that treats the MB's unlike every other set ever issued, including the 1968 Topps regular release where nobody thinks the Marichal checklist variation, resulting from it's different sheet slots, is necessary for a basic set.

I do not know why you want to do this again and are upset that I use the traditional standard when talking to other people. There's no point in having this loop over and over again. We disagree, who cares? You want to call it something else, that's fine. You do your thing. You are free to bitch about this every single time I post, I suppose.

savedfrommyspokes 11-26-2022 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2287495)
I am not going to use your new definition that treats the MB's unlike every other set ever issued

Not clear as to why you are not comprehending the fact that I don't have any type of "new" definition for this set.

I merely share an opinion with an author who had an article on this topic published....this shared opinion dates back to well before his article was published. I also agree with PSA's defining of this set via it's registry which for this set has been around since 2013. However, I guess in the scheme of card collecting 9-10 years is "new".

You're welcome to use whatever definition you like........I could give a flying flip less.

G1911 11-26-2022 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes (Post 2287501)
Not clear as to why you are not comprehending the fact that I don't have any type of "new" definition for this set.

I merely share an opinion with an author who had an article on this topic published....this shared opinion dates back to well before his article was published. I also agree with PSA's defining of this set via it's registry which for this set has been around since 2013. However, I guess in the scheme of card collecting 9-10 years is "new".

You're welcome to use whatever definition you like........I could give a flying flip less.

If you don’t give a flip, then stop :)

savedfrommyspokes 11-26-2022 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2287502)
If you don’t give a flip, then stop :)

Why dont you?

G1911 11-26-2022 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes (Post 2287506)
Why dont you?

.... You are the one who brought it up again and are trying to do the debate all over, not me...

savedfrommyspokes 11-26-2022 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2287508)
.... You are the one who brought it up again and are trying to do the debate all over, not me...

Oh my, you are confused, check post 55.

G1911 11-26-2022 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes (Post 2287513)
Oh my, you are confused, check post 55.

... You're upset I told Al that I like master set collecting, with a winky? Because it's a shared style of collecting we both do, and how we are both collecting sets, with all defects and variants and variations? And you're upset I used the basic/master dichotomy in a post to someone's else? You think both of these are restarting a debate with YOU? Alright, that's enough of this stupidity for me. Happy collecting or bitching or whatever it is that you do.

savedfrommyspokes 11-26-2022 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2287515)
... You're upset I told Al that I like master set collecting, with a winky? Because it's a shared style of collecting we both do, and how we are both collecting sets, with all defects and variants and variations? And you're upset I used the basic/master dichotomy in a post to someone's else? You think both of these are restarting a debate with YOU? Alright, that's enough of this stupidity for me. Happy collecting or bitching or whatever it is that you do.

Wow, just wow....

Cliff Bowman 11-26-2022 06:02 PM

I will probably regret getting involved in this, but I consider having both Marichal Checklists necessary for having a complete 132 card set. The only possible master set I can think of is having every card with the two different shades of yellow on the back, that would take a dedicated person to attempt that.

ALR-bishop 11-26-2022 06:22 PM

4 checklists ? 😱


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:06 PM.