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

[mr2686]

Originally Posted by Nick55

This best expresses my view and style as well.

I buy mint cards, ex cards, and poor cards; whatever comes my way. They are all cool to me. I build complete sets and partial sets. I collect singles. For example, I'm working on a low grade '57 set and I am about 2/3rds of the way through and intend to "complete" it "with the exception of" the checklist cards. Will it truly be complete without the checklist cards? I don't know and don't much care. I don't want to pay big $$$ for marked up checklists, and that's ok. As another example, I'm "collecting" 1969 and 1972 Topps baseball in mid to high grade. I don't intend to complete either of those, because I don't care to. I don't like hatless headshots on some of the 1969's, or the trophy cards and boyhood photos of the 1972's. It's all good. They won't be "complete" sets and I won't call them that. I won't call them anything but my "1969 and 1972 baseball card collection." I really like the designs, with the mentioned exceptions, and will just collect a few hundred of each of the ones I really like. That's plenty to look through and enjoy from time to time.

So, I 100 percent agree with the statement, "There's no wrong way to collect and that's why this hobby is so great." Amen to that!

Ah c'mon, you don't like those hatless headshots from the 1969 set? You mean the ones that gave me nightmares as a kid? I still look under the bed at night to make sure 1969 ZOILO VERSALLES isn't there. LOL

[G1911]

Depends on the set for me. My 52 Topps is just incomplete until I do the high numbers and get a Mantle.

T206 is plain incomplete without Wagner and Plank. Doyle, O’Hara, Demitt and Magie’s expensive versions are not needed, as they are variations for a master set, which would be thousands of cards and include all front/back combinations. Blank backs, Lenox brown, and other unissued scraps are not needed for a master set.

My 54 Bowman set is complete without Ted Williams, as their is another 66 variation. Williams is a master set card

The 33 Goudey is complete at 239, as Lajoie wasn’t issued, wasn’t released until the netext year, and doesn’t even have the same design. It’s more of a cool extra related card than part of the actual set.

[ALR-bishop]

For me 54 Bowman would not be complete without Williams and Piersall. The Williams card was produced 1st and then dropped due to the Toops exclusive contract. Piersall was not really a variation but rather a substituted player. I am not a graded collector but the PSA Registry includes both in the base set

But each of us "sets"our own collecting parameters and I think your view is entirely valid

[G1911]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

For me 54 Bowman would not be complete without Williams and Piersall. The Williams card was produced 1st and the dropped due to the Toops exclusive contract. Piersall was not really a variation but rather a substituted player. I am not a graded collector but the PSA Registry includes both in the base set

But each of us sets our own collecting parameters and I think your view is entirely valid

No right or wrong answer! If they have the same number in a continuously numbered set, I give that precedence over the front. Only need one card 66 in my book. Unfortunately, I was dumb and bought all the stat variations as well, so now I have to get Ted for my master set. I never learn!