Is my collection complete?

[JollyElm]

Am I right in assuming that you're keeping the information close to the vest, so you don't needlessly leave a carcass lying around, attracting vultures to the card you very much think might be out there??

If yes, then your collection is probably not complete.

[jgannon]

I think an answer to that question also would depend on what you consider to be a complete set. In my opinion for instance, if you have a particular 1952 Topps player, it doesn't matter if the card is a red back or black back.

But I wouldn't consider a 1969 Topps set complete unless you had both the Houston and Montreal versions of Don Clendenon.

[ALR-bishop]

Why ?

[hcv123]

It is complete.......... unless or up to the time you find another variation

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by hcv123

It is complete.......... unless or up to the time you find another variation

This bears repeating. It goes to the core of your collecting personality, IMO. How important is it that you have every variation, even if the differences are almost imperceptible or would be meaningless to 99% of even collectors, much less the man on the street? Example, 1961 Topps with some green bleed into the baseball surrounding the card number on back-- a relatively recent discovery or acknowledged variation on some cards. Or a newly discovered stray line, or missing copyright symbol, or an obscured number under the stat line.

I've been fascinated by the approach taken by collectors when these new "discoveries" are made. Do you put most or all of your collecting energy into acquiring the new variation? Do you feel incomplete, in the collecting sense, without it? Do you look at your set as somehow less worthwhile as these new "holes" are brought your attention? Do you worry at all that as soon as you acquire the latest variation someone will point out a new one? For some, maybe the thrill of the chase actually makes them hope there is still something out there for them to sleuth and conquer. Others may become frustrated that their efforts in acquiring what they thought was everything in a "set" are now less fulfilling or satisfying.

I guess I have no answers for you, other than to suggest, as many others have, to collect what you want and take satisfaction where you find it. I collect mostly m101s-- I chase them to the point of mania. I will never complete the set. The card I will always need is frequently available--a Babe Ruth rookie. It ain't never comin' my way. I accept that and it takes nothing away from my enjoyment. So too I'm sure for T206 collectors who will never own the Wagner. C'est la vie. Best of luck whichever way you choose to build your collection.

[sflayank]

Chris
Checking you out
1 1952...I'll go with that
1 1959 Venezuelan....I'll go with that
1 pittsburgh? Cant go with that..2 different cards
Do u have?
Dads cookies? A must
Yamakatsu? Not a must
Japanese bromide? Not a must
3 different auravisions? A must
5 different HI matchbooks? A must
64 sports heroes sticker? A must
Opc tattoo 1960? A must

[AustinMike]

Hey Chris, we've discussed Mantle collecting before, so I think you know where I stand as far as a "complete" collection goes. In regard to your question, I'd say if you aren't sure there is a variation out there and have seen no proof that there is, I think your collection is complete. However, should you get definitive proof that the variation you think might exist actually does exist and you want it, then your collection is not complete.

And to follow up and what Larry wrote in regards to Mantle collecting,

1 1952...I'll go with that I disagree. I think both are needed. (full disclosure, I have neither)
1 1959 Venezuelan....I'll go with that I disagree. I think both are needed. (full disclosure, I have one)
1 pittsburgh? Cant go with that..2 different cards I agree (I have neither)
Do u have?
Dads cookies? A must I agree (Thanks to Fred, I have it)
Yamakatsu? Not a must I agree
Japanese bromide? Not a must I agree
3 different auravisions? A must I agree
5 different HI matchbooks? A must I agree
64 sports heroes sticker? A must I agree
Opc tattoo 1960? A must I agree
1965 Bancroft Tiddlers Not a must (Butt ugly cards)

So yeah, there are difference of opinions on what constitutes a complete set.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

This bears repeating. It goes to the core of your collecting personality, IMO. How important is it that you have every variation, even if the differences are almost imperceptible or would be meaningless to 99% of even collectors, much less the man on the street? Example, 1961 Topps with some green bleed into the baseball surrounding the card number on back-- a relatively recent discovery or acknowledged variation on some cards. Or a newly discovered stray line, or missing copyright symbol, or an obscured number under the stat line.

I've been fascinated by the approach taken by collectors when these new "discoveries" are made. Do you put most or all of your collecting energy into acquiring the new variation? Do you feel incomplete, in the collecting sense, without it? Do you look at your set as somehow less worthwhile as these new "holes" are brought your attention? Do you worry at all that as soon as you acquire the latest variation someone will point out a new one? For some, maybe the thrill of the chase actually makes them hope there is still something out there for them to sleuth and conquer. Others may become frustrated that their efforts in acquiring what they thought was everything in a "set" are now less fulfilling or satisfying.

