To Set Builders...
 

As a relatively new set-builder (currently working on 57 & 69-72 BB) is it always economically more efficient to just buy a set complete rather than piecing it together? Isn't the sum of the parts greater than the whole with these set? I'm looking to gain insight from experienced set collectors as to whether this is always true and to what extent.

Of course all of this: (1) assumes you have the up-front cash to buy a whole set and (2) you are willing to sacrifice the "fun factor" of building a set piece by piece...

The counter-argument could be that if you are patient and wait for the right deals you can build a set on the cheap by "cherry-picking" your way to completing a set. Any comments on this topic would be appreciated...

For me, it's all about the "fun factor".

Doug

Depends
 

For me it depends on the set. For example, eventually I would like to have every Topps set (Traded sets as well) from 1970-1989. The 1988 & 1989 sets I was able to pick up for $5 each. Those wouldn't have been terribly fun to piece together anyway.

As you know I am putting together a 1970 Topps set in VG-EX condition. I was able to more or less cherry pick up via trade/purchase 3/4 of the set. It has been inexpensive and incredibly fun. As I said, all depends on the set, and the condition. If I cared about cards being EX-MT to NM I could never have picked up my Munson RC for $10!!

Rob

Okay...but
 

[As you know I am putting together a 1970 Topps set in VG-EX condition. I was able to more or less cherry pick up via trade/purchase 3/4 of the set. It has been inexpensive and incredibly fun. As I said, all depends on the set, and the condition. If I cared about cards being EX-MT to NM I could never have picked up my Munson RC for $10!!

To me this doesn't answer the question as to whether or not it would have been cheaper to pick up a VGEX or worse condition '70 set by just purchasing it outright at $400 or piecing it together?? Also, as you've stated the first 75% is always the cheapest...Wait till you have to find a Mickey Lolich #715 for under $8 :)

I think it's always cheaper to buy a completed set than putting it together a little at a time. No question about it.

Hall of fame players and Rookie cards are collected by 2 groups - those that just collect that player and those that are putting together the set. Therefore, those tougher, more expensive cards will be costlier as you are putting your set together.

depends
 

A set is usually cheaper than buying singles. However, you usually get lower grade superstars than the commons in a bought set. So youy might have to consider buying the "Mantle" from the set for more money. Now you might have just exceeded your bargain purchase on the set. I have founf it better to buy a near set, which excludes the big cards and fill in when I find a bargain. And bargains can be had if you wait.
jim

I have a Topps run, 1948, and 1951 through to date. In my view buying sets is cheaper. But as someone else said, it lacks the fun factor of building the set from scratch. I get some of that back by doing the variations, errors and notable print defects separately

I have built countless sets over the years for both myself and resale. I usually buy two sets or near sets and then make the best possible set out of the two. Afterword's there is usually less than 5% of the set to upgrade to your desired condition. So you still get some of the "fun factor" of building the set.

Set Builders
 

I agree with the majority on here. It is definitely cheaper to buy sets than to build. Shipping costs are a killer for individual cards or lots. When collecting a particular set, I almost always go that route. For me, key cards were not in the condition I typically wanted and I have always had to replace a lot of the key cards - particularly the Mantles. In addition, most sets aren't master sets (if you collect master sets) and variations aren't included. Although I don't collect master sets, it is fun collecting some of the key variations like the mid series gray back cards in '52 Topps which are extremely rare.

70, 71 and 72 high numbers can be pricey, might be best to purchase sets or at least large lots those years, maybe piece together the 73-75 sets and then just buy complete sets for the balance from a cost perspective. After 1975 things get more plentiful and full sets can be had at a fair price.

Thanks
 

for the responses so far. My current strategy is to purchase a nice starter lot and then fill in stars/upgrades from there. It seems with this strategy you can save $ and enjoy the process. I've also joined a few trading sites so sometimes I've been able to trade away other stuff to get the numbers I need. In terms of shipping, I try to wait for a "set break" from a seller with reasonable combined shipping policies...

It is possible
 

I won't disagree that most of the time it is probably less expensive and easier to buy a complete set. However, in my example I was able to pick up a large chunk of commons from that set for 10-20 cents each in VG-EX condition. And that was done at a card show, so shipping is a moot point in this example. As far as stars and semi stars lots of them can be found in $1 bins, or you can get lucky and pick up a few on EBAY from the same seller and save on shipping that way.

Again, I am missing some high numbers including Nolan Ryan, but the total amount of money I will have spent on my 1970 Topps set is far less than $400, and the set is extremely presentable.

Buying lots of nice commons is a good way to start any set, or buy a partial set and build on it and upgrade as you go. I put together a high grade 1958 Topps, 34 Goudey, and 59 Fleer sets card by card and it was fun but I wont do it again.