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

[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?

[hcv123]

Originally Posted by 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?

Where I can get a nice Mantle for 10k please

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by hcv123

Where I can get a nice Mantle for 10k please

Cooperstown Sports Cards sold this one for $11,500 on March 11th. $10k is completely realistic is you're patient.



Perfectly acceptable for a set completionist.

[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...

[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?

[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