I guess I have no answers for you, other than to suggest, as many others have, to collect what you want and take satisfaction where you find it. I collect mostly m101s-- I chase them to the point of mania. I will never complete the set. The card I will always need is frequently available--a Babe Ruth rookie. It ain't never comin' my way. I accept that and it takes nothing away from my enjoyment. So too I'm sure for T206 collectors who will never own the Wagner. C'est la vie. Best of luck whichever way you choose to build your collection.

I keep even more obscure varieties than that. But rarely pursue them actively. If I buy a box of random cards and they're in there I keep them. If not, I'm ok with not having them. At least now at one time I really did want everything.

[Harliduck]

Originally Posted by jgannon

I think an answer to that question also would depend on what you consider to be a complete set. In my opinion for instance, if you have a particular 1952 Topps player, it doesn't matter if the card is a red back or black back.

But I wouldn't consider a 1969 Topps set complete unless you had both the Houston and Montreal versions of Don Clendenon.

I agree...AND the two Clay Dalrymple cards (I prefer the harder Philly card to the hatless portrait card). I have three complete sets, all have both cards. I haven't chased the white letters or any of the airbrush variations...but I do feel you need those two cards....

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Harliduck

I agree...AND the two Clay Dalrymple cards (I prefer the harder Philly card to the hatless portrait card). I have three complete sets, all have both cards. I haven't chased the white letters or any of the airbrush variations...but I do feel you need those two cards....

Right, and the Dalrymple!

Yeah, the red and white lettering are to me like the red and black backs of the 1952 set. My approach would be that if I got the 1969 Mickey Mantle with the white lettering, then that would be the one I'd have. If it had the yellow, that would be just as nice. Either way, I would have a 1969 Mickey Mantle.

Of course, it's totally cool if someone wants to get all the variations. We all approach collecting differently, which helps make the world go 'round!

[ALR-bishop]

What is the rationale for including some cards intentionally produced differently from a complete set while excluding others ?

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

What is the rationale for including some cards intentionally produced differently from a complete set while excluding others ?

It really all depends on what your approach to collecting is. For me, it's enough to have as I mentioned above, one version of the Mickey Mantle, even if I were going for a complete set. Other people want to take it further. To me, the two Clendenon or Dalrymple cards are worth pursuing, because the differences, to me, are much more substantive.

But I can absolutely see why someone would want all of the variations. It's just an approach, and is based on how each of us wants to collect.

[ALR-bishop]

Personally I think a set is complete without any variations...a "basic" set. A "master" set would include variations, but which variations. You could use the PSA master checklist, SCD's, Beckett's, or your own. There is no official hobby definition of a variation or a master set as far as I know, beyond using one of the above or other on line checklists.

The question I was raising is, if you include some variations in a "complete" set, how do you draw the line in excluding others ? Off course everyone can collect anyway they want. I was just raising the question as a point of discussion, not as a criticism.

[Bestdj777]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Am I right in assuming that you're keeping the information close to the vest, so you don't needlessly leave a carcass lying around, attracting vultures to the card you very much think might be out there??

If yes, then your collection is probably not complete.

The one I need, if available, would go for about $3.00 . I’d be happy to pay a “vulture” $20 if they found it

[clydepepper]

Playing devil's advocate here, I would suggest you dive into The Encyclopedia of Vintage Baseball cards (Krauss) as I have in the past - finding more and more intriguing possibilities that I never knew existed.

...on the other hand, yes, your collection is complete.


It's your choice: Take the red pill or take the blue pill.


.

[steve B]

Without knowing what was made, it's not possible to really be complete.

I'd suspect that if they had matchbooks that went with postcards, there should be a matchbook for each postcard.
I forget how Holiday Inn di those things. I may have stayed in one 40+ years ago.
If it was souvenirs they sold there might not be a matchbook for each postcard.
If they did what most places do with stationery, and left a couple in a drawer or on a table, I'd expect there would be matching sets.

There are probably people who collect Holiday Inn stuff. And they probably know exactly what was available.

[steve B]

I should also say that when I sort of let go of the idea of completeness I got a lot happier with my collecting. The stamps I focused on have some catalog listed items that haven't been seen since the 1930's if they ever existed at all and aren't a misinterpreted random misprint. Being complete is impossible!*

On the other hand, I have found one that was last described in 1932, and probably a cover that was last seen in the 1930s. And have potential examples of two of the never seen but cataloged varieties. I just need to find a second copy to confirm that they're not just weird misprints. That could be a LONG search....

* completeness in that specialty is also for me impossible from a practical standpoint, a couple items were sold in quantities less than 10, and the most recent sale was in 2016 for 150,000.