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

[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.

[Jwkeen]

I think that in general it is not complete without everything there, but there can be a few exceptions. The 33 Goudey was mentioned. Since the Lajoie was actually produced with the 34s, I feel you could count it as complete without it. There are also some sets considered complete without certain cards because of the extreme rarity. One example would be the 1932 U.S. caramel with the Lindstrom.

[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?

[Rickyy]

I have or am attempting to complete Topps BB set from 70 -79 and I include the variations (72 green letters, 74 Washington, Alou no pos etc.) too. I also try to add one unissued proof variation card to the set as well. Some years during this span didn't have anything of note, while other years like 77 is full of never issued proofs (e.g. Reggie Orioles). I also try to get samples of harder and more expensive Topps sets (like 69 super, 74 deckle, although I do have a VG-EX 71 Greatest Moments set complete).

Ricky Y

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by rats60

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?

I suppose that's one of the appealing aspects of collecting. There isn't just one way to build a set, or collect in general. I don't consider error cards or variations necessary for a complete set. But might consider adding them if I do ever finish a set. Like 52 topps for example, I wouldn't need red and black backs for the low numbers. A t206 set might never be completed if one needed to obtain every front and back combo in existence.

[CobbSpikedMe]

I collect a lot of different sets from prewar to 1981. I honestly don't care if I end up with every card in any of the sets. I just like collecting them. Condition means nothing to me either. So I just plug along and add cards when I can and since I'm working on so many sets I don't run out of options very easily. I have completed several sets. And I love getting that last card to kill the set. Some folks collect all the variations and some people collect miscuts and some people collect for a set registry. There's no wrong way to collect and that's why this hobby is so great.

[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