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

[rats60]

I don't think these all fit in the same box. My answer would be it depends. For example, the Lajoie really isn't a 1933 card. It was printed in 1934. It has a slightly different design. As far as the current all stars, those cards were never issued. So I would say

1952 Topps (complete without high numbers) NO
1952 Topps(complete at 406 without Mantle) NO
1951 Current All Stars (complete without Roberts / Konstanty/ Stanky) YES
1959 Fleer (complete without #68) NO
1964 Fleer (complete without Ted Williams) ????
1933 Goudey (complete without Lajoie YES

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by rats60

I don't think these all fit in the same box. My answer would be it depends. For example, the Lajoie really isn't a 1933 card. It was printed in 1934. It has a slightly different design. As far as the current all stars, those cards were never issued. So I would say

1952 Topps (complete without high numbers) NO
1952 Topps(complete at 406 without Mantle) NO
1951 Current All Stars (complete without Roberts / Konstanty/ Stanky) YES
1959 Fleer (complete without #68) NO
1964 Fleer (complete without Ted Williams) ????
1933 Goudey (complete without Lajoie YES

I agree with this.....to obtain the Mantle for my 52 Topps set, I parted with some less enjoyed portions of my collection to be able to fund a lower grade copy. I did this because, at the time I acquired the Mantle card, I was only about 60% complete and having this card for the set has helped to motivate me to complete it(the it is all downhill from here theory). Having this tough card in the set makes if feel like a realistic goal to complete it. I am 33 hi #s away from finishing the set.

I do not think I would ever have made it as far as I have or to 406 if I did not have the Mantle card.

I am about 60% of the way on the 33 Goudey set and I have no plans to add the Lajoie to the set and will consider it complete sans that card.

[ALR-bishop]

I am a set collector. I always want the entire set and at a minimum all variations listed in SCD, Beckett and the Registry. I also, like Anthony, want an unopened pack. He also forced me against my will to do the Salesman samples, but I resisted the boxes.

For Bowman I have done all the regular sets and variations but settled for wrappers rather than packs.(I think Mark meant the 54 Williams) I did not undertake the 1949 PCL set or the 52 and 53 Proof sets, because I did not think I could finish them.

For Fleer I used SCD and the Fleer Sticker Blog as a checklist and except for a couple of very scarce Quiz cards and two of the 3 # 80 Martin backs from the 60 set think I am pretty complete. But, probably will never complete the 1923 set

For Topps I am done with the base sets. Still one short on the 67 Stand Ups and two on the 55 Hocus Focus. I have settled for types for the 55 Stamps, 61 Dice, 66 Punch Outs, 70 Cloth and 71 Rookie Artists proofs since completing those seems impossible for me. I have about half of the 68 Discs but will likely stop there since I do not think I can complete that one either. Otherwise think I have anything listed for Topps in SCD through 1994 ( Just base sets, updates and Heritage after that.

My need for variations ultimately required me to go for both Mantles, Thompsons and Robinsons in the 52 set since SCD now lists both.

I Have the 5 sets from 1951 but not the 3 unissued proofs from the Current All Star set. Have settled for reproductions of those as I think those 3 will cost about $ 100 K or so.

With the exception of the 1923 Fleer set I have not ventured into pre war

[egri]

I think it depends on the set. I would consider a T206 set complete even without Wagner, Magie, Doyle NY NAT’L, and Plank, because of the extreme rarity of those cards. Same with a 1933 Goudey set sans Lajoie; it wasn’t issued until the following year and has a 1934 design. OTOH, the 1952 Topps high numbers are expensive, not rare. I don’t know enough about the other sets the OP mentioned to weigh in specifically on them. The gray area for me is where to draw the line on rare vs. extremely rare, but I guess that’s a different topic.

[geosluggo]

In building sets back to 1956 I have been a completist with no exceptions but one -- the 1963 Topps Pete Rose rookie card. I've never really liked Rose and his card is ridiculously expensive, so when I completed that set a couple years ago I bought a Rose reprint. Please don't judge me.

[BearBailey]

As a set collector as much as it might bother me, it is not complete until it’s complete.some sets maybe I’ll never complete t206 and the Wagner comes to mind but it is what it is. I’m also not a person who would get a beater just to complete the set, I may have a range but the set needs to be the same throughout.

[the 'stache]

I'll get back to the T206 set. I won't ever get the big four, likely, but I knew that going in.

If you enjoy a particular set, collect it. Why the worry over a silly label? If you love the '52 Topps set, but can't afford to drop $10k on a nice Mantle, go for it.

Are you collecting for yourself, or to impress somebody else?

[Paul S]

Originally Posted by geosluggo

In building sets back to 1956 I have been a completist with no exceptions but one -- the 1963 Topps Pete Rose rookie card. I've never really liked Rose and his card is ridiculously expensive, so when I completed that set a couple years ago I bought a Rose reprint. Please don't judge me.

Plus, that is one fugly card (don't mean to offend anyone).

[Paul S]

Originally Posted by geosluggo

In building sets back to 1956 I have been a completist with no exceptions but one -- the 1963 Topps Pete Rose rookie card. I've never really liked Rose and his card is ridiculously expensive, so when I completed that set a couple years ago I bought a Rose reprint. Please don't judge me.

Plus, that is one fugly card (don't mean to offend anyone).

[Butch7999]

We're OCD completists, so, no, a set is not "complete" unless it is actually in fact complete (it is Ape-Law!).
However, we also have an unparallelled ability to rationalize and fantasize, so for those of our sets yet incomplete
because of the rarity and/or, for us, current unaffordability of a few key cards, there is always
the undeniable fact that we could win the lottery next week, and then...

[Marchillo]

Originally Posted by geosluggo

In building sets back to 1956 I have been a completist with no exceptions but one -- the 1963 Topps Pete Rose rookie card. I've never really liked Rose and his card is ridiculously expensive, so when I completed that set a couple years ago I bought a Rose reprint. Please don't judge me.

I am less than 30 cards away on this set. I had a bunch of eBay gift cards from my birthday and the 15% off. I was offering $500 plus on a nice psa 4 and over $400 on a very ugly SGC 3. Not even a counter offer. I decided to scrap that plan for now and grab Banks and Kalines rcs and save over $100 on my Rose offer that wasn’t even countered. Just insane. I’ll own a real one at some point but today wasn’t that day. Sigh